Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.
How exactly would the court be able to rule V. Minor would be eligible for president if they didn't define natural-born citizen. This is a self-contradiction, unless you were quoting someone else.
“I’ve given direct quotes. You can’t get around this, so it’s time to admit you’re wrong..”
No, you haven’t. Not if read by someone who understands basic English. But of course, in your world, the courts ignore your interpretation because of a Great Conspiracy, when in reality they reject it because you are nuts.
Minor:
“In 1867, Minor co-founded and became the first president of the Woman’s Suffrage Association of Missouri (later an affiliate of the American Woman Suffrage Association). Minor personally sided with the National Woman’s Suffrage Association, prompting her resignation as President of the Missouri Association. At an 1869 convention in St. Louis, Minor stated that “the Constitution of the United States gives me every right and privilege to which every other citizen is entitled.” Later that year, Francis and Virginia Minor drafted and circulated pamphlets arguing for women’s suffrage based on the newly-passed Fourteenth Amendment.
On October 15, 1872, Virginia Minor attempted to register to vote in St. Louis. When election registrar Reese Happersett turned her down, Virginia (represented by Francis) filed suit in the Missouri state courts. The trial court, Missouri Supreme Court, and United States Supreme Court all ruled in favor of the state of Missouri. The Supreme Court unanimously held “that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one”, and that the decision of who should be entitled to vote was left to the legislative branch.”
“Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. The Supreme Court upheld state court decisions in Missouri, which had refused to register a woman as a lawful voter because that state’s laws allowed only men to vote.
The Minor v. Happersett ruling was based on an interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court readily accepted that Minor was a citizen of the United States, but it held that the constitutionally protected privileges of citizenship did not include the right to vote.”
Of course, Wiki is also part of the Great Conspiracy...
:>(
Well, there was a "case" in Luther v. Borden (1849), but the Supreme Court determined that it could not properly decide whether Rhode Island was being governed by a "republican" form of government (as required by the Constitution). The Court felt that, under the Constitution, " it rests with Congress [and not the Court] to decide what government is the established one in a State":
"For as the United States guarantee to each State a republican government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not. And when the senators and representatives of a State are admitted into the councils of the Union, the authority of the government under which they are appointed, as well as its republican character, is recognized by the proper constitutional authority. And its decision is binding on every other department of the government, and could not be questioned in a judicial tribunal." [Emphasis added.]
Next, read "cases"like:
Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Oregon (1912) (similar to Luther);
Chicago & Southern Airlines v. Waterman (1948) (After citing the institutional limitations of the judiciary to gather certain facts, the Supreme Court stated: "But even if courts could require full disclosure, the very nature of executive decisions as to foreign policy is political, not judicial. Such decisions are wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative. They are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and have long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry.")
Gilligan v. Morgan (1948) (In response to a "case" concerning the proper training and use of the National Guard, the Supreme Court didn't dare venture to decide: "It would be difficult to think of a clearer example of the type of governmental action that was intended by the Constitution to be left to the political branches directly responsible -- as the Judicial Branch is not -- to the electoral process. Moreover, it is difficult to conceive of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competence.")
Even an incompetent like Orly Taitz can construct a "case" by finding a plaintiff, naming a defendant or two and filing a complaint. But, as the above "cases" show, the Supreme Court can be expected to decline to decide an issue that is, per the Constitution, to be decided by someone else (like the voters and their electors).
There are good reasons that the Supreme Court has shown no interest in interfering with the two decision by voters and their electors that Ovama is qualified. It's not the Supreme Court's job to interfere in such political decisions and, even if it were, it has no sensible way of resolving the factual disputes. If they were forced at gunpoint to decide Orly's case, they would vote 9-0 in favor of Obama. They will never attempt to disqualify a presidential candidate based on the "natural born citizen" provision.
The Founding Fathers did not think that the Supreme Court should decide all important questions for us. Your proposal that we should worship judges and hope they solve all of our problems for us reflects an attitude about the judiciary that the Founding Fathers simply didn't share.
Historical support for my view on this is now 57-0. After 2016, it will be 58-0. Make your pitch to the voters and their electors.
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.Are you going to call this a "screw up" too???
Ummm, you do understand this has absolutely nothing to do with presidential electors?? You were arguing that the electors have unspecified directions for determining the "qualifications" of a candidate. This immediately fails because several states have laws that allows voters to challenge any and all candidates on the basis of eligibility. If this were only left up to the electors and were just a political question, then these state laws would have to be unconstitutional.
The Founding Fathers did not think that the Supreme Court should decide all important questions for us.
Based on what ... your wishful thinking??
Your proposal that we should worship judges and hope they solve all of our problems for us reflects an attitude about the judiciary that the Founding Fathers simply didn't share.
Yikes, here comes the pointless melodrama that inevitably accompanies every losing argument. Nobody said anyting about worshiping judges.
Historical support for my view on this is now 57-0.
Nonsense. You're still making an assumption based on circular logic. You're not even agreeing with your own obot brethern who want to believe that there were several decisions in these lawsuits, such Ankeny, that they believed, declared Obama to be Constituionally eligible (except Ankeny never actually did this). You guys can't have it both ways. If it's a political question over which the courts have no authority, then Obama was never found to be eligible. If it's not just a political question, then these courts have failed to apply Supreme Court precedence: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. And we stil have the Luria decision that cites other Supreme Court decisions in defining parameters of presidential eligiblity. Why would they do this if it's a political question they can't touch??
These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.
The decision in Minor would have been identical IF they HAD declared that the 14th made her a citizen. The source of her citizenship - NBC, 14th or naturalization - was irrelevant to the decision. Thus it was not a citizenship case. The source of citizenship had nothing to do with the decision.
Wiki often gives a good, simple summary - and I was hoping a good, simple summary would help you. I’ve long known you cannot read 1-2 sentences, written in adult English, without totally screwing them up.
You're not helping your argument. All this does is beg the question as to why they didn't just accept her argument, and it still doesn't address why Wong Kim Ark said her citizenship was due to birth to citizen parents. Remember, Justice Gray took exception to inclusion of "consuls" in the Slaughterhouse decision, but he took NO EXCEPTION to Minor's inclusion citizen parents in determing Viriginia Minor's citizenship. Again, YOU CAN'T GET AROUND THIS. Sourcing Wiki does NOT trump Wong Kim Ark's DIRECT CITATION of the holding. All you're doing is making a fool of yourself.
“Wong Kim Ark said her citizenship was due to birth to citizen parents”.
No. It did not. But since you cannot read two sentences without getting things backwards, and have trouble with just one, I cannot convince you.
However, 50 states, 535 members of Congress, and every court agrees with ME. Deal with it, nutjob!
For those not familiar with it, here again is the full quote of Minor as used in WKA:
That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection” (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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 [p680] 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”
To what purpose did WKA cite Minor?
“That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later...”
Less than one sentence, edge, but I’m sure it is long enough to confuse you...they were REJECTING “the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment” - a view erroneously made in the Slaughterhouse case.
However, this quote is from section 5. The sections of WKA discussing NBC were sections 2 & 3, concluding, in the words of Kent:
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
And with Binney’s comment:
“The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution, and, by that principle, the citizens o the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned,
(namely, foreign-born children of citizens, under statutes to be presently referred to)
such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States.”
The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States,None of your arguments mean anything until you can be honest enough to admit this says her citizenship is due to birth to citizen parents. You're desperately trying to create a game of connect irrelevant dots, but NONE of it disputes this one, simple direct quote. Again, YOU CANNOT GET AROUND THIS.
Repeatedly, I have stated that Obama was found to be eligible by the voters and their electors in accordance with the Constitution. Repeatedly, I have stated that the judiciary does not have the power to reverse that decision. No court has and no court will.
If it's not just a political question, then these courts have failed to apply Supreme Court precedence: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. And we stil have the Luria decision that cites other Supreme Court decisions in defining parameters of presidential eligiblity. Why would they do this if it's a political question they can't touch??
While the Supreme Court has dealt with issues of citizenship and has even made references to the term "natural born citizen" in the context of determining the status and rights of individuals tangled up in our immigration system, the Supreme Court has never hinted that it has the power to reverse a decision by the voters and their electors that a presidential candidate is qualified.
For the life of me, I don't know what accounts for your distrust of the voters and their electors. Voters and their electors know that they cannot elect a person who doesn't meet the qualifications. They know that they cannot select a president and vice-president who are inhabitants of the same state. They know about the age requirement and the residency requirement. It's their job to select only qualified candidates. And, I think most people believe that they do a much better job than could be expected from a roomful of elitist judges at the Supreme Court.
The good news for you is that you can be a voter, too, and you can judge for yourself the qualifications of the candidates. And, if you prefer to let Emerich de Vattel tell you how to vote, that's your right. Frankly, I think his fans will have a difficult time convincing other voters that it's best that we now turn our future over to some 18th century Swiss egghead who liked to anesthetize himself with fuzzy thinking/speculation about the nature and origins of citizenship. But, that doesn't mean they shouldn't try. Go for it.
Don't waste your time waiting for some judges to come along and reverse the decisions of the voters/electors. They're not coming. There are good reasons why the score remains 57-0.
There's no formal mechanism possessed by voters or electors for making a finding of eligibility. I've already pointed out that several states regulate eligibility for appearing on a state's ballot. You're relying on circular logic for something that just isn't true.
While the Supreme Court has dealt with issues of citizenship and has even made references to the term "natural born citizen" in the context of determining the status and rights of individuals tangled up in our immigration system, the Supreme Court has never hinted that it has the power to reverse a decision by the voters and their electors that a presidential candidate is qualified.
We haven't had a candidate who was so clearly ineligible before. AND they did more than "hint" about presidential eligibiility which I showed in the Luria citation. What would be the point of making a statement inclusive of Art II eligibility if they completely lack any power to make a legal determination??
For the life of me, I don't know what accounts for your distrust of the voters and their electors.
I didn't say anything about distrusting either. They have no formal authority over constitutional eligibility. The electorate can vote for all kinds of people who aren't eligible (and they do).
Voters and their electors know that they cannot elect a person who doesn't meet the qualifications.
Sorry, but this is an assumption. Unless you've done a survey or know of a survey, this means nothing.
The good news for you is that you can be a voter, too, and you can judge for yourself the qualifications of the candidates.
The better news is that as a voter, I have the statutory right to challenge an ineligible candidate. It's not just about making a personal judgment that has no effect on anyone else.
And, if you prefer to let Emerich de Vattel tell you how to vote, that's your right. Frankly, I think his fans will have a difficult time convincing other voters that it's best that we now turn our future over to some 18th century Swiss egghead who liked to anesthetize himself with fuzzy thinking/speculation about the nature and origins of citizenship.
This is an ignorant comment. Vattel has been cited frequently by the Supreme Court in reference to citizenship and our Mr. Rogers admits that the Minor court relied on this to define NBC. Obama does not fit their definition.
Don't waste your time waiting for some judges to come along and reverse the decisions of the voters/electors. They're not coming. There are good reasons why the score remains 57-0.
Stuck with a circular logic fallacy that doesn't disprove that the electorate is ignorant and worse, perhaps apathetic about Constitutional requirements and moreso, Supreme Court precedence. The score is more likely 55-2.
This was a very interesting dialog you had with Tau Food. My overall take on the points discussed is that Tau apparently believes the voters are always the final determinant/judge and as such must be considered infallible as to any lack of knowledge of Constitutional requirements. Of late I see some validity in what I take as Tau’s argument(s) about the SC’s authority as to being supreme over the vote of the people by virtue of the Constitution being supreme over even the SC. However on the other side of the dialog I believe Tau’s remarks as to what accounts for ‘distrust of the voters’ is way outside the park of understanding the real world. The world is/has been shaped by lying politicians and the Obama enabling press to note a couple of causes besides public apathy and even ignorance of the Constitutional process and wording. As far as Vattel being in the discourse and history, I believe that Vattel was a very significant part/player in the Founder’s considering a Constitution for the USA especially as to Franklin’s involvement.
“None of your arguments mean anything until you can be honest enough to admit this says her citizenship is due to birth to citizen parents.”
No. She could have been naturalized, and the result would have been the same - no right to vote. She could have been what birthers call a 14th Amendment citizen - a distinction no court makes - but the result of the case would have been identical - no right to vote.
In this case, she also met the narrowest possible definition of NBC, so the court didn’t go any further to examine the limits - as it expressly stated in the opinion. It just didn’t matter. The outcome would have been identical as long as she met ANY possible definition of citizenship, and thus it was not a case about citizenship, but voting rights.
I’ve never met a birther who claimed citizen parents were required to be born a citizen. Do you now make that claim?
The vote is a formal mechanism and implicit in the vote for a candidate is a finding by the voter that the candidate is qualified. Similarly, a general verdict of guilty or not guilty carries with it the presumption that it is based upon jury findings necessary to support the verdict.
We haven't had a candidate who was so clearly ineligible before. AND they did more than "hint" about presidential eligibiility which I showed in the Luria citation. What would be the point of making a statement inclusive of Art II eligibility if they completely lack any power to make a legal determination??
People in government write and say lots of things. A president can offer his opinion on the meaning of terms (including the NBC term) in the Constitution. So can any Congressman. That does not mean that that president or that Congressman is claiming the constitutional power to reverse a decision by the voters and their electors that a candidate is qualified to be president.
I won't suggest for a minute that the Constitution imposes limits on the content of the discussion portion of court opinions. When you read a judicial opinion, it is important to read the end of the opinion where the court indicates what it has decided to actually do. For example, the ruling might "affirm" or "reverse" a lower court's decision in the case, with or without specific directions to that lower court for further action. Or, it might authorize the issuance of a writ or an order in some other form. It is that part of the opinion in which the court is claiming a power to act, a power to do something. That is where the constitutional rubber meets the road.
As I said before, while the Supreme Court has dealt with issues of citizenship and has even made references to the term "natural born citizen" in the context of determining the status and rights of individuals tangled up in our immigration system, the Supreme Court has never hinted that it has the power to reverse a decision by the voters and their electors that a presidential candidate is qualified. And, they won't, for obvious reasons.
Your analysis proceeds from two premises:
First, that "[w]e haven't had a candidate who was so clearly ineligible before" and
Second, that the Supreme Court has the power to reverse the decision of the voters and their electors.
Assuming (as you do) that those two premises are correct, how do you account for the reality that in over four years, the Supreme Court has failed to find a means of correcting what must appear to you to be a monstrous and blatantly obvious constitutional crime? How do you account for a Republican Chief Justice actually assisting in the commission of this monstrous and blatantly obvious constitutional crime by administering the oath of office (an act which is not required of a Chief Justice)?
Do you think the time has come for you to consider the possibility that the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court might disagree with one or both of your premises? Is it perhaps time for you to reconsider those premises?
She DID argue she was 14th amendment citizen. It's why the Minor court defined NBC and specifically said the 14th amendment did NOT confer citizenship on her by birth. You keep defeating your own argument. Again, YOU CANNOT GET AROUND THIS. Why would the court say ANYTHING about her having citizen parents?? Unlike the WKA court, the Minor decision was very effecient, while everything it discussed had direct bearing on the case and situation.
In this case, she also met the narrowest possible definition of NBC, so the court didn’t go any further to examine the limits - as it expressly stated in the opinion.
She met the ONLY definition of NBC. There's no "narrowest" about. The Minor court discussed every other way someone can become a citizen, but it exclusively characterized children born of citizens as NBCs. Again, there's NO WAY AROUND THIS.
The outcome would have been identical as long as she met ANY possible definition of citizenship, and thus it was not a case about citizenship, but voting rights.
Sorry, but it was about meeting ANY possible definition of citizenship, then they didn't need to reject her 14th amendment citizenship argument. Again, THERE'S NO WAY AROUND THIS.
I’ve never met a birther who claimed citizen parents were required to be born a citizen. Do you now make that claim?
Nobody cares who you think you've met and what these imaginary people have or haven't claimed. YOU CAN'T GET AROUND THIS. All children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. These are the natural-born citizens.
It is not any sort of contradiction, self or otherwise because even under the very narrowest of definitions or interpretations of what constitutes a natural born citizen, Virginia Minor having two citizen parents and having been born on U.S. soil as the SCOTUS found, was without question a U.S. citizen. My point was that even under the very narrowest of definitions or interpretations of what constitutes a “natural born citizen”, the one that the Court said was “never in doubt”, the one you evidently hold to, Virginia Minor was one and being that she was over the age of 35 and that she didn’t participate in any acts of “rebellion” as defined in the 14th Amendment, yes she would have most likely have been deemed eligible to run for the office of POTUS during that time, even as she was ruled ineligible by the State of Missouri to vote and that ruling was upheld by the SCOTUS.
Victoria Woodhull ran for President in 1872 but failed to get on any state ballots. In 1884 Belva Ann Lockwood ran for POTUS and got on the ballot in 6 states and was estimated to have received 4,149 votes, “estimated” as Lockwood claimed voter fraud, that she received more votes than that but that many ballots cast for her had been torn up or not counted. But neither Woodhull nor Lockwood, while citizens, was at the time of their candidacy, allowed to vote.
But one again as I and others have pointed out, this case was not a case regarding who was or was not a natural born citizen or what constituted natural born vs. naturalized citizen or who was eligible for the office of POTUS; it was a case regarding voting rights. Even if Virginia Minor had been a naturalized citizen, or only her father was a U.S. citizen¸ as it would have been ascertained that Virginia Minor was a citizen, even if there was question or “some doubts” as to whether she was a natural born citizen, the question before the court would have been exactly the same: did the Constitution and the 14th Amendment grant suffrage to women who were citizens. Their answer was “no”. The 19th Amendment overturned that and all preceding rulings to say “yes”.
”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.
This is why the SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett said, and once again for those of you in Rio Linda; “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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
The Court in Minor v. Happersett wasn’t ruling as to what constituted a Natural Born Citizen because they didn’t have to as Minor belonged to that class of citizenship that was never in doubt. That wasn’t the question before the Court. The question was whether Virginia Minor as citizen, be she a born OR a naturalized a citizen, was being denied what she claimed was her right to vote under the Constitution and under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment.
For the sake of argument, if the question before the court was whether only a natural born citizen could vote, then the court would have had to address the question and it would have been “necessary to solve these doubts”.
If you are going to make the claim that there was a Holding in Minor v. Happersett regarding the definition of NBC rather than what it was, a Dicta, then you also have to consider it a Holding that States can allow non-citizens to vote:
” Besides this, citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote. The same provision is to be found in the constitutions of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas.”
Yes, they are NBC. But they are not the only NBCs, as WKA makes clear. That is why WKA spent 2 sections, almost half the decision, rejecting the argument made by the government that WKA was not a NBC.
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
That is why they approvingly quoted Lynch, which determined, ""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," &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not...
...Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen."
“Sorry, but it was about meeting ANY possible definition of citizenship, then they didn’t need to reject her 14th amendment citizenship argument. Again, THERE’S NO WAY AROUND THIS.”
Incorrect. She made it a point, and the court answered - with laughter, if you read between the lines. The court called her an idiot. Politely, but that is what they were saying - that the idea that the 14th made her a citizen was crazy.
They then went on to point out that no matter what the source of citizenship, it did not matter - she did not have a right to vote as an NBC, not as some mythical 14th Amendment citizen (a category that Minor rejected), and not as a naturalized citizen. It simply did not matter - citizenship does not give the right to vote.
What??? This doesn't help your argument. Why would it be crazy that the 14th amendment would make her a citizen?? I can tell you're trying to dig yourself out of the hole, but it's going the other way. There's no reason to do this unless they're making a point that there's a difference between natural-born and 14th amendment citizenship at birth. Dude, if they were calling her an idiot, they would be calling you worse. You keep arguing against yourself. Like I said, there's no way around this. It's time to quit making yourself look dumb and just admit you were wrong before.
Viriginia Minor didn't claim citizenship on the basis of haing two citizen parents. If the court thought the 14th amendment applied to natural-born citizens too, then she would also be a citizen "without question." And it's not about the narrowest interpretation of what Constitutes a natural-born citizen. They were explaining who the citizens were under the auspices of the U.S. constitution AND rejecting that the 14th amendment defines or redefines natural-born citizens, thus redefining or creating some new undeclared privileges or immunities, such as a right to vote for women.
The Court in Minor v. Happersett wasn’t ruling as to what constituted a Natural Born Citizen because they didn’t have to as Minor belonged to that class of citizenship that was never in doubt.
They were countering her argument, and natural-born citizen, in context, was used to exclusively characterize one class of birth citizens; those born to citizen parents. Doing this means they acknowledged at least TWO classes of citizens at birth. One were citizens with no doubt and they were exclusively characterized as natural-born. The other class had doubts, not about being natural-born citizens, but doubts about being citizens at all. But that shouldn't have mattered because there shouldn't be any doubts that Minor fit the court's 14th amendment definition of birth citizenship, unless the court was making a distinction. Almost all of the same members of the Minor court had ruled two years earlier about the only recognized exclusions to the subject clause of the 14th amendment. There wouldn't be any doubts for them about who could be citizens at birth, unless they were making a distinction that goes beyond the subject clause. And that's exactly what they were doing. V. Minro wasn't in any of the categories where there would be any doubts, so if they thought she was a 14th amendment citizen AND if they thought persons born in the country under the 14th amendment could be natural-born citizens, they could have immediately said so, WITH the list of exclusions per the subject clause. IOW, they had the ability to resolve those doubts, unless they were affirming that the doubts are outside of the subject clause.
If you are going to make the claim that there was a Holding in Minor v. Happersett regarding the definition of NBC rather than what it was, a Dicta, then you also have to consider it a Holding that States can allow non-citizens to vote:
This isn't about what I have to consider dicta or not. The Supreme Court has already affirmed that the citizenship definition was part of the Minor court's holding in Wong Kim Ark and Luria.
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.