Posted on 07/03/2011 7:26:19 PM PDT by sourcery
“Who decided in Minor that it means “born in the US to parents who were citizens.” “
You mean the DECISION?
“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.”
Oh wait...you mean in your misreading of their DICTA!
WKA....seriously? This case has nothing to do with the definition of natural born Citizen.
Minor held that Virgian Minor was a citizen. One reason we know that is because it was stated in the syllabus. That's not done for dicta.
And per the Ogilvie holding, Minor's definition of NBC cannot be dicta, because the Minor Court relied on that holding to hold that the 14th Amendment had not granted the petitioner citizenshp, since she was an NBC and so didn't need the first clause of the 14th Amendment to have that status. And that, too, must be a holdiing, because the Court relied on it in order further hold that citizenshp did not automatically entail the right to vote.
And that citizenship holding all by itself sets a precedent that the citizenship granted by the 14th is not the same as "natural born citizenship." As does the Marbury requirement that every Constitutional clause must have substantive effect. Which would not be the case if all those born in the US (excepting the children of ambassadors and such) were "natural born citizens" per the 14th, since the words of Article II, section 1 already grant Constitutional citizenshp to whomever is an NBC. To interpret the definition of NBC as precisely the same as the citizenship definition given in the first clause of the 14th is a violation of the interpretive rule set by Marbury vs. Madison, since in that case, removing the first clause of the 14th Amendment would make no change to the law whatsoever.
The “dicta” in WKA is a recital of court cases starting from the time of the colonies, showing how NBC was used in the law. It isn’t making a decision, just showing why no one had questioned it before.
The Constititional Convention didn't include a definition of "natural born citizen" precisely because they didn't see themselves as in the dictionary business, and because their understanding of the law of nations meant that there was a natural definition of that term which was (in their view) based on reason and first principles, and which their ethic impelled them to leave in that state. Putting the definition in the Constitutiion would have contradicted the concept "natural."
The US has a Constitution. The UK does not. In the US, it is crucial to distinguish between rules and/or definitions established by the Constitution versus those established by Congress. There is no such issue or distinction in UK law. In British law, it is meaningless to speak of a "Constitutional" natural born subject versus a statutory one. That's a crucial reason why one cannot simply use the British legal term "natural born subject" in US law as though they were analogous.
Another reason is because the British at the time used "natural born subject" in a way that was perfectly synonymous with the American usage of the term "citizen." Only later did the British adopt the term "citizen" themselves when applied to the nation as a whole (as opposed to a city, for example.) Over time, they de-emphasized the term subject, so that now no more new subjects are created, only citizens. But they still have multiple classes of citizens, with some having rights that others do not. Such as the right to residence in Britain.
The point isn't that modern British citizenship law applies in any way to the US. The point is that the definitions of legal terms cannot be comprehended or correctly used outside of the culture, society and legal system in which they evolved. And the differences in the US and British legal systems were fundamental from the inception of the US, and in ways that directly and severely impacted issues of citizenship.
Them same problem exists with US State laws, where it also crucial to distinguish between the provisions of the State's Constitution and the statues enacted by its legislature.
The legally and semantically correct translation of "natural born subject" into US legal terminology is "citizen." To see that, consider the following passage from Blackstone's Commentaries:
To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
In the above quote, it makes perfect sense in the context of US law if and only if one substitutes "citizen" for every occurrence of "natural born subject" in the original. It makes no sense at all, and appears as a logical contradiction or else as bizare word play if one instead substitutes "native born citizen" (or "born a citizen") in place of each occurrence of "natural born subject."
You’ve been pwned on this argument several times. The SCOTUS rejected Virginia Minor’s argument that she was a citizen via the 14th amendment. They rejected her argument because the court said women born in the country to citizen parents did NOT need the 14th amendment to be citizens. The Wong Kim Ark ruling affirmed this decision as it related to citizenship and followed that precedent. Justice Gray had to find different criteria to find Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen and in doing so, he affirmed a legal difference between natural born citizenship and 14th amendment citizenship by birth.
Per the binding SCOTUS precedent in Ogilvie, any finding as to the meaning of law on which the Court independently relies to issue a holding is itself a holding. The proof that such applies to Minor's definition of NBC is in my essay.
“WKA....seriously? This case has nothing to do with the definition of natural born Citizen.”
The Court of Appeals of Indiana cited WKA on natural-born citizenship, in a unanimous opinion affirming the dismissal of Ankeny v. Daniels (quoted in post 82 of this thread). The current edition of Black’s Law Dictionary cites WKA on the definition of the term*. Articles on presidential eligibility in the peer-reviewed literature of American law cite WKA, including Charles Gordon’s 1968 paper which the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California cited in the eligibility suit Barnett v. Obama.
So, bluecat6, do you have citations to back up your claim there, or is it just what you came up with playing make-believe constitutional scholar?
(*)I looked it up in Black’s a year or so ago. I don’t actually own a copy. I’ll re-check, and correct myself if wrong.
It’s logically and factually impossible to cite a case’s definition of “natural born citizen” when the text of the opinion of the cited cases nowhere includes the term “natural born citizen.”
...That all Persons born, or who hereafter shall be born, out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, whose Fathers were or shall be, by virtue of a Statute made in the Fourth Year of King George the Second, to explain a Clause in an Act made in the Seventh Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Anne, for naturalizing Foreign Protestants, which relates to the natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, intitled to all the Rights and Privileges of natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England or of Great Britain, shall and may be adjudged and taken to be, and are hereby declared and enacted to be, natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever, as if he and they had been and were born in this Kingdom: ...
That language only makes sense if "natural born subject" has the same meaning us "citizen" in US law. It makes no sense if it means the same thing as "natural born citizen," since in that case even naturalized citizens could Constitutionally be President.
Excuse me, but it’s not MY position-—it’s the Constitution’s. Go back and read it. Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, but the last time I checked he is still (unfortunately) our president. It doesn’t matter where his parents were born or if they are citizens or not. If it did he never would have been elected. Please, give me your “enlightened” view on how this all happened.
Also, just because someone (al-Awlaki) is qualified to be elected president doesn’t mean it should or will happen. You’re forgetting the will of the American people. After all, they have a say in all of this. Even you would have to admit that O.J. Simpson is qualified to be president, even by your standards of both parents being natural born citizens (mom born in CA, dad born in AR), but I don’t think it will happen anytime soon.
News flash: This dilema has already been resolved. Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and he was elected president. The precedent has been set. If it has happened once before it can happen again with Bobby Jindal. Case closed. Now whether it WILL happen is another issue—that will be up to the American people.
Serving as President is not a right, it’s a privilege. That privilege, like all other powers of government, is one formally granted by the people via their instrument for granting any and all governmental authority, the US Constitution. The people have not yet granted anyone who was not born in the US to parents who were US citizens the privilege of serving as President, nor granted the government any authority to operate with such a person as President.
“The people have not yet granted anyone....”
Doesn’t this happen through elections? Are you saying that he was not elected? You better tell John McCain-—he thinks he lost.
The Constitution establishes as republic, not a democracy. So no, elections do not override the Constitution, which is the Supreme law of the land, overriding even the results of elections—all of which are only authorized, established and governed by statute. The Constitution grants the State legislature the plenary power for deciding how each State elects the President, which does not have to involve voting by anyone other than the Presidential electors (who can be chosen however each State’s legislature requires by law.)
mrkd
sourcery wrote: “It’s logically and factually impossible to cite a case’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ when the text of the opinion of the cited cases nowhere includes the term ‘natural born citizen.’”
First, what case are you talking about? The term ‘natural-born citizen’ appears in the Supreme Court’s opinion deciding WKA, and in the Court of Appeals of Indiana’s opinion deciding Ankeny v. Daniels. You addressed this comment to me, and those are the cases I brought up. Is your issue the hyphen between ‘natural’ and ‘born’? Did I forget some case to which I cited this issue?
Second, useful a tool as string-search is, you should have noticed by now that legal scholarship is harder than that. Many talented people have devoted their life’s work to bringing clarity to fine points of law. Unless self-deception is your actual goal, trying to dumb-down the material to your comfort level is clearly not working, has not worked, and almost certainly will not work.
When law dictionaries, court decisions, and the peer-reviewed literature all say that you are wrong, maybe it’s time to take a clue. All the more so when you find yourself on the side that has lost over a hundred legal actions and won zero.
Secondly, the term "natural born citizen" does not appear anywhere in the text of the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark. Now that's any easy one to falsify, no? Just cite where it does.
Unless self-deception is your actual goal, trying to dumb down the clear and unambigous holding as to the meaning of "natural born citizen" as defined in Minor vs. Hapersett is clearly not working, has not worked, and will not work in the future.
sourcery wrote: “The Constitution establishes as republic, not a democracy. So no, elections do not override the Constitution, which is the Supreme law of the land, overriding even the results of elections—all of which are only authorized, established and governed by statute.”
Snipping dupree’s challenge does not make it go away. Sourcery, you had claimed: “The people have not yet granted anyone who was not born in the US to parents who were US citizens the privilege of serving as President”. As dupree had pointed out, the people have granted Barack Obama the privilege of serving as president.
Dupree had noted John McCain III’s concession. McCain upheld our nation’s proud tradition of how worthy candidates accept electoral defeat:
“The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly.” — John S. McCain, 04 Nov 2008.
That alone shows that dupree was right, but there’s also a previous case. Over a century ago, the people granted — indirectly through the constitutional succession process — the privilege of serving as president to Chester Arthur. Best evidence is that Arthur was born the son of a foreigner, an Irishman. There’s no evidence that anyone cared about Arthur’s fathers citizenship. Those who knew made nothing of it, and those who did not know did not bother to ask, near as history records.
sourcery “My apologies. I should have searched for ‘natural-born’ and not just ‘natural born’.”
Yup. To your credit, this time you checked your own work. I honestly wasn’t sure what you were arguing. I had hunch, and I put out a pretty strong clue in, ‘Is your issue the hyphen between ‘natural’ and ‘born’?” That bit of trivia turned out to be it.
Thing is, you missed the real stuff. Here it is again: “Second, useful a tool as string-search is, you should have noticed by now that legal scholarship is harder than that. Many talented people have devoted their life’s work to bringing clarity to fine points of law. Unless self-deception is your actual goal, trying to dumb-down the material to your comfort level is clearly not working, has not worked, and almost certainly will not work.”
Whether you should have done the string-search both with and without the hyphen has nothing to do with who can be President of the United States. It is delusion.
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.