Click the Stick
Oh my goodness!
We need more new monthly donors!!!
Become a monthly donor
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 01/19/2012 10:21:07 AM PST by Bizhvywt
That is a perfectly sound proposal if we were starting from scratch. I'd probably go with that.
It also is not the law of the land, at least not where "law of the land" includes what the courts have determined. See several foregoing comments by others for the details.
Why not Gary Condit?
;)
Minor v. Happersett was a women's suffrage case which was not directly related to anyone's status as a natural-born citizen. In their final opinion, the Supreme Court addresses issues related to U.S. citizenship, and the definition of 'natural-born citizen'. However, while citing it as a clear case of natural-born citizenship, the Court did not limit the definition of natural-born citizen to ONLY persons born in the United States to two parents who were it’s citizens.
In fact, the Supreme Court specifically dodged the question of whether others might also be considered natural-born citizens, and they said as much in the opinion.
Here is your quote from Minor v. Happersett, including the part you left out:
"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 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."
Then you are a crappy lawyer. Minor came AFTER the 14th Amendment. In Minor SCOTUS REFUSED Virgina Minor’s assertion that she was a 14th Amendment citizen in her drive to gain the right to vote. Instead they said she was not covered by the 14th and was a Natural Born Citizen then they DEFINED it.
In the case of Chester Arthur, you are raising a total straw man argument. Shame on you. No one knew that Arthur’s father William was not Naturalized until Arthur himself was 14!!! That was only discovered in 2008 by Leo Donofrio. There were rumors, which easily could have been spread by Arthur himself as no one knows who hired Hinman to do his investigation and book. Hinman never found William’s Naturalization document that much is certain.
now more to the point, Arthur appointed Justice Gray to the bench, who then wrote a disaster of an opinion in Wong Kim Ark in order to protect the man who appointed him, and protect the the lifetime appointment he got out of it. Gray could have decided WKA with the Treaty in effect at the time, which gave WKA’s parents special status as Permanently Domiciled in the USA, which according to that treaty meant they had switched their allegiance from China to the USA. Gray could have used that, instead he took a circuitous path which protected Arthur.
Obama is literally just repeating EVERYTHING Arthur did!
Now, you take your ignorant snarky birther-bashing and go smoke it. All you have done here is to belittle the law. Ambulance chasing does NOT qualify you as a constitutional scholar not a student of SCOTUS decisions. Your ignorance is appalling.
No court agrees with me? How about SCOTUS? That work for you? Minor v. Happersett has NEVER been overturned, it is still good law.
““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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.”
Wayne, you are right, but Danae isn’t reading your posts or citations. Birther von Danae is instead engaged in a textual diarrhea that amounts to covering the ears and saying LA LA LA LA, NOT LISTENING.
Wow. You resolutely ignore Wayne and several others who have pointed out the idiocy of your Minor v. Happersett “argument.”
Nothing is so hilarious as an idiot who, crying “Idiot,” slams the better-informed.
OK, gonna stick with my prior promise of ignoring your bilge from here on out. Enjoy your Birther Island.
Sure it does. Children born here of foreigners MIGHT be citizens, but they are not Natural Born Citizens. much was accomplished for Obama by confusing this issue.
thus far courts have NOT ruled on the merits of the case!!!! They have been dismissed for STANDING or other reasons. No court has rules on the merits. The Georgia case is the closest any have come and that one has a way to go yet.
Minor is still good law and has never been overturned. So in reality, there is NO NEED for another decision from SCOTUS, there is only a need to enforce the LAW as it stands... no new law is even needed. That is my hope for the Georgia case.
The ignorant Ohio voters didn’t study the issue very well, and the Republicans didn’t express their viewpoint to the voters. Ohio is a big public union state. I like Kasich, but, don’t think its his time to be a VP.
Is state of residence a reason to choose someone? Yes. In fact, the 12th Amendment incentivizes (without actually requiring) the choice of a running mate from a state other than that of the presidential candidate.The more so back when there were a relative handful of states in the Union, incentivizing the choice of a running mate "from a state other than themselves" placed a serious constraint on the ability of the presidential candidate to nominate "the second best person to be president" for VP. Indeed, when the 12th Amendment was passed America was in the midst of a run of 3 straight, and 4 out of a total of five, presidents from one state - Virginia.
The conclusion is inescapable that the framer's generation considered the promotion of unity across geographical lines to be vital to the Republic. More so than having a term-limited "prince" who is best-qualified to be "king" should the POTUS become unable to serve.
No one has right to claim the vice presidential nomination; it is in the presidential candidate's gift to bestow it. Therefore I am not harmed if a black is chosen over me; I had no claim in the first place. Therefore "affirmative action" is legitimate in the VP nomination as it is not in any other place in government.
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.