Ooopsies! They thought it was a suffrage case, too.
Posted on 11/11/2011 1:53:37 PM PST by Danae
for good reason.
Yeppers. But it is important enough in history to repeat it often!!!
I thought you were off your rocker in attacking STARWISE, now I know you are actually gnawing on the legs by attacking Spaulding.
I have to say, I am sort of looking forward to Spaulding’s response. This rates popcorn for sure.
Butter anyone?
“Is the presumption that we live in a representative republic, with laws subject to judicial review an elaborate myth?”
Stay tuned.
Sorry dear, but I doubt that Donofrio even knows you exist.
Obot’s and anti-constitutionalists are a dime a dozen.
An abhorrent state of affairs really.
I don’t usually attack people unless they say mean things about me first. If they do, then why should I be polite??? Plus, these people just say mean things because there just isn’t any way they can answer WITH LOGIC. because this two citizen parent stuff is sooo TOTALLY STUPID.
With that post right there, you have proven yourself completely unqualified to discuss legal issues. You do not even have a beginners grasp of legalese, and you deliberately take SCOTUS cases out of context. Then you cite un-named modern textbooks (out of a liberal school system already well into marginalizing American History and the Constitution with moronic claims like “Living Document”)?
Oh goodness....... Folks, this is the product of our current public school system...
Post away Squeeky, but I will waste no further time with you. Have a good day.
I don’t write the anti-Vattle Birthers stuff I do for the Donofrios, any more than I wrote pro-Common Sense Suspicious Birther stuff for the Obots. It is just the Truth that matters, and if I help just one person understand what is going on, and not fall into the snares set for them by The Deceivers, then it is all worth while. Because I just bet there are people out there who read my very good Internet Articles and then they don’t fall into the traps and end up wasting their time on silliness and falsehoods.
You were insulted by the fact your arguments failed. You chose to take that personally and are all up and “righteously offended”.
You didn’t get insulted, you had your logic torn apart and you lost the argument. Two different things Squeeky.
You haven’t done enough research Squeeky, and you aren’t making cogent arguments based on accurate interpretations of specific legal language IN CONTEXT of the cases it was found in. You are relying on Obot, anti-constitutionalist dogma which has already been argued here, and debunked.
Now, if you want to have a discussion, how about justifying the redaction of dozens of SCOTUS cases, violating the False Writings Statute (look it up)? Want to explain why so many cases which originally cited to minor so mysteriously - accidentally - lost their citations to Minor? How about the specific text which further solidified Minor’s HOLDING, and it’s relevance? Why did that go missing too? Now, the cherry on top... why did Justia HIDE its entire server from the internet archive?
I want to see you come up with some logical explanation for that.
I apologize in advance for throwing this trick question at you. You can’t answer this without coming to the conclusion it was DELIBERATE. Why do it at all if Minor doesn’t matter? Why take the chance of getting caught committing a felony for no reason????? Good luck with that. I can’t wait to see you connect dots which I know for CERTAIN do not exist.
Modern textbooks??? OH, here is MODERN one I just quoted from on my latest Internet Article. It is from 1879, just 4 years after Minor, and doesn’t seem to have grasped the overwhelming importance of the Biggest Citizenship Case Ever:
“4. 1879 Outline for Civil Government Designed For Common Schools by W.. Thatcher:
Art. II., Sec. i, Clause 5.—Qualifications of the President.
No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
(a.) Natural born.—Born in the United States. Our state constitution does not thus limit the office of its executive.”
I had to stop at 21 examples of stuff that contradicted Donofrio’s silliness because I could have written a book on how messed up his theory is.
So There!!!
Your “very good internet articles”?
Where are those? They aren’t on your blog.
1) no link and no citation. - textbook example of an unsupported argument.
2) No textbook written in the United States or anywhere else trumps SCOTUS cases and the citations IN CONTEXT therein.
You can’t even quote Minor IN CONTEXT. How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously?
“How about the specific text which further solidified Minor’s HOLDING, and it’s relevance?”
If you are talking about “Lockwood”, I am already working on an Internet Article to address that WILD GOOSE CHASE. Which is probably like 2 or 3 in the future. (Next is probably, “The Unkindest Cut Of All” one that I am working on.)
But basically, the citizenship status of the female lawyer is irrelevant. The decision would have been the same if she was natural born or naturalized. Just like in Minor v. Happersett.
The issue was the 14th Amendment stuff and whether it added stuff to citizenship or not. Which MvH said it didn’t, like voting and practicing law. Therefore, the case was NOT used to DEFINE citizenship but instead just to compare before and after stuff on the 14th Amendment.
As far as dots to connect, there aren’t any. Like the Ankeny v. Governor case in 2009 said:
“Id. at 167-168. Thus, the [Minor] Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12”
Not bad for somebody who isn’t even a lawyer, huh???
There is a link above where you can for what purpose I was providing the text book language.
Plus, don't be dissing books, and saying they can't trump SCOTUS cases because saying true stuff like that will make the other Vattle Birthers get mad at you. After all, they try to trump Wong Kim Ark with Vattel's book.
Its truly abysmal.
Actually I wasn’t speaking of Lockwood. Lockwood states the the statements on citizenship in Minor were a HOLDING: “In Minor, this court held”.
Go read Donofrio’s site. ALL of it.
Your internet articles aren’t doing anything other than rehashing the broken arguments made by others, which I repeat, have already been argued here by others, who have made better arguments by the way, and still failed.
Minor’s citizenship WAS relevant to the case, that was the means by which the case was brought. Apparently you have not READ the whole case! Tell us, what was that case all about ultimately?? Come on, an intelligent person could at least guess.... Women’s Suffrage. And you want me to take you seriously???? LMAO
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good for you! Always include a link or a legit citation that can be traced back. Otherwise you weaken your own arguments.
Oh you are absolutely hysterically funny to be proposing that a TEXTBOOK can trump SCOTUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ROTFLMAO. Oh now that was absolutely priceless. I could not have driven the figurative knife deeper into your argument that you just did yourself. Thank you for that!
Have a nice evening Squeeky, and thanks for playing.
Ooopsies! They thought it was a suffrage case, too.
lolz. Let me know when you have a cogent point to make.
That review was correct, the 14th Amendment did not give Women the right to vote, and Minor v. Happersett ALSO did not give Women the right to vote.
Via Lexis which I cannot link to, you will have to get your own subscription. Sorry about that, but its one of the reasons more people had to rely upon such resources as Jusita. Most don’t have access to it because it is darned expensive.
Minor v. Happersett 154 U.S. 116
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner attorney sought leave to file a petition for a mandamus requiring the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia to admit her to practice law in that court, alleging that admission was denied on the basis that she was a woman.
OVERVIEW: The attorney was licensed to practice law in several states of the United States, and she sought admission to the bar of Virginia. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia denied her application, notwithstanding that it was provided by Va. Code § 3192 that any “person” duly authorized and practicing as counsel or attorney at law in any state or territory of the United States. The attorney claimed that the denial was based on the fact that she was a woman. The attorney sought leave to file a petition for a mandamus requiring the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia to admit her to practice law in that court. The court denied leave, holding that the right to practice law in the state courts was not a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States and therefore that only the state had the authority to construe § 3192 and to determine whether the word “person” as therein used was confined to males, or whether women could be admitted to practice law in the commonwealth.
OUTCOME: The court denied leave to file the petition as sought by the attorney.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/suffrage
suf·frage
n.
1.
a. The right or privilege of voting; franchise.
enfranchisement, franchise - a statutory right or privilege granted to a person or group by a government (especially the rights of citizenship and the right to vote)
Women’s suffrage was not just about voting rights, though that is the most common point people make. It was about Women’s EQUALITY as citizens. Until the 19th Amendment, Women were legally second class citizens. Minor was deliberately pushing that envelope by attempting to get admitted to the Bar as an attorney. The case obviously failed.
I forgot to mention that you need to learn the difference between dicta and holding.
That said, this from the HOLDING of the case (Read it in detail, and read it in context.):
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
“It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ are expressly declared to be ‘citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’ But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [88 U.S. 162, 166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.
For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words ‘subject,’ ‘inhabitant,’ and ‘citizen’ have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.
To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.
Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by ‘the people of the United States,’3 and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth,4 and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of ‘the United States of America,’ entered into a firm league of [88 U.S. 162, 167] friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever. 5
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen-a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides6 that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’7 and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. “
PINGO
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.