Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Nero Germanicus
There has been no judicial holding on the Citizenship clause of Article 1 of the 14th Amendment which says that a born citizen and a natural born citizen are separate categories.

Not separate "categories" but separate classes. That was the holding in Minor v. Happersett and it's why Wong Kim Ark was NOT declared to be a natural-born citizen.

334 posted on 04/03/2013 8:31:06 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies ]


To: edge919

Except Minor v Happersett was a women’s suffrage case and citing it in Article II, Section 1 context has not been persuasive for any judge or Justice.
For example: Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

An explicit rejection of the relevance of Minor v Happersett.

And: Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin

An implicit rejection of the relevance of Minor v Happersett to Article II, Section 1 eligibility.

And: Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012

A later Supreme Court ruling than Minor v Happersett, US v. Wong Kim Ark implicitly cited as stare decisis on Article II, Section 1 eligibility


337 posted on 04/03/2013 11:05:42 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson