Skip to comments.Qualifications for President and the “Natural-Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement
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 ...
Ahh Mr. Rogers has been called up. The challenge with Mr. Rogers is to find the subterfuge, because his role is to confuse. In this case, for those with the time, reading Minor v. Happersett will probably show his deception, but for those without the time, settling the issue in Minor v. Happersett required that Elizabeth Minor be a citizen. The only definition for a citizen provided by the Constitution before the 14th Amendment was that in Article II Section 1, for a natural born citizen. Like every term used in the Constitution but treason, our common language and common law at the time of the framers was the source for the definition. But natural born citizens were by far the majority.
Since requirements for citizenship were different in many or most of the colonies, the Constitution mandated that Congress create “An uniform code of naturalization.” But they hadn't gotten around to it, and Minor v. Happersett was constructed to be independent of the 14th Amendment, since the Minor's (her husband was her attorney) claim was that the 14th gave her suffrage under equal protection. If she wasn't a citizen no decision was possible. The only defined citizens were natural born. So defining natural born citizenship was absolutely essential to the decision. A natural born citizen is a natural born citizen is a citizen, whether running for office or not. A definition is about as full a meaning as there is for NBC, and that is what Justice Waite provided. That defintion was cited in several dozen cases, including Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v. Elg, affirming the recognition of Minor as precedence
Remember, Mr. Rogers is here to confuse you.
I could not do any better than the document that is attached to this thread. Why not read that instead?
In case you did not see this...(and I would really like to know your thoughts.)
Who claimed that Virginia Minor was not a natural born citizen?
Courts cite DICTA all the time. Dicta is not binding.
At least, that is what birthers say when anyone points out the WKA ruling...
See post 41 if you are truly confused, and not just here to support Obama.
yep - he got his 30 pieces of silver.
Simple question on this report.
From the report:
“The Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, in ruling in 1875 that women did not havethe constitutional right to vote in federal or state elections (as a privilege or immunity of citizenship), raised and discussed the question in dicta as to whether one would be a natural born citizen if born to only one citizen-parent or to no citizen-parents, noting specifically thatsome authorities hold so. The Court, however, expressly declined to rule on that subject in this particular case. In dicta , that is, in a discussion not directly relevant to or part of the holding in the case, the Court explained:”
The quotes the definitions used in the case.
But it is NOT dicta. It is completely relevant and critical to the ruling since it defines the source of Citizenship - and he has to show that that source is NOT the 14th Amendment.
This CRS report is the very first time anyone has claimed the M v H ruling specifics as dicta.
So does Congress know that it still has a problem? Yes.
Did they ask for this report for cover? Yes.
Does the report lie to provide that cover? Yes.
6 - 0 against so far....
That is a Strange omission that indicates a bias, or poor research.
No, it just indicates poor reading on your part. The CRS author spends a full page on Minor v. Happersett, specifically on pp. 28-29 (pp. 31-32 of the PDF).
yep - it was mentioned, and I missed it.
Strange how the author got the interpretation of that case wrong, and left it out of the summary - doncha think?
In ex parte Lockwood the court says - “this court HELD”. HELD is the operant word. It means that it was a Holding.
Please read the definition of ‘holding’ - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Holding
Are you still in “bed” with Mitt?
Wow, how is it to lead from his behind.
Can anyone else see why this country is in a perpetual state of GRIDLOCK in Congress? It takes this “Attorney” FIFTY pages of gobledy-gook and baloney to explain, investigate, theorize, extrapolate and pontificate upon what appears to ME to be a pretty well-written, clear-cut statement within our Constitution. I’m going out on a limb here. . . elect me president and I will BAR (hee hee) attorneys from serving in the State and Federal houses of Congress. Only the judicial branch is where they belong.
The only Birthers left at this point are the True Believers.
I won't be the least bit surprised to see one of them claim that this research paper now gives them “standing” to sue or something.
And yes, the timing of the release of this attempted work of obfuscation is interesting. Why now? What are they worried about at this point? ;)
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.