Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Libloather

The Kansas Objections Board wanted to deny this challenge, but couldn’t find a legal reason to do so. They suggested that the objection was reading “too much” into Minor v. Happersett which they were told makes a clear material distinction between natural-born citizen and 14th amendment citizenship by birth. The objector pointed out that Obama’s cousnel cited only one Supreme Court case, Wong Kim Ark, but that their citation only applied to 14th amendment citizenship and the term “citizen of the United States,” not Article II eligibility. He also pointed out that Obama’s counsel ignored that the same decision said the 14th amendment does not say who shall be natural-born citizens, but that it cites Minor for the definition of all children born to parents who were its citizens.

The SOS is hinting still that he wants to sweep this under the rug and that he would use a nonlegally supported definition of NBC to do so. It’s very important to try to hold these people accountable and insist that they follow Supreme Court precedent, especially when Luria v. United States in 1913 points to Minor and not Wong Kim Ark to specifically define presidential eligibility.


33 posted on 09/14/2012 2:12:49 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: edge919

I would bet that these KS Republicans will indeed yield to Obama, but Obama is not contesting KS, is he? Wonder what ol’ Alf Landon would say about this? Wasn’t he their “straight talker”?


37 posted on 09/14/2012 7:06:13 AM PDT by Theodore R. ( Who among us has not erred? Akin's the One!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson