Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.
It's two words. Each is translated separately. In 1781, the framers translated 'naturel' to be natural-born.
The mistranslation of Vattel took place in 1797, 10 years after the Constitution.
The 1797 translation FIXED the previous translation which was bad.
It was only cited in WKA to show the Slaughterhouse decision included a wrong phrase, one that the court had NOT thought out before writing - as Minor did not bother to think things thru before calling Vattel common law.
The "wrong phrase" had nothing to do with the Minor decision. The Minor decision was binding so Gray had to figure out a way to work around it because Wong Kim Ark was CLEARLY not a natural-born citizen.
By the way, thanks for pointing out the the Minor definition of NBC is based on Vattel. You're arguing against yourself again. Good job there. Second, don't be an idiot on the use of the term common law. Blackstone in his commentaries referred to the Law of Nations as common law.
At no time does WKA cite Minor as evidence about the meaning of NBC.
Wrong. He explained how the Minor decision determined that the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. And then he gives the holding based on Minor being born to citizen parents.
You CAN'T get around this. You've admitted this is based on Vattel, so that proves the Minor court REJECTED English common law in defining NBC, and the WKA decision AFFIRMED the Minor decision. Calling it a "screw-up" doesn't explain why the Minor court insisted on using this definition or why WKA says affirms that Minor was born to citizen parents. My guess is that these courts were respecting Marshall's citation of this Vattel passage in The Venus, but they wisely corrected the translation to say natural-born citizens.
Not at all. This is an example of circular logic and an unsupported assumption. The act of electing him doesn't make him Constitutiionally eligible. Plenty of people who voted for him don't know his background, don't understand how the SCOTUS decisions make him ineligible, and an alarming number who voted for him just don't care if he meets the Constitutional requirements. The electors exercise a partisan function, so there's no inherent assumption they will be honest or respect the Constitution.
As it is their job under the Constitution to select our presidents, it is their job to either determine whether candidates are in compliance with constitutional qualifications.
Where does it specifiy that voters have a job to make sure candidates are in compliance?? Let's see a direct quote form the Constitution.
In both of the last two elections, the "birther" issues were widely debated and a decision was made.
The so-called "birther" issues were not debated honestly or fully. Procedural hurdles have been used to prevent voters from getting a legitimate and unfettered examination of Obama's credentials.
So, either the voters and the electors rejected your definition of the term "natural born citizen" or the they determined that Obama's father was someone who was an American citizen. I think the former more likely than the latter.
Sorry, but this is a meaningless assumption. A concensus in support of an error doesn't make the error correct. And who would have determined that Obma's father was an American citizen?? This is outright nonsense.
If Mr. Cruz runs, the voters and their electors will consider his qualifications to be president. If you feel he fails to meet the constitutional qualifications, then let the voters know about your feelings before they perform their duty.
That's what we're doing right now. The Supreme Court gave a clear and exclusive definition for anyone honest enough to comprehend and respect it: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
In approximately 57 straight presidential elections, the voters and the electors have performed their constitutional function without any extra-constitutional interference by any Supreme Court attempts to reject a candidate's qualifications.
More circular logic. It hasn't been necessary until Obama was errantly elected.
The voters and their electors will continue to decide these questions and select our presidents per the Constitution.
... or not. Obama was NOT selected per the Constitution.
Right and some of those "data points" were contained in the DOH's standard vital-records request form that Bennett submitted along with the list and electronic copy of the alleged LFBC. It's important to note that he sent them more information to verify than they actually returned, which legally means the additional information was not verified, thus the WHOLE of the LFBC is not verified.
2. The Hawaii DOH sent a verification of Obama's birth back to Bennett.
Not immediately and not without a bunch of unnecessary consternation.
3. Hawaii law states that any verification shall be considered for all purposes that the event took place as described and that all the facts of the event are as described by the applicant (Bennett).
Which becomes a problem when the letter of verification FAILS to verify "all the facts of the event" as was described by the applicant.
Focussing on whether he used the words 'matches' or 'identical' is more posturing. They are not relevant and do not affect the legality of the verification.
This is incorrect. Under the state and federal rules of evidence, the caretaker of the records has an obligation to say if the copies are "correct" or not. That's why it's a critical omission when Alvin T. Onaka Ph.D. refused to verify all the information and refused to verify that the copy is true, correct and/or identical to the original birth certificate on file. Second, Onaka used different terminology to "verify" different parts of Bennett's request. He did NOT use the DOH's legal term for a live certificate of birth to verify Obama's place of birth. This man is a professional. Why would he change the language??
Article 2 of the Constitution empowers electors to vote for our president. A majority of electors is required. The same Article provides electors with directions as to qualifications - age, citizenship and residency requirements. Just read it. It's all laid out for the electors.
What you won't find in the Constitution is any textual support for the role that you propose for the Supreme Court - to screen and approve the qualifications of candidates. If you are suggesting that electors might make a mistake, you are really suggesting only that you might disagree with or disapprove of their analysis, findings and decision. Please keep in mind that your proposal to create an extra-constituional role for the Supreme Court (screening and approving candidates) would carry with it the same risk in that you might very well disagree with Supreme Court analysis, findings and decision. There just isn't any constitutional way to ensure that you will not disagree with the decisions made by whomever is constitutionally empowered to make the decision.
Our Constitution empowers voters and their electors to select presidents. Our Constitution empowers the Congress to remove presidents through an impeachment process. You might prefer that the Constitution empower the Supreme Court to perform (or supervise) those functions, but at present it does not.
One good reason for not adopting your proposal to create a candidate screening role for the Supreme Court is the institutional limitations of the Supreme Court. If the justices want to disregard public records (birth certificates) or to question their accuracy, how are the justices to even begin to investigate and determine the location of births where there are no competent witnesses (other than the candidate) living? Should they hold a trial in the Supreme Court and hear witnesses? Should they empanel a jury to find facts for them? Or, should the findings of fact be made by some local judge or jury and the Supreme Court just adopt those findings if they like them? How does the Supreme Court resolve factual issues of paternity and parental citizenship (if the court feels that those facts are relevant to a candidate's qualifications) when, as is often the case, all witnesses to the candidate's conception are deceased or unavailable?
I don't like your proposal. I don't think that a judge, a petit jury or a small group of judges would be better than voters and their electors at resolving inherently doubtful issues like birth locations and paternity.
In post 1473, I tried to illustrate the problems with your proposal. Those who are frustrated with the way that the Supreme Court has avoided becoming involved in any of the recent "birther" controversies should try to understand that the selection (and removal) of presidents is a political and not a judicial function.
Fifty-seven straight elections without anyone ever really "knowing" for certain where any of the candidates were born or "knowing" for certain who might have been the candidates' real fathers demonstrates that we don't need the Supreme Court to screen candidate qualifications. Our system works.
Those who maintain that they "know" the true facts and "know" that the voters and their electors were twice mistaken in thinking Obama qualified would be well advised to prepare for 2016. If they think Cruz or any other candidate is unqualified, they should make their pitch to the voters because, under our Constitution, the voters and their electors decide. The Supreme Court can't and won't help. What must the justices do to be more clear about that?
What we have been seeing for some 57 straight elections is the system that was manifestly intended by those who designed the procedures for picking presidents. The system may not be perfect, but it works.
I’ll suggest that looking into the backgrounds of the authors of these various Acts would be informative, 4Zoltan. This has invariably been the case whenever a jarring, anachronistic use of the term “subject” has arisen past nationhood, to the point that even some fairly early observers took note and attributed base motives and a desire to confuse. Much as today, come to think of it.
“You’ve admitted this is based on Vattel, so that proves the Minor court REJECTED English common law in defining NBC, and the WKA decision AFFIRMED the Minor decision.”
No. The Minor court, which did NOT investigate the meaning of NBC, screwed it up. It didn’t matter too much, because it was a VOTING RIGHTS CASE, not a citizenship one. WKA did not, in any way, affirm the Minor court’s use of NBC, and spent half the decision showing it was WRONG.
Edge, you are a fruitcake. You are not sane. But I’ve posted the full quotes, so if anyone sane IS reading this thread still, they will know the truth - something you are incapable of recognizing.
“I’ll suggest that looking into the backgrounds of the authors of these various Acts would be informative”
In 1780, John Adams drafted the Massachusetts constitution, in it he uses both terms “citizens of the Commonwealth” and “subjects of the Commonwealth” as as “citizen” and “subject”.
“And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.”
“Art. XI. Every subject of the commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property, or character.”
“Art. II. And in order to provide for a representation of the citizens of this commonwealth, founded upon the principle of equality, every corporate town containing one hundred and fifty ratable polls, may elect one representative”
“And, that the citizens of this commonwealth may be assured, from time to time, that the moneys remaining in the public treasury”
“Art. XIII. In criminal prosecutions, the verification of facts, in the vicinity where they happen, is one of the greatest securities of the life, liberty, and property of the citizen.”
“Art. XIV. Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions.”
I’ll have to look up the 1780 Constitution of Massachussetts for context to see for certain, but it appears that the language shifts when specific refrence is made to (those) subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Upon what status did Virginia Minor’s voting rights hinge had she indeed possessed such a right in the judgement of the court, Mr. Rogers?
As plaintiff her claim was that she possessed eligibility to vote on the basis of being a 14th Amendment citizen, so citizenship actually was determinative.
She lost.
"The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination.
It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge."
"Notwithstanding this the records of the courts are full of cases in which the jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of women, and not one can be found, we think, in which objection was made on that account. Certainly none can be found in which it has been held that women could not sue or be sued in the courts of the United States. Again, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, in many of the States (and in some probably now) aliens could not inherit or transmit inheritance. There are a multitude of cases to be found in which the question has been presented whether a woman was or was not an alien, and as such capable or incapable of inheritance, but in no one has it been insisted that she was not a citizen because she was a woman. On the contrary, her right to citizenship has been in all cases assumed....
...The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption."
Not every judge is Horace Gray, giving prattling, irrelevant tours of Western Civ trying to create openings to negate his own prior decisions, Mr. Rogers.
Horace appears to have been trying to legitimize Chester ... for appointing him to the unSCOTUS? Sure looks that way.
Her citizenship was a well established legal fact. Her contentions were that A) the 14th made her a citizen, and B) it gave her the exact legal rights of all other citizens.
Contention A was laughed at, since there was no legal basis for it anywhere in our history. Contention B was rejected as well. Since A was so totally insane, Minor is considered a voting rights case, establishing that not all citizens have a right to vote.
The court made no attempt to explore the limits of NBC citizenship, and expressly stated so. Had there been any possible legal question, they would have needed to do so - but they did not. Minor specifically did NOT rule on the meaning of NBC, and it said so in the decision.
Well, now. That’s interesting. Chester A. Arthur appointed Horace Gray to the US Supreme Court?
Certainly sounds like a quid pro quo, doesn’t it? Obama and Kagan springs to mind. It’s as if they studied the Arthur administration for some odd reason. Is that administration particularly noteworthy otherwise?
It stated who was without a doubt a natural-born citizen and expressed doubt as to the *citizenship* of anyone not born in the country of two citizen parents, Mr. Rogers. Read what the words actually say, not what you want them to mean.
Read like an adult, for a change:
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 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 [p168] 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. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”
Only in Birther Bizarro World does an opinion change what it is talking about a dozen times in one paragraph.
“It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
Oh no! You need citizen parents to be a citizen!
Nope. The meaning didn’t change from the front of a sentence to the rear. He wasn’t discussing 12 types of citizenship.
No. Virginia Minor’s petition to the SCOTUS (actually her husband’s petition because as a woman, she could not petition the SCOTUS herself) was based on the Constitution AND the 14th Amendment, specifically the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th that states: “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The 14 Amendment, as RegulatorCountry correctly states, did not make Minor a citizen as she already was a citizen before the 14th Amendment – something the SCOTUS affirmed to be true. However Minor’s claim was not actually that she was made was a citizen by 14th Amendment but that the 14th Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause made the State of Missouri’s denial of voting rights to her, a violation of both the Constitution AND the 14th Amendment.
The opinion (written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite) first asked whether Minor was a citizen of the United States, and answered that she was, citing both the Fourteenth Amendment and earlier common law. Exploring the common-law origins of citizenship, the court observed that "new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization" and that the Constitution "does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens." Under the common law, according to the court, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of 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." The court observed that some authorities "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"—*but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth.
“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.
That is why any discussion in the ruling pertaining to Natural Born vs. any other definition of citizenship; either by statute or common law, by naturalization, via parentage, was a Dicta *, **, (1) in this case as the SCOTUS found that such further explorations were irrelevant to Minor’s case as her citizenship was ruled, even under the most narrow of definitions, not in question. Thus the actual question in Minor v. Happersett was whether the Constitution as amended by the 14th, Section 1 in particular, granted her as a citizen, suffrage and whether the Missouri State Supreme Court was correct in upholding the Missouri State Constitution clause that stated that only men could vote and whether this was in violation of the U.S. Constitution as amended by the 14th – Something the ruling found (on some rather specious grounds IMO) did not.
(1) dictum - n. Latin for "remark," a comment by a judge in a decision or ruling which is not required to reach the decision, but may state a related legal principle as the judge understands it. While it may be cited in legal argument, it does not have the full force of a precedent (previous court decisions or interpretations) since the comment was not part of the legal basis for judgment. The standard counter argument is: "it is only dictum (or dicta)." - See also: dicta obiter dicta”
The court then asked whether the right to vote was one of the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption in 1868. Citing a variety of historical sources, it found that it was not. The court reasoned that the Constitution of the United States did not explicitly give citizens an affirmative right to vote and that, throughout the history of the nation from the adoption of the Constitution, a wide variety of persons—including women—were recognized as citizens but denied the right to vote. For example, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, none of the original Thirteen Colonies gave all citizens the right to vote, all attaching restrictions based on factors such as sex, race, age, and ownership of land. The opinion continues that "it cannot for a moment be doubted that if it had been intended to make all citizens of the United States voters, the framers of the Constitution would not have left it to implication. So important a change in the condition of citizenship as it actually existed, if intended, would have been expressly declared”.
” The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.”
”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. ”
The Court then went on to say:
”The amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as he already had. No new voters were necessarily made by it. Indirectly it may have had that effect, because it may have increased the number of citizens entitled to suffrage under the constitution and laws of the States, but it operates for this purpose, if at all, through the States and the State laws, and not directly upon the citizen. ”
”It is clear, therefore, we think, that the Constitution has not added the right of suffrage to the privileges and immunities of citizenship as they existed at the time it was adopted. This makes it proper to inquire whether suffrage was coextensive with the citizenship of the States at the time of its adoption. If it was, then it may with force be argued that suffrage was one of the rights which belonged to citizenship, and in the enjoyment of which every citizen must be protected. But if it was not, the contrary may with propriety be assumed. ”
The Court then went on to point out all the various State voting laws, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and since; some that placed State residency requirements on “freemen” or imposed taxpaying or land owning requirements on them, none of which BTW, granted suffrage to women (NJ once did grant suffrage to women but that was later withdrawn in 1807).
The Court also pointed out that one didn’t even necessarily need to be a citizen in order to vote in some States:
” Besides this, citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote. The same provision is to be found in the constitutions of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas.”
So contrary to many of the “birther’s claims, the SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett did not rule on what constituted a “Natural Born Citizen” either under the Constitution or as amended by the 14th. The ruling however found that neither the Constitution nor the 14th Amendment granted women the constitutionally enumerated and protected right to vote that could not be abridged or denied via State law.
Oh, and BTW, a little thing called the 19th Amendment overruled Minor v. Happersett anyway, so the whole argument is moot.
And ironically if Virginia Minor had in Minor v. Happersett, asked the Court if she was eligible to run for POTUS, they most likely would have ruled that she was, but that under the Court’s interpretation at the time, she would not have been entitled to vote for herself or for anyone else. If the 19th Amendment had never been passed, the same would apply to Sarah Palin.
Ah, the voice of reason. Well and truly stated. Refreshing!
I admire a good imagination, but honesty is more important here. There are no "directions" for electors on the qualifications. The eligibility requirements come two paragraphs after talking about the job of the electors. The paragraph in between talks about the responsibility of Congress to determine the time and "chusing" of electors.
What you won't find in the Constitution is any textual support for the role that you propose for the Supreme Court - to screen and approve the qualifications of candidates.
The judicial power authorized by the Constitution applies to: all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution. Is there some part of "all Cases" you don't understand??
One good reason for not adopting your proposal to create a candidate screening role for the Supreme Court is the institutional limitations of the Supreme Court.
Institutional limitations?? Sorry, but the excuses here are getting ridiculous. Is there not an inherent institutional limitation on the Congress when the majority party is the same as the party of the president??
Those who are frustrated with the way that the Supreme Court has avoided becoming involved in any of the recent "birther" controversies should try to understand that the selection (and removal) of presidents is a political and not a judicial function.
Nonsense. The removal of a president takes the same form as a judicial trial. The only difference is that the responsibility is specifically designated to the Congress. Unfortunately, we already know this is a flawed system because of inherent political bias. I'm not wasting time on the other excuses. And that's all they are: excuses.
They DID investigate the meaning of NBC. Read the decision. The first fourth is about who the original citizens were, as defined by the Constituion.
It didn’t matter too much, because it was a VOTING RIGHTS CASE, not a citizenship one.
The voting rights were tied directly to a class of citizenship. WKA AFFIRMED this when they gave the holding in Minor. Luria AFFIRMED that Minor established a precedent on Art II presidential eligibility based on its citizenship determination. I've given direct quotes. You can't get around this, so it's time to admit you're wrong..
Edge, you are a fruitcake. You are not sane.
Nonsense. You're a typical liberal who relies on the three B's to try desperately to get out of your losing argument: bluff, B.S., and bully. It's not working and you know it. You've proven most of my points for me by admitting that Minor was relying on Vattel, and when YOU pointed out the Luria decision several months ago. Thanks for making my arguments so easy to prove.
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.