Posted on 11/30/2011 4:54:22 AM PST by Natufian
The Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be President: one must be 35 years of age, a "resident within the United States" for 14 years, and a "natural born Citizen"
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
Thank you.
My thoughts exactly.
See my previous comment on this thread.
You really should have waited for me to reply further. Reply #20 might present you some problems.
The opinion IS dicta.
None of this matters to birthers. Since birthers cannot read two sentences without getting confused, an entire article is beyond hope of helping them.
You are aware of what the legal definition of obiter dictum is, aren't you?
Fogbow...calling all fogbow members....
dictum
Latin for "remark," a comment by a judge in a decision or ruling which is not required to reach the decision, but may state a related legal principle as the judge understands it.
Your comment doesn't fit the hole.
Good to see you back spouting the administration talking points and defending it.
No need to copy or paste this collection of intentional misdirection. You don't really need to read it. When Maskill spends paragraphs on Wong Kim Ark, and cites a collection of obscure cases, but doesn't cite the very first citiation used by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark, citing Minor v. Happersett, the case which turned common law into precedence, the case George Soros' employees obscured by scrubbing twenty five or twenty six supreme court cases of their citations to Minor v. Happersett during the Summer of 2008, Maskill has created another “Snow Job.”
When a justice department attorney uses this statement “The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787,” you are being intentionally confused. Try to find any term defined in the Constitution, other than “Treason” This is evil sophistry.
Minor v. Happesett is a wonderful example of what the Supreme Court was chartered to do, interpret the Constitution. The only definition provided by the Constitution for a citizen of the US before the 14th Amendment was that provided for eligibility of our president, by far the largest class of citizens in the US, natural born citizens. It was common law, made precedence in Minor v. Happersett. It was cited as dictum by founder, framer, and our 4th Chief Justice, John Marshall in the Venus, 1814. Marshall cited Vattel as the most concise source for the defintion, but Chief Justice Waite, in 1874 cited no one. He turned common law into positive law - precedence - stare decisis.
“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.”
Elizabeth Minor was a natural born citizen, and thus a citizen, before the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868. This fact was essential to the decision, and was cited by several dozen other supreme court cases, including Ex. Parte Lockwood, which did more the cite. In the Lockwood decision, in a paragraph scrubbed on the Cornell Law site by Soros’ Center for American Progress operative, are the words “Happersett...held...” Those words affirm the recognition of the precedence established by Minor v. Happersett.
Many if not most constitutional law faculty know the truth of this travesty - the scrubbing of historical documents accessible to the public. The correct citations are, of course, still present on the paper documents in our national archives, and in the digital copies available at the subscription legal services, Lexis, and Westlaw. But the most frequently cited source of legal references, Justia.com, had the twenty five relevent documents edited in the Summer of 2008. Justia has since blocked access to the Google archives of its pages, and has now replaced the corrupted documents with corrections, returning the documents to their pre-2008 state.
This document by Jack Maskill is yet another set of intentional misdirection. Minor v. Happersett could not be more clear. Thanks to Bill Clinton, we have thought about “What is is.” A person born on our soil to citizen parents is a natural born citizen. Is does not mean inclusion, it means identity. Without Article II Section 1 Minor v. Happersett could not have been decided. Read Minor v. Happersett. About natural born citizens there was never doubt. About who were citizens there was doubt. About Elizabeth Minor's status, for the court to have jurisdiction, there could be no doubt - and there wasn't. She was a natural born citizen. Our Congressional Research Service has been paid with our tax dollars to lie to us and to confuse those who haven't read original documents. Wong Kim Ark was not made a natural born citizen, and Justice Gray, who wrote the decision, cited Minor v. Happersett, a unanimous confirmation of the definition of who were natural born citizens. Justice Gray was also on the court which wrote Ex. Parte Lockwood, and confirmed the holding in Minor. Our government and most of our legislators are traitors to our Constitution. There is no doubt if you first read original sources, in this case, Minor v. Happersett. You will see, because Chief Justice Waite explains, why he turned common-law into positive law. As Waite said, “It was never doubted...”
Read Leo Donofrio’s analysis at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com, and Dianna Cotter at Examiner.com. Read Minor v. Happersett. Find several sources because our most popular seach engine, Google, has been pointing you to justia.com, and justia edited at least twenty five cases, all citing Minor v. Happersett. Justia has now blocked access to archives of their pages, but a number of people, including Leo Donofrio, have screen captures. Maskill only confirms the the subterfuge which has protected the ineligible Obama, and we are paying him to lie.
Since YOU have special knowledge regarding
INELIGIBLEs like Obama and Romney, please
favor us with the definition, and its relevance.
...a comment by a judge in a decision or ruling which is not required to reach the decision...
The comment was used to reach the decision.
It's not dicta.
Thanks for this post.
It is time to demand that Tyrant Obama be forced to re-apply for a citizenship test by the now defunct Congressional Super Committee.
Another deadlock with lots of hype.
Here is the decision in Minor:
“Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.”
Everything before that is dicta.
And the dicta in Minor does not and never has attempted to explore the full meaning of NBC:
“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 [p168] 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.”
Remember...a comment by a judge in a decision or ruling which is not required to reach the decision...
So in your mind a statement that is used to reach a decision is dicta right
along with statements that are not used to reach the decision.
Got it. Thanks for clarifying that.
The sentence quoted by faucetman is a wonderful example of pseudo legal sophistry. The conclusion is false so any presumably supporting statements are meaningless. The only surprise is the audacity of such blatant misdirection.
There never was a contention that a “native born U.S. citizen has presidential eligibility. When the Constitution was written the term “native born U.S. citizen” was never used. A “Native” as Minor v. Happersett clarifies, is the same as a natural born citizen. Obama is, by his own definition, “A Native born citizen of the US.” The term was coined after the 14th Amendment to refer to a 14th Amendment citizen, born on our soil, but not to parents who are its citizens, as characterized in and by Wong Kim Ark, in which Justice Gray cites Minor v. Happersett for the definition of natural born citizen. No where is the term natural born citizen used in the US Code. No law can interpret a provision of the Constitution. A 14th Amendment citizen, like Obama, is a naturalized citizen - naturalized at birth. A naturalized citizen is not eligible to be president. In 1874, when the Minor decsions was written, there remained doubts about who could be defined a citizen by congress, but Elizabeth Minor was natural born, to parents who were citizens and on our soil. There are still doubts about the interpretation of the 14th Amendment which defined anchor babies. Today, the child of anchor babies, born on our soil, is deemed a natural born citizen.
The publishing of this document must mean that Obama’s Justice department is worried about the issue, possibly now that Justia and Soros’ Law.gov have been caught scrubbing Supreme Court cases of references to Minor v. Happersett. From this thread it is encouraging to see that many are beginning to understand the definition of our most common class of citizen, natural born citizens. Yes, Vattel clarified it, along with many other justices, but Minor needed the definition to be positive law. Maskill knows that. He is being paid to lie, not unusual for a lawyer.
That would be incorrect. In ‘ex parte Lockwood’ the court said - “In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since;”
It’s clear that the SCOTUS considered Minor v. Happersett as establishing precedent on Federal Citizenship - ie. it was a Holding AND NOT Dicta.
even worse - and the author put his name on this paper?
SOJOCO=zotted Non-Sequitur aka retread drennanwhyte(zotted) aka kstater(zotted)now back as SOJOCO. Pathetic that he can’t stay away after 3 zots and more pathetic that tons of freepers have already outed him as a troll, just check past posts.
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.