“President Obama has a duty to ask the Supreme Court for a declaratory judgment resolving all doubts with respect to his “natural born citizen” status.”
With all due respect Starwise, the Supreme Court decided this in 1875. Minor V. Happersett is very clear, concise, and impossible to misconstrue. It has also never been overturned.
For SCOTUS to rule in Obama’s favor, they would have to overturn the holding in Minor, which might well affect dozens of other SCOTUS cases spanning 136 years.
Minor v. Happersett literally states an NBC is a person with 2 parents who are CITIZENS and born in country. Obama does NOT fit into this. He should be removed from office immediately and be prosecuted for Crimes against this nation BECAUSE HE KNOWS HE IS AN ILLEGAL POTUS; AND DID IT DELIBERATELY ANYWAY, DEFRAUDING MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO VOTED FOR HIM, AND GAVE HIS CAMPAIGN DONATIONS.
The Supreme Court DECIDED THIS 136 YEARS AGO.
"Minor V. Happersett is very clear, concise, and impossible to misconstrue."
And yet it has for many years.
Here is what Charles Gordon wrote about the "natural born Citizen" clause in 1968,
"It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not. The recurring doubts relate to those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents...there has never been a definitive judicial decision."
and here is what he said about the Minor decision,
“The only question in the latter [Minor v. Happersett] case was whether a state could validly restrict voting to male citizens of the United States... In his generalized discussion, Chief Justice Waite observed that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” The court mentioned the presidential qualification clause and stated that it unquestionably included children born in this country of citizen parents, who “were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
“While this language appears to equate natives and natural-born, the Court specified that it was not purporting to resolve any issues not before it.” Charles Gordon, "Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma” 1968, Maryland Law Review
This is what J. Michael Medina wrote in 1988,
"Who is a Natural Born Citizen?”
“The answer to the above question is, quite simply, we do not know. “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizen. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”[Minor v. Happersett] Because no case squarely on point has arisen, resort must be had to the basic federal scheme of citizenship. It is only clear that naturalized citizens are not natural born.” J. Michael Medina, 1987, “The Presidential Qualification Clause in this Bicentennial Year: The Need to Eliminate the Natural Born Citizen Requirement” 1986, Oklahoma City University Law Review
And this is what Jill Pryor wrote in 1988,
"Despite its apparent simplicity, the natural-born citizen clause of the Constitution has never been, completely understood. It is well settled that "native-born" citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.2"
And in footnote 2, she writes, "Native-born citizens are natural born by virtue of the nearly universal principle of jus soli, or citizenship of place of birth." Jill Pryor, "The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty", 1988, The Yale Law Review
She does not mention the Minor decision at all.
And this recent statement,
"To cite Minor v. Happersett as the definitive statement of the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” is to exhibit an unfortunate lack of understanding of the Supreme Court’s 1874 decision in that case." J. Gordon Hylton, posted in comment on Marquette University Law School Faculity Blog, October, 2011. Professor Hylton teaches Constitutional Law at Marquette University.
And than there are the court decisions.
"But the supreme court has never squarely determined, either prior to or subsequent to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment in 1868, the political status of children born here of foreign parents. In the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 168, the court expressly declined to pass upon that question.” Judge Morrow, Wong Kim Ark, District Court Northern District of California, January 3, 1896 No. 11, 198.
And more recently,
"Thus, the Court [in the Minor opinion] left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.” Court of Appeals of Indiana, Ankeny vs. Governor Daniels
So while some believe that Minor v. Happersett is binding precedent, it is far from clear that the courts, if given the opportunity, would accept their beliefs over the persuasive opinions of these other guys. In fact, they may give the courts the out they want.
Of course, Danae, you are totally correct.
The inference I took (and I agree, Kenny, SCOTUS is the LAST place of resort), is that THIS cretin, this mirage and menace’s eligibility status needs to be decided once and for all ... HIS. However that could be done, and godonlyknows what that way is, I pray SOMETHING or SOMEone soon finds the secret key that opens the door to that ultimate process for HIM before this country is truly in decay and utter ruination.
He’s obviously not going to prompt it by any action (unless he’s banished, impeached .. by his own heavy handed unconstitutionality of presidential actions .. which IS definitely warranted now).