Posted on 10/24/2011 10:02:42 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
A New Jersey attorney who brought the first legal challenge to Barack Obama's occupancy in the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme Court has published a report revealing that references to a U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing the definition of "natural-born citizen" were scrubbed at one of the key online resources for legal documents.
The Minor v. Happersett case is significant because it is one of very few references in the nation's archives that addresses the definition of "natural-born citizen," a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.
Among the dozens of examples identified by Donofrio was the Luria case.
Dianna Cotter wrote in the Portland Civil Rights Examiner: "This was done in these specific cases in order to prevent their being found by Internet researchers long before anyone had even begun to look for them, even before Obama would win the Democratic nomination at the DNC Convention in Denver, Colo., in August '08. This is premeditation and intent to deceive."
She noted that attorneys working on arguments always would return to the originals from the Supreme Court, "but 99.99 percent of the population has no access to dusty law texts or expensive legal research services such as Lexis and Westlaw.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Thanks for the George Washington notes.
I have one! My eyes just naturally avert his comments...
INS would have had to know about it to take action or exclude him. once here he could have also been deported if he was excludable at time of entry. There are other deportable offenses if committed since entry.
excludable from admission/entry
section 212 :
(a)9-convicted of CIMT- crime involving moral turpitude or admit elements of such- except minors)
11-aliens who are polygamists, or who practice polygamy or advocate the practice of polygamy
13- aliens coming to the US to commit any immoral sex act
28(C) Commies-
deportable section 241 (a)(1) -(excludable at time of entry)
I have one! My eyes just naturally avert his comments...
So pretty much all the conservative bloggers, legal minds, commentators, think tanks and foundations are just stupid and obstinate?
Another possibility is that Birthers are simply wrong and never get anywhere for the same reason Truthers never get anywhere. Which is, because they’re wrong.
But it makes them happy to think that they are among the select few who have figured things out. There is that.
...The Justia’s chief executive, Tim Stanley, told CNET today that some citations were mangled because of a programmer's error, not an effort to rewrite history.
“This has nothing to do with President Obama and it is not a conspiracy,” Stanley said. “When we discovered the issue, we corrected the script and the cases now render correctly. The issue was not limited to the cases these folks are focused on. We've had internal discussions on how to make sure this does not happen in the future with additional visual and parsing checks.”.....
....Stanley said he wasn't sure how many cases were affected before the bug was discovered and fixed. “It was just the U.S. Supreme Court cases, not the state, federal appellate and district court cases,” he said. ....
Must be a coincidence?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20124882-281/was-legal-site-rewrite-a-liberal-plot-not-quite/
Thanks for the pointer to that book. When I search for "natural born," I find this:
After an exhaustive examination of the law, the [Lynch] court said that it entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind. The executive departments of our government have repeatedly affirmed this doctrine.That seems pretty clear to me. And I can't find anywhere in the book the "punchline" you quote, so I suspect that's not from van Dyne at all but from the blogger you link to.
ping to you and Leo, although I am sure you have seen the CNET article. At least if fairly presents Leo’s interpretation of Minor v Happersett (except for saying that the court implied rather than held the definition of NBC...).
look for the white pages 12 and 13 here scroll about half way down
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/
the Citizenship of the US is a treatise not an analysis it has tons of cases but they are not analyzed.
I saw those. They don't contain the "punchline" or "meat" you claimed they did. They don't even mention WKA at all.
Yep I have seen it. Apparently so has WND who has a rebuttal up on it already!
The average blogger doesn’t have lexis or westlaw. The average blogger has google. And a couple of free legal reference sites. L legal issue for lawyers... some say that the Judiciary has no place in this, it should be the voters and congress... well do you think that the general public and congress might have had something to say if the public started asking ...
so.. Barry, how can you be a Natural Born Citizen if you were born British as well? We await your response.
Not enough of us did, so the Birth certifcate crap remained a functional smoke screen he could use to bash the Happersett folks. The two issues aren’t the same. One is irrelevant, the other is a SCOTUS written law.
the blogger wrote the line..point being Minor -Happersett said born of tow citizen parents was natural born and Virginia Minor was such. If Wong Kim Ark with alien parents was also a NBC they would not have to decide his case with the 14th amendment..they could have just used article 2=sec 1` as they did for her.
Lynch was not a supreme court case as far as I know maybe check with Justia...
That’s right. The political branches must TAKE CARE of this POLITICAL PROBLEM.
You are welcome! Spread the Knowledge far and wide!
I do too. Unfortunately, sometimes I don't notice his name and start reading. It usually doesn't take long to realize it's utter crap and skip over it. Even so, it has still wasted a few seconds of my time. :)
My apologies Seizethecarp. I've only had a few minutes this week to read a bit on FR. I see now what you were explaining, and we agree.
It takes a bit of reflection to realize that while presidential eligibility was not the issue in Minor, the only definition available to Chief Justice Waite from before the 14th Amendment was, conveniently, the definition “about which there was never doubt” of natural born citizens - born on the soil of parents who were citizens.
The waters have been muddied by the Alinsky tactic from his Rule 5 - use ridicule. I always found the Waite explanation clear, though not as concise as Marshall's from Vattel, and owe the analysis to Leo Donofrio. Amazing how clear and rational some constructions seem after they have been explained. Without the connection to Article II Section 1 there would be no constitutional citizen to use in explaining that equal protections did not include suffrage rights that had been granted citizens before 1868. So Article II Section 1 just happened to be defined as precedence in order for there to be a well-defined citizen for Waite's proof. Nevertheless, it established the defintion as precedence where before it was common-law, the source of most every term in the Constitution.
It has been a lesson for life to see so many whose business is claimed to be supporting and explaining conservative principles, either ignorant, or afraid to touch this issue. Each of us must trust our his ability to understand Justice Waite's reasoning. Birth certificates are really not necessary. British law even made Stanley Ann a British subject, assuming Barack is telling the truth, so she too fails the test of sole allegiance mentioned by John Binghim in his address to the House before passage of the 14th Amendment. That fact is not necessary to render Barack ineligible, but does make Barack a natural born subject of the British Commonwealth.
Interesting that Marco Rubio, while he won't directly address the subject, has made it clear that he is not available for a vice presidential nomination. Thus far only Justice Thomas has been clear about the court's evasion, and Nathan Deal had the courage to write to the White House asking for verification of eligibility. It has cost respect for many if not most of the public figures whose livings play upon proposed conservative ideals, Coulter, Levin, Hannity, Demint, ... Donofrio cares little about the opinions of mainstream media, liberal or conservative, and has less to lose. But he stands taller than most as a man of integrity.
What happened to AMF? Hua? Real classy that. I was gonna just let it slide, but you just seem to want to pick a fight. okedoke.
It takes the WHOLE SYSTEM to resolve a situation like this. You silly little person, I have been talking about the most serious threat to our union since the Civil war since 2008. And you think only ONE branch can tackle something that big? Good luck sitting on that stool with only two legs. It will take making all three whole again to make the nation whole again... and you think this is just about POLITICS? That is either woefully naive or downright ignorant. Frankly I am guessing both. You must be new to this topic.
Of course, many of the founders had a professional or personal relationship with Washington, and it should be no surprise that his stated views on this issue would later find a place in the Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.