Posted on 03/06/2013 1:26:12 PM PST by Perdogg
Sen Ted Cruz's mother was a US Citizen at the time of his birth, therefore he is nBC! He just said on Hannity he was a US Citizen at time of birth.
The law of nations wasn't just Vattel. Have you even done any reading of the law of nations? There were 7 or 8 prominent writers on the Law of Nations. Vattel was only one; albeit a prominent one. But his views on citizenship WERE NOT SHARED BY EVEN ONE OF THE OTHER 7 OR 8 MAJOR WRITERS ON THE LAW OF NATIONS.
So there absolutely IS NO "LAW OF NATIONS 'DEFINITION'" of natural born citizenship, or of citizenship in general, for that matter. Because the major writers on the law of nations held a BUNCH of different and conflicting views on citizenship.
No, actually it's not. The Wong court cited English common law over dozens of pages after affirming the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship and AFTER it affirmed the Law of Nations definition from Minor.
The Wong Court cited the common law, which include English AND AMERICAN common law.
And Lynch (1844) clearly stated that THE AMERICAN COMMON LAW made people natural born citizens WITHOUT RESPECT TO THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS.
Upholding the Constitution has nothing to do with scratching and clawing at it.
Insisting that it says things that it VERY CLEARLY never said - such as that it takes two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen - is twisting it, scratching at it, and clawing at it.
It’s a shame how dumb the framers of the Constitution were, spending all those extra words writing the qualifications for president without regard to what they had already written as requirement for Legislators, isn’t it? I wonder what soem of those men who authored parts of the Constitution have said reagrding NBC (’of that there has never been any doubt’)?
There have been 20 SCOTUS appeals for Petitions For Writs of Certiorari, Applications for Stays and Applications for Injunctions which have been heard in Conference. Any single Justice can place a Cert Petition on the Discuss List and any single Justice can grant an injunction or a stay.
When a Justice places a petition on the Discuss List, the appellee is always asked to submit a brief in opposition so that the Justices can read both sides’ legal positions.
There has never been an Appellee Brief requested or submitted in an Obama eligibility petition or application.
Anderson v Obama (Petition for rehearing)
Barnett v Obama (Cert Petition)
Berg v Obana (Application and Cert Petition)
Beverly v FEC (Cert Petition)
Craig v US (Cert Petition)
Donofrio v Wells (Application)
Farrar v Obama (Application and Cert. Petition)
Herbert v US (Cert Petition)
Hollister v Soetoro (Cert Petition)
Kerchner v Obama (Cert Petition)
Keyes v Bowen (Cert Petition)
Lightfoot v Bowen (Application)
Noonan v Bowen (Application)
Purpura v Sibelius (Cert Petition)
Rhodes v MacDonald (Application and Cert Petition)
Schneller v Cortes (Application and Cert Petition)
ex. rel Sibley v Obama (Cert Petition)
Sibley v DC Board of Elections (Cert Petition)
Welden v Obama (Cert Petition)
Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz (Appkication)
Minor was a women’s suffrage action and US v Wong Kim Ark came 23 years AFTER Minor.
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
Is there some part of the word "verbatim" you don't understand??
Minor: 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 ...The Wong Court cited the common law, which include English AND AMERICAN common law.
Law of Nations by Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
... to define citizenship by birth via the 14th amendment. To define NBC, they cited and affirmed the Minor definition, which I've already shown is a verbatim match of Law of Nations.
And Lynch (1844) clearly stated that THE AMERICAN COMMON LAW made people natural born citizens WITHOUT RESPECT TO THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS.
The Lynch decision was a state court ruling by one judge giving an unsupported personal opinion. There's a reason why Lynch's claim about NBC is NOT cited in Wong Kim Ark while the Minor definition of NBC is fully cited.
Insisting that it says things that it VERY CLEARLY never said - such as that it takes two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen - is twisting it, scratching at it, and clawing at it.
This is drama-queen nonsense. Twenty-seven Supreme Court justices affirmed the definition I gave. There is no twisting, scratching or clawing.
And another 15 years after Wong Kim Ark, the Luria decision cited Minor and NOT Ark as a precedent on presidential eligibility in a unanimous decision.
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.
Minor is the FIRST case cited after referencing native citizens and eligibility for the office of President. There's no mention of Wong Kim Ark at all. Minor's definition of native citizenship was the same as for natural-born citizenship: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. This definition was affirmed in the Wong Kim Ark decision before Minor was cited specifically tied to Art II presidential eligibility meaning that 27 different Supreme Court justices affirmed this NBC definition. An ignorant statement by an Arizona superior court judge that gives no legal basis for its assumption fails upon actual inspection of Supreme Court decisions.
Your post 95. The subject was what type of US citizen Mccain is. You suggested the 14 th created a fourth type. If we agree that the 14 th doesn’t apply to McCain and that he was not a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution that only leaves two types left. So do you think McCain is a naturalized or a natural born citizen? Or are you going to try to invent a fifth type? Lol!!!
Is there some part of the word "verbatim" you don't understand??
Is there some part of the fact that there were 7 or 8 prominent writers on the law of nations, and that NONE of the others agreed with Vattel on citizenship, that you don't understand?
Minor: 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 ...
Law of Nations by Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Why don't you quote the entire sentence? Hmmmmm?
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.
Whether the wording seems "verbatim" to Vattel or not, it is clear that the Court was NOT referencing Vattel in that sentence, they were referencing THE COMMON LAW.
How do we know? THEY TOLD US.
The Wong Court cited the common law, which include English AND AMERICAN common law.
... to define citizenship by birth via the 14th amendment. To define NBC, they cited and affirmed the Minor definition, which I've already shown is a verbatim match of Law of Nations.
No. They specifically told us EXACTLY WHY they cited Minor, and it was NOT what you claim:
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.
So they cited Minor NOT to show that children had to have citizen parents to be natural born citizens, but SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THAT THE MINOR COURT BELIEVED NO SUCH THING.
And they ALSO cited Minor for the purpose of showing that it was the COMMON LAW (and not Vattel) that one OUGHT TO LOOK TO in order to understand the phrase:
"In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.
So yes, they certainly cited Minor. Just not for the reason you claim.
And Lynch (1844) clearly stated that THE AMERICAN COMMON LAW made people natural born citizens WITHOUT RESPECT TO THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS.
The Lynch decision was a state court ruling by one judge giving an unsupported personal opinion. There's a reason why Lynch's claim about NBC is NOT cited in Wong Kim Ark while the Minor definition of NBC is fully cited. Again, the Court said the Minor passage was cited to show that the Minor Court did not necessarily believe it took citizen parents to make a natural born citizen. And while they didn't pull the quote from Lynch, THEY APPROVINGLY REFERENCED THE CASE THREE TIMES.
This is drama-queen nonsense. Twenty-seven Supreme Court justices affirmed the definition I gave. There is no twisting, scratching or clawing.
No, I'm sorry. That is simply not the case.
The evidence is absolutely, utterly overwhelming that neither Minor nor Wong say what you claim, and that virtually no real authority in history, including conservative Constitutional think tanks, agrees with you. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor completely contradicts you. And yet, like all birthers, you imagine you know more than virtually every authority in history, including the great majority of Supreme Court Justices who have ever commented on the issue.
And that's all I have to say. I stated two hours ago on another thread that my weekend was over, and I am returning to my work week. This is my final post to you.
So keep on twisting and misrepresenting the Constitution. Because I know that the facts are completely irrelevant to you, and you most certainly will.
Ok. Not your post but decidedly the subject under discussion when you opined about the 14 th.
I was responding to your errant claim that there are only three types of citizenship. The Supreme Court created a fourth. McCain's citizenship is debatable because under the law of nations, he's natural-born, but under statutory law, he fits closer with naturalization.
This claim is irrelevant. You've not provided proof to back up the 7 or 8 prominent writers, but it's moot because I've already given the Supreme Court citation and the Vattel citation that match verbatim.
Why don't you quote the entire sentence? Hmmmmm?
It doesn't change anything so it wasn't necessary. The citation does NOT say "English common law." The common law that it cites is STILL a verbatim match of Vattel's Law of Nations.
Whether the wording seems "verbatim" to Vattel or not, it is clear that the Court was NOT referencing Vattel in that sentence, they were referencing THE COMMON LAW.
Nonsense. A verbatim match would be strong enough to be considered plagairism, but more likely, the court is being consistent with John Marshall's direct citation of this chapter of Vattel in The Venus case.
So they cited Minor NOT to show that children had to have citizen parents to be natural born citizens, but SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THAT THE MINOR COURT BELIEVED NO SUCH THING.
You need to read that again. It says the OPPOSITE of what you're claiming. Otherwise, why does it continue and give the holding of the Minor decision as saying that Minor was found to be a citizen because she was born to citizen parents??
And they ALSO cited Minor for the purpose of showing that it was the COMMON LAW (and not Vattel) that one OUGHT TO LOOK TO in order to understand the phrase:
Again, you're misreading what it says. There's nothing here that says "not Vattel." Second, it says that one needs to resort to the common law as an AID in the construction of "the provision." The "provision" is the birth provision of the 14th amendment, not the natural-born citizen provision in Art. II. This citation is saying that the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship, and that one has to go ELSEWHERE to define the birth provision. And that's why the Ark court tries to use English common law as an "aid," but it NEVER uses English common law verbatim because it can't. The Ark court respected the UNANIMOUS Minor decision, so it created a SEPARATE definition for 14th amendment citizenship by birth that was based partly on English common law with the addition of permanent residence and domicil of the parents to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment. NBC is STILL a verbatim match of Vattel's Law of Nations. And that same definition is given verbatim in the dissent in Wong Kim Ark.
Again, the Court said the Minor passage was cited to show that the Minor Court did not necessarily believe it took citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
There's nothing that says this.
And while they didn't pull the quote from Lynch, THEY APPROVINGLY REFERENCED THE CASE THREE TIMES.
Not exactly. They cited it a case that went to an extreme on common law:
Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents.
If this were compelling, then the Ark decision could simply stop here and declare Ark to be a citizen. But this obviously is not the case at all. This citation is from page 674 of the decision. The decision goes on another 30 pages trying to find OTHER stronger, more compelling justification.
No, I'm sorry. That is simply not the case.
It is the case. Minor was unanimous: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. These were natural-born citizens. Ark cited this definition and gave the holding based on citizen parents and the dissent gave the Law of Nations-Vattel definition. Luria, 15 years later, unanimously cited Minor and not Ark, as THE precedent on presidential eligibility. That's 27 different SCOTUS justices that were consistent and unanimous. Sandra Day O'Connor is irrelevant.
No court has ruled Obama to be ineligible on the basis of the holding in Minor (or any other precedential ruling).
As the judge in Arizona said in Allen v Obama: “Contrary to plaintiff’s claims, Minor v Happersett does not hold otherwise.”
Passing time has shown/demonstrated that the Courts and Congress have not given squat to Obama’s eligibility to any other past court decisions. I wonder why.
I think its because they believe that he was born at 7:24 pm on Friday, August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. Birth announcements appeared in the August 13 & August 14, 1961 Honolulu newspapers and his father acknowledged paternity and birth location in an August 31, 1961 interview with the Immigration and Naturalization Service concerning his student visa extension.
In 2009, the House of Representatives passed House Resolution 593 of the 111th Congress acknowledging Obama’s birth in Hawaii as a part of Hawaii’s 50th Anniversary of Statehood. The vote on House Res. 593 was 378-0.
As John Boehner succinctly put it: “The state of Hawaii has said that he was born there, that’s good enough for me.”
The courts haven’t acted in part because this is an eligibility challenge and none of the four people with standing to challenge his eligibility because they were denied the office, have ever filed suit: John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan, the only other people to win electoral votes and have a legitimate chance at the office.
This is so that citizenship at birth will not be granted to the child of a U.S. citizen who never resided in the USA.
For example - if a couple of U.S. citizens had a child overseas that child would be a U.S. citizen at birth. But if that child NEVER resided in the USA but was an ‘expatriot’ with his parents his entire life - the child of that U.S. citizen who never resided in the USA (the expatriot citizen couple's grandchild) would not be eligible for US citizenship at birth based upon the U.S. citizenship of his parent who never resided in the USA.
B$. There was an attempt to declare him and Obama NBC through a Sense of the Senate resolution which is as legal as them declaring Wednesday the official green turkey day.
Since we surely are now citizens of the world as Obama claimed to be on his campaign tour, then let us put aside all those writings of those old white people, and move Forward.
Lie much?
Care to look how old she was, and how long she had lived within the United States. There were rules about such things when Obama was born.
But he77 why bother with that cr@p, when we can ignore the Constitution and get whatever we want, after all the other side does it.
citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
natural born citizen.
naturalized citizen.
This should be amusing.
I can accept that the House voted as it did. However, what caught my attention was the comment by Boehner who often acts like what is good enough for him is/should be good enough for all people in the USA. As for me it is a matter of luck if Boehner and I agree.
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.