Posted on 02/22/2012 10:09:16 AM PST by jdirt
Please attend hearing if you can.
GA sold out for two new nuclear power plants. I hope AZ gets something equally valuable.
Couple of comments:
B) Only in your imagination did WKA confirm that NBC = two citizen parents. Ankeny got it right. You will be hearing a lot of Ankeny as all these case proceed.
D) Obama’s father was a legal resident alien at the time of his birth. His mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth. Once you are born a citizen, nothing your parents do can take away your citizenship. Once a citizen, Obama’s citizenship exists completely independent of his parents.
E)The Treaty of 1783 did not ban dual-citizenship. It dealt with how how untangle the mess caused as the population separated themselves into Americans or Englishmen. Nowhere does it specifically ban dual citizenship. It merely states that a British subject and his heirs who own property in America were afforded the same property rights by law that native citizens enjoyed.
Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor revolves around the citizenship of a child that was born in NY City to a English subject. The court specifically ruled that if he was born in NYC in that period after the declaration of independence and before the British occupied NYC, then he was a natural born citizen American citizen regardless of his fathers citizenship. If he was born before or after that period he was British because he was not born on American soil.
GA sold out for two new nuclear power plants. I hope AZ gets something equally valuable.
A long fence?
“B) The Supreme Court provided an exclusive definition of natural-born citizen in at least TWO landmark cases, Minor v. Happersett AND U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the latter of which confirmed the definition in the former: all children born in the country of citizen parents.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link to WKA, if any birthers care to read an actual decision, instead of living in WND-land...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
This is false. He was on a student visa and not a resident alien.
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. 21 Wall. 167.
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 [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
D) A resident alien is defined as having permanent residence and domicil. Barak Sr. was NEVER a permanent resident. His mother's citizenship is irrelevant in terms of the 14th amendment, since the WKA recognized the object of the 14th was to grant citizenship to the "colored race" and:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.
Notice the repeated use of the domicil criteria, which means permanent residence. The 14th does not include citizenship of the parents as a criteria, so Stanley Ann's citizenship is NOT the determing factor, but what her intention was for permanent residence. At the time Obama was born, she planned to move to Kenya with Obama's father, at least that's what her friend claimed. We know she moved out of the United States, so she NEVER had any intention of having permanent domicil. Natural-born citizenship is NOT citizenship by default for expatriates who only retain U.S. citizenship out of convenience rather than true allegiance.
E) Wong Kim Ark cited this passage, which is based on an interpretation of Shanks v. Dupont:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
This passage was from U.S. v Rhodes, a circuit or district court case, but it was citing Shanks v. Dupont, that said:
The treaty of peace of 1783 acted upon the state of things as it existed at that period. It took the actual state of things as its basis. All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states, were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British crown. All those, who then adhered to the British crown, were deemed and held subjects of that crown. The treaty of peace was a treaty operating between the states on each side, and the inhabitants thereof. In the language of the seventh article, it was a firm and perpetual peace between his Britannic majesty and the said states, "and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other." Who were then subjects or citizens, was to be decided by the state of facts. If they were originally subjects of Great Britain and then adhered to her, and were claimed by her as subjects, the treaty deemed them such. If they were originally British subjects, but then adhering to the states, the treaty deemed them citizens. Such, I think, is the natural, and indeed almost necessary meaning of the treaty; it would otherwise follow, that there would continue a double allegiance of many persons; an inconvenience which must have been foreseen, and would cause the most injurious effects to both nations.
Story says that the necessary menaing of the Treaty of 1783 is that you are EITHER a British subject or you are a U.S. citizen depending on the allegiance of the parents, because double allegiance would cause injurious effects to both nations. IOW, you can't be both. U.S. v Rhodes said in 1866 that this principle was as valid SINCE the Revolution as before. Obama's papa stayed a British-Kenyan citizen. Under these rulings, Obama is British at birth. As for his mother, the court said citizenship related to married women is based on the law of nations, not on public law:
The incapacities of femes covert, provided by the common law, apply to their civil rights, and are for their protection and interest. But they do not reach their political rights, nor prevent their acquiring or losing a national character. Those political rights do not stand upon the mere doctrines of municipal law, applicable to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations.
The law of nations says citizenship naturally follows the status of the father, so under four different SCOTUS legal precedents, Obama is NOT a natural-born citizen and he is NOT a 14th amendment citizen ... even if born in Abraham Lincoln's lap in the Lincoln Memorial.
Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbor follows the law of nations principle. The reason it makes John Inglis a U.S. citizen in the short window after the DoI is because his father's citizenship was briefly guided by public law which made New York citizens out of those person's whose intention was to permanently reside in N.Y. When the law was subverted by British occupation, then his father's citizenship was due to British law. No such law acted upon Barak Sr.'s citizenship, thus Obama is still subject to his father's citizenship.
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 [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
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.
We all know that Justice Gray took exception to the Slaughterhouse ruling on the subject clause, but he took NO exception to the Minor definition of NBC ... AND he affirmed Virginia Minor's citizenship was due to birth in the country to citizen parents. Why would Gray mention she was born to citizen parents when the Minor decision does NOT specify this fact??
We will just have to see how the judges decide, I guess.
You are right.
“If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776, he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
The issue is that before 4th July there was no America. After 15 September NYC was not American territory.
IF YOU ARE BORN ON AMERICAN TERRITORY THAN YOU ARE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN REGARDLESS OF YOUR PARENTS CITIZENSHIP.
As for SHANKS v. DUPONT
“There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the revolution, and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina.”
So they recognized a case whereby she was a citizen regardless of her father.
She lost her citizenship due to the Treaty of 1783 because she went to England to live. It is ludicrous to argue that language still applies. It was of limited scope designed purely to untangle the citizenship mess left by the revolution.
Yes, I acknowledged this in my previous comment. The part you're not understanding is that a law was involved in making father Inglis a New York citizen during that brief window.
2. That if he was born after the 4th of July 1776, and before the 15th of September 1776, he was born an American citizen; and that it makes no difference in this respect, whether or not parents had at the time of his birth, elected to become citizens of the state of New York, by manifesting an intention of becoming permanently members thereof, in the sense which I have endeavoured to explain.
When Story says it makes no difference, he's basing that on the operation of the statute I already mentioned:
We must then give a rational interpretation to the word, consistent with the rights of parties, and the accompanying language of the ordinance. By 'abiding' in the ordinance is meant not merely present inhabitants, but present inhabitancy coupled with an intention of permanent residence. This is apparent from the next clause of the ordinance, where it is declared, 'that all persons passing through, visiting, or making a temporary stay in the state being entitled to the protection of the laws during the time of such passage, visitation, or temporary stay, owe during the same allegiance thereto.' Their 'temporary stay' is manifestly used in contradiction to 'abiding,' and shows that the latter means permanent intentional residence.
- - -
... persons who were resident here without any intention of permanent residence, were not to be regarded as members of the state.
Thus, the "common law" doctrine you cited only applies to resident aliens because temporary visitors were NOT regarded as members of the state. Those with the intention to permanently reside are considered members, thus their children at birth follow the status of the parents.
So they recognized a case whereby she was a citizen regardless of her father.
The part you quoted says she was a citizen by election ... an action of maintaining U.S. residence would constitute the "election" part of the requirement thus adhering to U.S. allegiance, same as her father which was what the "birth" part referred to in the sentence PRIOR to what you quoted.
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina.
In the sentence following what you quoted, it says that if she was not of age, then her citizenship naturally follows her father's which is already established as South Carolina and U.S. citizen.
If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.
Notice it doesn't say she was a British subject because of being born in a British colony prior to the revolution. Her citizenship is as a South Carolina citizen, which automatically transferred to the United States after the DoI.
It is the doctrine of the American court that the issue of the Revolutionary War settled the point, that the American states were free and independent on 4 July, 1776. On that day, Mrs. Shanks was found under allegiance to the State of South Carolina as a natural born citizen to a community, one of whose fundamental principles was that natural allegiance was unalienable, and this principle was at no time relaxed by that state by any express provision, while it retained the undivided control over the rights and liabilities of its citizens.
Thus Shanks affirms that persons born in a state to parents who were members of that state and adhered to the allegiance of their state, automatically became natural-born citizens of the United States. It's the same principle as used in Minor: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Thease are the natural-born citizens.
I think we have reached a point where we are pointing at the same information and reaching different conclusions.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Ankeny / WKA is how the all these cases will be resolved. Obama will be deemed a NBC. That seems pretty clear to me - I understand you vehemently disagree.
Time will tell.
WKA affirmed the Minor definition of NBC and that NBC is NOT defined by the 14th amendment. Ankeny said the same thing without understanding that they said so. Ankeny then lied and contradicted themselves, all to reach a conclusion that is NOT based on an actual legal precedent. They claimed a question was left open about the children of aliens being NBCs, which simply is not true. The only legal precedent about such children from WKA is that the parents must be resident aliens, i.e., those with permanent residence and domicil in order to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment. It is a separate class of citizenship and is NOT the same thing as NBC.
Repeating that over and over again does not make it true.
Ankeny will be accepted as a mainstream interpretation of NBC as determined in WKA. Obama will be deemed a NBC.
Never said that repitition makes these facts true. The direct quotes are what makes them true. Ankeny contradicted themselves by admitting the guidance they divined was not based on an actual legal precedent. Footnote 14 kills that claim. Second, the Hoosier Hillbilly court said Minor left open a question of children born to alien parents, but they did NOT say the question was left open about the children born of citizen parents. Their footnote proves that WKA did NOT answer the question they said was left open. The only legal precedent that is left is from Minor which this court said was based on being born in the country to TWO citizen parents. Regardeless, a state appeals court does NOT trump the Supreme Court, which exclusively defined NBC as "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." The Minor court clearly said, "Our province is to decide what the law is, not to declare what it should be." The only law is how they defined NBC. Ankeny tried to say what they think it should be.
Yet Ankeny appears to have been accepted by the legal system. A Georgia judge and the SoS accepted it. How more judges accepting Ankeny will it take before you entertain the notion that you are wrong?
Please go and support Ken Allen. Status hearing is tomorrow at 9am on the forth floor rm 486 of the superior court house in Tucson with Judge Gordon.
Arizona Superior Court in Pima County 110 W. Congress St., Tucson, AZ 85701
Update?
The judge in Georgia accepted dicta as being “persuasive” despite the fact that the Ankeny decision never declared Obama to be born in the United States NOR did it declare him to be a natural-born citizen. Ankeny used an unprecedented assumption to say it did NOT need to accept the plaintiffs’ argument, which it dishonestly misrepresented anyway. Hopefully this will be made very clear on appeal. There’s NO precedent in Ankeny to make Obama natural-born citizen. NONE.
any updates?
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.