Posted on 01/09/2024 3:29:53 PM PST by CDR Kerchner
In Minor v. Happersett (1875), the Supreme Court defined two classes of persons. The first class consists of children born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The second class consists of all other U.S.-born children, regardless of their parents’ citizenship. The Court used the term “natural born citizen” only about members of the first class. Regarding members of the second class, the Court doubted they were even citizens, let alone natural born citizens. In the Court’s opinion, natural born citizens are “distinguished from” aliens or foreigners, suggesting that a natural born citizen is someone who is not a “foreigner” (foreign citizen) at birth [05].
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court, reversing prior precedent, ruled that, under some circumstances, children born in the United States, of non-U.S.-citizen parents, acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. But, to this day, the Supreme Court has never ruled that such children are natural born citizens. On the contrary, our nation’s highest court has consistently used the term “natural born citizen” only about persons born on U.S. soil, to U.S.-citizen parents.
Spot on!
The Ankey case was only a precedent in the state of Indiana. Not a federal court decision. The federal courts and in particular the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has been EVADING the issue of the term “natural born Citizen” as it applies directly as to who can be the President and Commander in Chief, using various federal court technicalities to dodge/evade taking up the issue on the merits of original meaning and intent and purpose of the “natural born Citizen” term. Some speculate that Obama had something on Chief Justice Roberts as to why he chose to evade deciding the issue directly. Other think Roberts was afraid of the “race card” being played by “Team Obama”.
If you want to learn more about the nbC term in the presidential eligibility clause and WHY it is in there, read: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf
1) you need to cite cases supporting this
2) if so, also explain why later Supreme Court decisions that refute Ark are based on sound constitutional application. Rare for Supreme Court decisions made after around 1900.
The Ankey (sic - Ankeny) case was only a precedent in the state of Indiana. Not a federal court decision. The federal courts and in particular the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has been EVADING the issue of the term “natural born Citizen” as it applies directly as to who can be the President and Commander in Chief, using various federal court technicalities to dodge/evade taking up the issue on the merits of original meaning and intent and purpose of the “natural born Citizen” term.
Ankeny cited ample precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court. See Wong Kim Ark. The Court also cited Amendment 14.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "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 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."
Frivolous nonsense on the internet has no more merit than frivolous filing in court. United States citizenship determinations are made pursuant to United States law. All births within the United States are controlled by the 14th Amendment. Wong Kim Ark is the leading precedent and controlling in all district and circuit federal courts and all state courts.
https://casetext.com/case/kerchner-v-obama-2
Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (2010) Third Circuit, July 1, 2010
III.Because we have decided that this appeal is frivolous, we will order counsel for Appellants to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 provides that "[i]f a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee." "The purpose of an award of attorneys' fees under Rule 38 is to compensate appellees who are forced to defend judgments awarded them in the trial court from appeals that are wholly without merit, and to preserve the appellate court calendar for cases worthy of consideration." Huck v. Dawson, 106 F.3d 45, 52 (3d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation and citation omitted). "Damages [under Rule 38] are awarded by the court in its discretion... as a matter of justice to the appellee." Beam v. Bauer, 383 F.3d 106, 108 (3d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation and citation omitted). An "important purpose [of a damages award] is to discourage litigants from unnecessarily wasting their opponents' time and resources." Nagle v. Alspach, 8 F.3d 141, 145 (3d Cir. 1993).
"This court employs an objective standard to determine whether or not an appeal is frivolous" which "focuses on the merits of the appeal regardless of good or bad faith." Hilmon Co. v. Hyatt Int'l, 899 F.2d 250, 253 (3d Cir. 1990) (internal quotation omitted). We have stated that "an appeal from a frivolous claim is likewise frivolous." Beam, 383 F.3d at 108. Appellants had ample notice that this appeal had no merit. They should have been aware that we rejected almost identical claims in Berg, as have courts in other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Barnett v. Obama, No. 09-0082, F. Supp. 2d, 2009 WL 3861788, at *4-*6 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009) (holding that active and former military personnel lack Article III standing requirements to challenge President Obama's eligibility for office); Cohen v. Obama, No. 08-2150, 2008 WL 5191864, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2008) (holding that a federal prisoner who alleged that then-Senator Obama was "an illegal alien impersonating a United States citizen" lacked standing under Article III), aff'd, Cohen v. Obama, 332 F. App'x 640 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
Examination of this precedent would have made it "obvious to a reasonable attorney that an appeal from the District Court's order was frivolous, [as no] law or facts... support a conclusion that the District Court judge had erred." Beam, 383 F.3d at 109. Moreover, other courts have imposed sanctions for similar reasons. See Hollister v. Soetero, 258 F.R.D. 1, 2-5 (D.D.C. 2009) (reprimanding an attorney under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) for signing and filing a complaint alleging that President Obama was ineligible to serve as president because he is not a "natural born Citizen"), aff'd, Hollister v. Soetoro, Nos. 09-5080, 09-5161, 2010 WL 1169793 (D.C. Cir. March 22, 2010); see also Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1373 (M.D.Ga. 2009) (imposing monetary sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(3) against counsel who filed similar claims on behalf of members of the military), aff'd, Rhodes v. MacDonald, No. 09-15418, 2010 WL 892848 (11th Cir. March 15, 2010).
In the past, "we cautioned counsel that a finding by a District Court that a lawsuit is frivolous should serve as notice to the parties and their attorney to exercise caution, pause, and devote additional examination to the legal validity and factual merit of his contentions." Beam, 383 F.3d at 109 (quotation omitted). Although the District Court did not explicitly state that Appellants' claims were frivolous, the finding of other district courts that plaintiffs who filed complaints based on similar legal theories violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 should have served as meaningful notice that the appeal here would be frivolous.5 We therefore will order Appellants' counsel to show cause why he should not pay just damages and costs for having filed a frivolous appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 38.
IV.
For the reasons set forth, we will affirm the District Court's order of dismissal.
See the decision in Perkins v Elg (1939), which I note was after the 1898 WKA case: https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep307325/
I know, Ive seen this act before.
Ive seen him juggle the one.
Ive seen him successfully juggle two.
When he uses all three kittens to perform “The Big Deal” he always drops them.
Many one note posters are like that.
Before I look it up, did this case supposedly overturn Ark, and if so, how the opinion is based on sound constitutional application (as I did with the Ark case).
Allegiance/Loyalty... was the crux of the NBC Clause.
Born on U.S. soil to (ready for it) citizen (PLURAL) parents.
Chop, slice, and dice all you want- it’s a 3 legged stool.
LMAO to all the FOGHORN retreads!
Lots of information about the “natural born Citizen” term in our U.S. Constitution at this site, including the various SCOTUS cases and the several attempts by members of the U.S. Congress to remove it from the Constitution or abrogate away its original intent and meaning. See: https://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (1878), as quoted in Weedin v. Chin Bow (1927): "...the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States..."
Then consider, that neither of the parents of Kamala Harris were “permanent residents” of the United States at the time of her birth (and in fact, had “signed away” this right, at the time they applied for entry as students).
As the daughter of non-residents of the US in 1964, Kamala Harris was the beneficiary of immigration fraud, which was exercised by her parents to evade requirements of registration (obligated to children born to aliens "visiting" the United States). Documents evidencing Kamala Harris ineligibility for VP (and the Presidency) under terms of the Constitution (Natural Born Citizen clause plus the 12th Amendment) available via these links:
Kamala Kancel Website (downloadable PDF available via link)
Kamala Kancel Twitter Site (twitter login required to view)
“...Birth and allegiance go together....”
We have many dual citizens in the US including several running or wannabee running for the presidency. Some are dual citizens not by application but because they were sired by a male citizen of that foreign country. Kamala’s father was a Jamaican citizen and their Constitution, I am told, grants Jamaican citizenship to any child he fathers regardless of where the child is born. India, I believe has a similar law. So the question is; how can we as US citizens be assured our president has allegiance to the USA only???
Please respond to this fact in this case:Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (1878), as quoted in Weedin v. Chin Bow (1927): "...the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States..."
Restoring the context which you omitted makes clear that Weedin v. Chin Bow and U.S. Rev. Stats. § 1993 pertained solely to children "born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States".
Therefore, your quote is irrelevant to Kamala Harris who born within the territory of the United States. The citizenhsip of Harris is controlled by the 14th Amendment, not by R.S. § 1993.
274 U.S. 657 - Syllabus
1. Under Rev.Stats. § 1993, which provides:“All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof are declared to be citizens of the United States, but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States,”
citizenship attaches only where the father has resided in the United States before the birth of the child. Pp. 274 U. S. 660, 274 U. S. 666, 274 U. S. 675.
274 U.S. 659 - Opinion of the Court
On appeal by the United States, the circuit court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court, 7 F.2d 369, holding him to be a citizen under the provisions of § 1993 of the Revised Statutes, which is as follows:“All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.”
The rights of Chin Bow are determined by the construction of this section.
Continuing typical far-left, OBOT, anti-Constitutional tactic of conflating in a tantamount way the term "natural born Citizen" and "Citizen" and/or "Citizen at/by Birth": https://www.scribd.com/document/44814496/Of-Trees-and-Plants-and-Basic-Logic-Citizen-at-Birth-NOT-Identical-to-Natural-Born-Citizen-by-CDR-Kerchner-Ret
As a birther necessity, appeal is made to everything but the Constitution, U.S. law, and U.S. court opinions, favoring a text on INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Vattel was more than ten years a corpse when the Declaration of Independence occurred. Never during his lifetime did the United States exist. Similarly, there were no citizens of any nation who were the repository of sovereignty of that nation.
The Swiss Vattel wrote a book in French called The Law of Nations. Vattel's tome was on INTERNATIONAL LAW. International Law is the modern term for what was then called The Law of Nations. Birthers proclaim determinations of U.S. citizenship to be subject to International Law. Perhaps they can explain how a U.S. Citizenship Court in the Hague would function. As the ultimate authority, some Euroweenie would tell the United States who is, and is not, a citizen of the United States.
Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, for Law of Nations states succinctly, “See International Law.”
International law per Black’s is,
Those laws governing the legal relations between nations. Rules and principles of general application dealing with the conduct of nations and of international organizations and with their relations inter se, as well as with some of their relations with persons, whether natural or juridical. Restatement, Foreign Relations (Third) § 101. Body of consensual principles which have evolved from customs and practices civilized nations utilize in regulating their relationships and such customs have great moral force. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matshushita Elec. Co., Ltd., D.C.Pa., 494 F.Supp. 1161, 1178. International customs and treaties are generally considered to be the two most important sources of international law.
INTERNATIONAL LAW has nothing to do with any one nation determining the status of its own citizens. It does not pertain to the internal affairs of a single sovereign. It deals with legal relations between two or more sovereigns.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 658-59:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
Congressional Research Service Report
Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement
Jack Maskell
Legislative Attorney
November 14, 2011
[excerpt]
Although the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent).The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.
In Schick v. United States, 195 U.S. 65, 69 (1904), the Court said:
“That,” said Mr. Justice Bradley in Moore v. United States, 91 U. S. 270, 91 U. S. 274, referring to the common law, “is the system from which our judicial ideas and legal definitions are derived. The language of the Constitution and of many acts of Congress could not be understood without reference to the common law.”Again, in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 124 U. S. 478, is this declaration by Mr. Justice Matthews: “The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 169 U. S. 654, Mr. Justice Gray used this language: “In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex Parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 114 U. S. 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 624-625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465.”
See also Kepner v. United States, post, p. 195 U. S. 100; 1 Kent, Com. 336.
Blackstone’s Commentaries are accepted as the most satisfactory exposition of the common law of England. At the time of the adoption of the federal Constitution, it had been published about twenty years, and it has been said that more copies of the work had been sold in this country than in England, so that undoubtedly the framers of the Constitution were familiar with it.
In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 Fed. 382, 392 (1896)
Arriving at the conclusion, as I do, after careful investigation and much consideration, that the supreme court has as yet announced no doctrine at variance with that contained in the Look Tin Sing decision and the other cases alluded to, I am constrained to follow the authority and law enunciated in this circuit. Counsel for the United States have argued with considerable force against the common-law rule and its recognition, as being illogical, and likely to lead to perplexing, and perhaps serious, international conflicts, if followed in all cases. But these observations are, obviously, addressed to the policy of the rule, and not to its interpretation. The doctrine of the law of nations, that the child follows the nationality of the parents, and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place of birth, is undoubtedly more logical, reasonable, and satisfactory, but this consideration will not justify this court in declaring it to be the law against controlling judicial authority.
See John Jay letter 25 July 1787 to George Washington
See it indeed.
John Jay, who was not at the Convention, wrote of the Commander in Chief of the Army being a "natural born citizen" (underscore emphasis by Jay). There is no evidence that he knew the President would be assigned the responsibility for being the Commander in Chief of the army.
Alexander Hamilton was at the Convention and presented the Hamilton Plan in which he addressed the office of the President by stating:
Farrand's Records, Volume 3, Page 629
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
(emphasis added)
Those seeking a deeper understanding should repeat Jay (with emphasis) natural born citizen, and Hamilton saying of the President, be born a citizen of the United States.
Adjectives mean something. You insist in doing it to deceive people but to be truthful and logically sound in your arguments, you cannot simply ignore the adjective “natural” in the term “natural born Citizen” with “born a Citizen” or simply “Citizen”. See: http://www.kerchner.com/naturalborncitizen/cfk/Of-Trees-and-Plants-and-Basic-Logic-Citizen-at-Birth-NOT-Identical-to-Natural-Born-Citizen-by-CDR-Kerchner-Ret.pdf
Constitution Day – 17 Sep 2023: A Lesson from History. Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided — No It Is Not! | by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret): https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2023/09/17/constitution-day-17-sep-2023-a-lesson-from-history-is-being-a-born-citizen-of-the-united-states-sufficient-citizenship-status-to-be-president-the-founders-and-framers-emphatically-decided-no-i/
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.