. . . . Check out # 74 , - and more.
[Thanks, David.]
(Lots of SPs on the thread. SPs = Site Pests, often known as trolls.)
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 ...
“This guy, whoever he is, what makes him the authority?”
Congress is the authority, and they employ “this guy” to provide them with expert non-partisan legal analysis.
See "emphasis added" above in #80.
I guess we differ on what we each consider "excellent".
Congressional Research Service
As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.
Surely Mr. Maskell didn't undertake this unsolicited and of his own accord...did he?
“BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Congress failed, and mightily at that!”
Hahahaha right back at you. You think the legal authorities fail if they cannot convince you. I think you fail if you cannot convince the legal authorities.
Maybe some day you’ll figure out which way the world works.
Ha! That's good. :) About the sort of logic you expect from these people who argue "anchor babies" are "natural born citizens."
It is my opinion, regardless of what any court decides, up to and including the supreme court, that we need to MAKE the Citizen Parent requirement the DEFACTO definition. If we have to do it legislatively, or if we have to do it through amendment, we need to ram that down those bastards throats and shut up them and this loophole forever.
To reach that end, the first thing we need to do is ridicule and shout down all these troublemakers, and thereafter continue educating the public.
Congress has no authority to re-define constitutional terms. Neither do the Courts. The Constitution is the SOURCE of their power, they are not the masters.
The Only Authority capable of re-defining constitutional terms is the combined effect of both House and Senate with 3/4ths of the State Legislatures voting in the affirmative.
BladeBryan wrote: “And since they were stating the holding they left out the dicta about “natural born”:”
What the heck are you talking about? Are you saying that when the SCOTUS cites ‘Minor’, it is doing so as both precedent, and dicta???? LOL!
In ‘Minor’, the court determined/held/decided that Minor was a US citizen by determining/holding/deciding what the constitution ment when it used the term-of-art “natural born Citizen”. The court held that Minor was a broader “US Citizen” because she qualified as the more specific “natural born Citizen”.
http://bobmccarty.com/2010/11/25/understanding-the-jack-maskell-memorandum/
I must admit that I'm a fan of slow roasting. {;^)
Maybe some day you’ll figure out which way the world works.
Yes, from Blade Bryan's perspective, If you aren't kissing your master's foot, you aren't doing it right. I, on the other hand believe they get their authority from the consent of the governed, and that THEY are the servants and WE are the masters. Regardless of this Legalized nonsensical hair splitting prattle, We must force them to go our way by educating our fellow countrymen as to what is correct, and show them WHY it is correct.
____________________________________________________________
The Word "Nation" is derived from the same root as "Natal" (meaning of birth) and it has nothing to do with dirt.
nation Look up nation at Dictionary.com
" c.1300, from O.Fr. nacion, from L. nationem (nom. natio) "nation, stock, race," lit. "that which has been born," from natus, pp. of nasci "be born" (Old L. gnasci; see genus). Political sense has gradually taken over from racial meaning "large group of people with common ancestry." Older sense preserved in application to N.Amer. Indian peoples (1640s). Nation-building first attested 1907 (implied in nation-builder)."
____________________________________________________________
The Word "Patriot" is derived from the Latin "Patria" which means "land of my father."
patriot Look up patriot at Dictionary.com
1590s, "compatriot," from M.Fr. patriote (15c.), from L.L. patriota "fellow-countryman" (6c.), from Gk. patriotes "fellow countryman," from patrios "of one's fathers," patris "fatherland," from pater (gen. patros) "father," with -otes, suffix expressing state or condition.
Even the LANGUAGE screams out that such as Blade Bryan are either Ignorant and/or Lying.
:)
Well, no, the court didn't. The court acknowledged that she was a citizen from the very beginning. To quote Chief Justice Waite: "In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption."
But the important quote from Chief Justice Waite's decision is in the first paragraph, in fact the first few sentences.
"The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here."
The court was not concerned with what kind of citizen she was, since whether she was natural born or naturalized was irrelevant to the question before the court and the fact that she was a citizen was never in question. Since the court was only deciding whether citizenship also conveyed the right of suffrage then any comments made on natural born citizenship were made in dicta. And even in that case, the court did not say that children born in the U.S. of non-citizen parents were not natural born citizens. It merely noted that some people believed that they were, and that it was not the duty of the court to clarify the question at that time.
Jack Maskell has been on point to provide the beltway insiders cover since the early days. This is just his latest rendition of - “stay calm, all is well.” (apologies to Kevin Bacon and the crew from Animal House.)
http://bobmccarty.com/2010/11/25/understanding-the-jack-maskell-memorandum/
“That is why, after sitting silently in their chairs while the names of 365 Obama electors were read from the Speaker’s rostrum, not a single member of Congress rose to object… preferring instead to hide behind the legal skirts of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and their Legislative Attorney, Jack Maskell.”
“Maskell’s recently-discovered memorandum, dated April 3, 2009 and distributed to all members of Congress, contains the following words:”
. . . . Check out # 74 , - and more.
[Thanks, David.]
(Lots of SPs on the thread. SPs = Site Pests, often known as trolls.)
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 argument was rejected because Virginia Minor fit the court's definition of the Constitutional term in Art. II, Sec I - "natural-born citizen" - born in the country to citizen parents.
___________________________________________________________
natural Look up natural at Dictionary.com
c.1300, naturel, "of one's inborn character, of the world of nature (especially as opposed to man)," from O.Fr. naturel, from L. naturalis "by birth, according to nature," from natura "nature" (see nature). Meaning "easy, free from affectation" is attested from c.1600. As a euphemism for "illegitimate, bastard" (of children), it is first recorded 1580s, on notion of blood kinship
There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' are expressly declared to be 'citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment (the 14th) to give them that position. (of citizen)
She brought the wrong argument to court.
You're not helping yourself. The part you cited says;
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
This includes a criteria of parents being citizens and it is as much a part of citizenship SINCE the 14th amendment as it was since. It means that the 14th amendment does NOT control the citizenship of people who fit this criteria MEANING the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizens.
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.