Posted on 01/10/2012 10:51:44 AM PST by Obama Exposer
As the election for the presidency starts to heat up, the discussion if Barack Obama is a natural born citizen is also heating up. The Supreme Court case Minor v Happersett is being used as the main case to declare Obama not natural born in growing state ballot challenges to his candidacy. What I have noticed in the heated arguments on many political forum boards lately is that Obama supporters are countering Minor v Happersett with the Indiana case Ankeny v Daniels. That case declares this:
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
Even though it is a state case, it is the gold standard case (along with the SCOTUS case Wong Kim Ark) that Obama supporters use to declare the issue case closed pertaining to Obama's eligibility. As we all know, Minor v Happersett is binding precedent on what a natural born Citizen is, born in the country to citizen parents. My question is if the judges got it wrong in Ankeny v Daniels, why didn't the plantiffs appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court? There seems to be no answer to this question.
See my Post 6
That post doesn’t mention anything about the governor’s responsibility toward vetting presidential candidates.
Of course, this idea, again, isn’t new:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2824280/posts?page=31#31
“Ummmm, you’ve ignored that the first half of the unanimous opinion of 3 based the meat of their decision on denying that the governor had any responsibility to vet presidential candidates.”
No, it just said they were idiots that had nothing to appeal, but I guess I thought this because of your later post and not because I took the time to actually read the decision and determine that the OP’s Red Herring about the NBC had no bearing whatsoever on the question he posed - I still doubt his intentions in posting this in the first place.
I've asked this question in regards to Minor several times. Maybe you can answer. What point does it serve for the Minor court to say ANYTHING about the citizenship of the parents if not for how it relates to the definition of NBC?? It's a narrower definition of citizenship than is required for determining voting rights, which they admit here:
If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters.
Why does the court emphasize citizenship by way of being born to citizen parents?? And why is that affirmed in the Wong Kim Ark definition when it gives the holding in Minor?? Nowhere in Minor does it specifically say that Virignia Minor was born to citizen parents, but it is definitely understood by Gray:
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.
Why emphasize this??? The direct question is if ALL citizens are voters, so why go to all the trouble of narrowing the criteria in regards to Virginia Minor if not for defining NBC??
We have sorted out that the "no doubt" language does not apply to NBC, ...
Really. Where exactly do you think this was sorted out at???
For that reason, I am somewhat certain that opponents of NBC find value in our using Minor. The degree of that certainty is further supported by the amateurish attempt to alter Minor or even eradicate it from our body of national knowledge; perhaps done so only to heighten our sense of its value.
This is nonsense. For the longest time, most Obama skeptics were only citing Vattel's definition of natural citizenship, not Minor. In Ankney v. Daniels, the court said the plaintiffs did not cite to authority (meaning the Supreme Court), so some of us got wise and understood we needed to specifically reference the Court using a definition of natural-born citizen that matches Vattel's. The best instance is in Minor, but it is not the ONLY one. Wong Kim Ark also cited the Minor definition and affirmed it, and went further and emphasized that a) the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens and b) that the court was committed to the view that NBCs are excluded from the birth clause of the 14th amendment. Whether anyone has to alter or eradicate Minor is an irrelevant sideshow. Minor provides an inconvenient, yet authoritative and conclusive definition of NBC. It is given specifically to satisfy the clause in Article II. The only response has been weak spin, such as what you claim about the "no doubt" language being "sorted out" and not applying or whatever. It's demonstrably wrong.
Namecalling isn’t a substitute for logic and reason. Calling the plaintiffs idiots is pure laziness. What exactly are YOUR intentions?? I notice you’ve punted on replying to any of the myriad of problems that were pointed out in the Ankeny decision in post 27 and 113. IOW, you’re not adding any substance to the thread.
I call them idiots because they tried to take this case to trial without decent counsel. That was idiotic. It was even MORE idiotic to appeal it without counsel.
How can I add substance to something which has no basis?
The only grounds for appeal in this case is if the plaintiffs can show that they DID provide evidence that the Govenor is required to verify the candidates eligibility. Everything else is just a waste of time.
The Court could have written in it’s ruling that they believe the NBC clause means that any child born naturally (i.e not via c-section, etc...) in the US is a NBC - but that STILL wouldn’t be grounds for appeal UNLESS they used that to actually dismiss the case.
The case was dismissed, rightly or wrongly, based on one thing only - the failure of the plaintiffs to show the the Govenor failed to perform his duties.
So, if you want to rail against badly argued / written judicial opinions - which have no bearing on the actual decision itself - more power to you!
Your reply was the height of sanctimony. I asked you to quote my offensive words and you were UNABLE to do so. Quote exactly what I said that got you so worked up-—i.e.: provide my exact words w a link—or stop being such a jackass.
As for S. Logan, answer this. What conservative in the history of the world has ever answered a question w a default, knee-jerk resort to Moral Equivalence? I know of no case where any conservative ever has; Moral Equivalence is anathema to conservatives.
Liberals, though, live and breathe Moral Equivalence. They resort to it as naturally as a fish swims in water.
My answer is in the next paragraph, with the following condition. If you happen to agree you do not need to say a thing. If you should disagree with the answer, just write it off as sadly mistaken, I can live with that. You are certainly free to discuss it with others, just do not respond to me.
Thank you. The wording of your question demonstrates that parental citizenship may only "relate to" and not entirely define NBC. Minor's citizenship was stipulated, and the court referred to NBC solely as a means of determining whether even the highest form of citizenship should, via the intent of the 14th A, trump a state law that prohibited its female citizens from voting. It concluded, under the very best circumstances for a U.S. female, that despite the 14th A, a state could indeed deny its females the vote.
It was not necessary for the court to conclusively define NBC because it was not a concept in dispute before the court. That is why the holding of the case does not mention NBC. That is also why it has been cited in cases limited to 14th A disputes for its manner of testing the 14th A, but has never been cited in a case as providing for a defintition of NBC because the later cases were not concerned with NBC.
Think of it this way, if the court had mentioned "bread" and noted such was available in loafs and was sometimes wrapped, that would not have conclusively defined bread.
The only response has been weak spin, such as what you claim about the "no doubt" language being "sorted out" and not applying or whatever.
Many readers of this thread will note Edge's mischaracterization the way the "no doubt" language was resolved on this thread, and recognize the intellectual dishonesty in his post.
You can’t quote what I said because there was nothing offensive about it. You are harassing and haranguing me over something I never even said.
Or if not, then are you the new Posting Police? Have you made it a crime to ask, on a conservative site, if Obama is a liar? Does JR know you are harassing people for daring to ask such an outre question?
What is your problem? Why are you stalking me???
Sorry, but this is pointless fudging ... you begrudge them for not having "decent" counsel, yet out of all the eligibility lawsuits, including those WITH counsel (decent or otherwise), this is the ONLY one where a court made an attempt, albeit a poor one, to address the merits of the question of natural-born citizenship. And then YOU admit the only thing of merit that the said court used to dismiss the case had nothing to do with that same question. The bottom line is that the Indiana Appeals Court does not carry any legal weight on this question outside of Indiana ... and their ill-formed opinion of natural-born citizen does not outweigh the clearly articulated definition as used by the Supreme Court in two landmark cases.
So, if you want to rail against badly argued / written judicial opinions - which have no bearing on the actual decision itself - more power to you!
This is a debate forum and there are plenty of people who resort to this poor decision as if it is, in the words of the OP, the "gold standard" for defining natural-born citizen. Railing against ignorance is a good thing. Thanks for helping me prove my point.
Whatever - have a good time ....
Ever since you responded to a post Not Addressed To You, all you’ve done is harass and harangue me. My quote stands on its own merit. I asked if Obama is a liar. For whatever reason that ignited your fuse and you’ve been mischaracterizing my quote ever since. I ask again, what is your problem? Why are you so offended that the question is raised, on a conservative site, as to Obama’s honesty and integrity? Do you run all over FR attacking anyone and everyone who dares to ask if Obama is a liar?
Otherwise, why single me out? Why are you stalking me???
You are lying about me. You are totally mischaracterizing what I said. You have to. Otherwise your personal attacks on me, your harassing and haranguing and stalking, make no sense. I.e.: you have to lie about me to justify your false accusations.
Like I said, your posts are there. Good day.
You are one of the nastiest people I’ve met on this site or anywhere else. You have a chip on your shoulder the size of Gibraltar. For some reason, questions about Obama’s integrity set you off—or at least they do when I ask them. [Again, why single me out??? People are characterizing Obama as a liar all over FR. Where are the links to you attacking them???] You see questioning Obama’s honesty as a green light to come after me, out of the blue, and start harassing me/mischarcterizing my every word.
None of what you accused me of re: Logan was true. It’s all a concoction of your fevered brain. My original post actually sought to distinguish between Logan and a troll that was zotted. It came down on Logan’s side, though your personal animosity toward me prevented you from seeing it.
I would not want the harangue to which you’ve subjected on my posting history. It stinks.
Keep digging. Your lies about me stink like a week old dead whale carcass.
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.