Posted on 02/05/2012 2:16:29 AM PST by edge919
In the ballot hearing in Georgia, Judge Malihi cited Ankeny v. Daniels from the Indiana Appeals Court to define natural-born citizen, using jus soli criteria to declare Barack "No Show" Obama to be eligible for Georgia's primary ballot, despite the lack of actual legal evidence to prove whether or not Barry was even born in the United States or not. That aside, the ruling is based on an errant conclusion.
Keeping things simple, the best way to emphasize why Minor v. Happersett is the one & only legal precedent and Wong Kim Ark is not, is to use Ankeny v. Daniels to show where it admits that its rationale is flawed. The Indiana Appeals Court admits there was an NBC definition in Minor:
"Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a “natural born Citizen.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v.Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
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 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.
First, there's a clear error. Ankeny says the 14th amendment and Article II were read in tandem. This is false. The 14th amendment was used by Virginia Minor in an argument to claim she was a citizen, and from that citizenship she had a right to vote through the privileges and immunities clause. The Supreme Court rejected that her citizenship was due from the 14th amendment. But before they got to Article II, they covered the other way you could become a citizen ... by self-declaration and political unification.
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.
This is kind of important, because it rejects the English common law theory of natural-born citizenship AND it rejects the trite argument that the courts have only recognized two ways to become a citizen. When the country was formed, those persons loyal to the United States were the original citizens and their children were natural-born citizens. But by treaty, those persons loyal to the crown and their children, even those born on U.S. soil AFTER the declaration of Independence were natural-born subjects. This was formalized through the Treaty of 1783. Thus, the Constitution, being established only four years later was not going to use a standard of citizenship that allowed anyone born on the soil to be president. This explains why the Minor court said that "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens" was the "nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar" ... it matches the Law of Nations, and it's why the court characterized this type of citizenship EXCLUSIVELY as natural-born citizen. By using this definition, this would have made Virginia Minor legally capable of running for president even though the court denied she had a right to vote.
Ankeny argues that Minor "contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom." A) This is false, because Minor contemplated several combinations of factors related to citizenship including split nationalities:
... in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or [p169] who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. [n11]
From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.
The Minor court considered every combination it considered to be relevant, but it purposely and willfully only characterized ONE class of persons as natural-born citizens: those born in the country to citizen parents.
B) The other reason Ankeny's conclusion is false is because the Minor distinction of children born to citizen parents serves no purpose if not tied to how natural-born citizenship is exclusively defined. The characterization is self-limiting: "as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." For those latter persons to be citizens, they must rely on other means of citizenship such as through the Constitution or statutory law. If jus soli was enough to be a natural-born citizen, then the court could have simply accepted Minor's 14th amendment argument, but they did NOT ... and Ankeny admits it:
In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
The 14th amendment is part of the Constitution, so this means that the 14th amendment does NOT define NBC. This destroys Ankeny's assumption that jus soli is enough to be an NBC. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark says this same thing, and it cites and affirms the Minor definition of NBC. The Ark case knew it could not apply the NBC definition to Wong Kim Ark, so it relied on applying common law, with some stipulations. Ankeny cites some of that common law, but it was dicta.
Ankeny claimed that "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." I've already shown this is false, but it's important to understand that under Ankeny's logic, Wong Kim Ark ALSO left this question open. And they admit it, by way of footnote:
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States.
Wong Kim Ark was NOT declared to be a natural-born citizen. Again, using Ankeny's logic, this means the question is "left open." Why rely on a case that does not declare its subject an NBC, when the other one does?? Ankeny says it's immaterial to all but 44 people, which were all the people who were president, but this is false. The NBC criteria is to protect the public by trying to ensure we have a president who is less subject to foreign entanglements ... and that criteria would be material to ANYONE and EVERY ONE who wants to run for president.
Looks like you were right about the approval:
http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/News/singleEdit.asp?l=100450406112
“A year ago, the ABA committee vetted Mercer University law professor Daisy Hurst Floyd for the opening, but Obama didn’t nominate her. Now the administration finds itself without a nominee at the start of an election year, historically a tricky time for getting a judicial pick through the Senate.”
The plaintiffs were offered a default ruling. They turned it down, insisting that evidence be submitted and the case be decided on the merits.
The case was not decide on it's merits.
I don't know. Not a lawyer. If I were I probably still would not know. But if we watch the actions of SOS Kemp we may soon know if he thinks an appeal will fail.
When you offer "expert" witnesses, they need to have some credentials. The law is pretty clear on this. Orly's "experts" had no qualifications other than the willingness to say what people wanted to hear.
So they presented their evidence , the Defendents didn’t even make a showing and the Judge decided against the plaintiffs.
Makes sense to someone I see.
“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland. He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”Donofrio goes on about that quote, and the trickery engaged in by Arthur:
This was another blatant lie. His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23. William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 – when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada – and March 1824 – when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont. The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26.Chester A Arthur's Dad did DID become an officially naturalized US Citizen, but only after Chester was born. THAT is what Chester hid.On August 16, 1880 Chester Arthur told the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper that at the time of his birth, his father was forty years old. Another blatant lie. His father would have been only thirty-three years old when Chester was born.
In that same article he lied that his father settled in Vermont and reiterated the lie that William came here at the age of eighteen. This age discrepancy was exposed in the August 19, 1880 edition of the Brooklyn Eagle in an article written by Hinman.
See http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/
>>...So if I understand the ruling correctly, all these children after attaining the age of 35 and having resided in the US for a period of 14 years are eligible to hold the office of POTUS...<<
It would depend upon how one defines “Natural-Born-Citizen” as it appears in Art.II. Is it defined the way it was commonly held and accepted during the time of the framing of our Constitution -or- do you define it as a few judges in clear defiance of common-sense have done?
My point: The courts could legalistically re-define anything commonly-held today (ie: “marriage”). It does not make it true outside of the courtroom in the hearts and minds of the people. Unfortunately, too many of us (citizens and politicians) accept court rulings that defy common-sense at face value out of some perverted belief that the courts are superior and infallible. Hence, there’s not much we can realistically do about it.
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
From the DISSENT of WKA...that would be the LOSING side.
I had read what you quoted before.
I was simply excerpting the footnotes in the case as cited in the Indiana Appeals court.
Not being an attorney I am often corrected about things that seemed clear to me that by the law were incorrect.
Question?
With all the brilliant legal minds in the U.S., why has no one come forward with a solution to uncovering Obozo’s hidden past?
We all know it is out there, but removed from private view.
I did understand that your post was wholly quotes from the GA Administrative Judge’s opinion.
MacKay answered that in 1841. See http://www.econlib.org/library/Mackay/macEx.html
The chapters labeled “11. The Slow Poisoners” and “14. Popular Admiration of Great Thieves” seem apt, but the whole work is an education.
Yes, an excellent read:
“Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24518/24518-h/24518-h.htm
I first read it in a library up in KS during a long weekend alone during a business trip.
Tried to find a hard copy but was unsuccessful. Finally found it on project Gutenberg.
U.S./?? dual citizens worldwide are nodding yes to this Georgia decision.
Maybe my dual citizenship brother-in-law will move back to the US and become POTUS someday like Obama. I’m gonna advise he become a constitutional lawyer so his qualifications are clear. /s
I think he will put Obama on the ballot. He punted his decision to the court inferring he would stand by its recommendation. He is off the hook and now has cover by giving weight to the Maliki decision.
This would permanently fracture the Democrat party and cripple their electoral college strategy.
Stripping the Democrats of California electoral college votes would be huge. We just need a Mexican with an American BC. He could appeal to all Mexicans in his native language with promises to cede California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona to Mexico. If the rules have changed, we need play by them. So be it.
The problem is that this does NOT follow the legal precedents that were cited. The Supreme Court only used English common law to prop up the 14th amendment, not to define natural-born citizenship. That had already been exclusively and decisively defined in Minor v. Happersett. That unanimous decision made it clear that natural-born citizenship was outside the province of Congress. This was the question that Ankeny said was left open, but was in reality, fully addressed by the Minor court. A 20th century nationality act is irrelevant. It does not and cannot override the Constitution.
Rogers, you’ve got a major problem when the dissent is the only thing that comes close to saying what you want the Wong Kim Ark decision to say. Fuller is not talking about anything in the majority opinion. He’s only speaking in historical terms, which is true. Fuller also lamented that children born abroad to citizens would NOT be citizens according to the 14th amendment because they weren’t naturalized in the United States. Nothing in the majority opinion says ANYTHING about either of these issues. We can only go by what it says, not what you want it to say.
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.