Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.
(Excerpt) Read more at caaflog.com ...
Wonder what happened to “obscure”..Oh we get it..Vattel is obscure..in the Age of inhabitant Obama.
Uh-em.....
U.S. Supreme Court
New Jersey v. Delaware, 291 U.S. 361 (1934)
So by that statement, you are admitting that NJ & DE are INTERNATIONAL states? ROFL, what this clearly shows is that the states were still considered sovereign nations that bound themselves together by the contract known as the US Constitution. Therefore, Vattel is extremely important. English feudal law was for a Monarchy where sovereignty resides in but one person, the King. In the US, sovereignty is not in the federal govt or the president, it is in the people of the states whom the government is to serve, not rule.
Oh jamese, you fail miserably at every click of the keyboard.
The SCOTUS did affirm what you're saying in Minor v. Happersett. It specifically rejected the 14th amendment as being necessary for determing citizenship in the case of natural born citizens.
"There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position."
- - -
"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."
Wong Kim Ark affirms this decision by citing the same definition of natural born citizen and by pointing out that Minor recognized its plaintiff's citizenship for jus sanguinis and jus soli reasons. Also, not that the plural form of parents is used in conjunction with a singular child, so that it's clear that natural born citizenship descends from the mother and father collectively — not just one.
"The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ..."
The one part of the WKA decision that really destroys the faither arguments on children of foreign nationals is its quote of a lower court here:
"The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens."
IOW, this is saying (and Justice Waite apparently agrees) that children of parents who weren't citizens were in the same class of persons who were not recognized as citizens as colored people. It also said that to be subject to the United States, you had to be domiciled here, which was aximonatically true for slaves and their children, but not necessarily so for parents who aren't citizens. That's why Waite had to determine and declare that WKA's parents were permanently domiciled at the time WKA was born (even though they eventually moved back to China). Under these terms Obama, even if born in Hawaii, was not a 14th amendment citizen much less a natural born citizen.
I know you don't like that, but they didn't spend all those pages discussing it just for fun. It is very clear that the Supreme Court found that WKA met the criteria for a NBS, and argued that means he met the intent of the Founders for NBC and was thus a citizen.
They also used the 14th Amendment, but they did NOT say the parents had to be here permanently. Instead, they specifically said they were under the jurisdiction until they left - so they specifically anticipate the alien parents leaving.
"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. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides -- seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher's Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,
independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger [p694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations."
There is a weak case to be made that WKA doesn't REQUIRE the children of aliens to be NBC, although the Indiana court rejected that argument and no one has challenged their interpretation. But given that Obama's mother was undoubtedly born a US citizen, and given that Obama Sr never seems to have lived with her following their marriage, and given that Obama Sr & Ann divorced and Ann retained full custody, and that Obama Sr only visited his son once in his son's life, and that Congress and the courts have laid greater emphasis on a mother's attachment to the child than the father's, and I don't think the facts of the case would allow even the weak argument to apply.
If Obama was born in Hawaii, then he was born under the jurisdiction, is a citizen, raised in the US with a US mother who had sole custody. The idea that he could be a citizen of another country and not American is just stupid.
Are you being purposely oblivious?? I just provided direct quotes that it did and WKA affirmed it. No amount of spin, misdirection and debunked talking points changes this.
Uh-em.....
U.S. Supreme Court
New Jersey v. Delaware, 291 U.S. 361 (1934)
So by that statement, you are admitting that NJ & DE are INTERNATIONAL states? ROFL, what this clearly shows is that the states were still considered sovereign nations that bound themselves together by the contract known as the US Constitution. Therefore, Vattel is extremely important. English feudal law was for a Monarchy where sovereignty resides in but one person, the King. In the US, sovereignty is not in the federal govt or the president, it is in the people of the states whom the government is to serve, not rule.
Oh jamese, you fail miserably at every click of the keyboard.
Emer deVattel is SO tremendously important that in the nearly 75 attempts, poor old Emer deVattel’s writings and views have not been persuasive with a single judge or panel of judges that has looked into the Obama eligibility issue.
DeVattel carries so much historical legal weight that in the one year and ten months since Chief Justice John Roberts administered the oath of office to Barack Obama, the name “Emer deVattel” has NEVER been mentioned on the floor of the House of Representatives or in the well of the US Senate. This in spite of the fact that the House Of Representatives allows “Special Orders” speeches on a nightly basis when Congress members can address ANY issue of concern to the American people. Go figure.
Emer deVattel is SO important that when Republican House Leader John Boehner and Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell both invited President Obama to meet with their respective caucuses for questions and answers, the name “deVattel” was invoked ZERO times in questions to Obama.
Real, true, patriotic Americans are loath to depend on the points of view of foreigners for their legal points of view.
As for me, I’ll see your Swiss law professor and raise you James Madison: “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”—Congressman James Madison, May 22, 1789
Madison’s Papers 12:179—82
Are you being purposely oblivious?? I just provided direct quotes that it did and WKA affirmed it. No amount of spin, misdirection and debunked talking points changes this.
Virginia Minor, a leader of the women’s suffrage movement in Missouri, alleged that the refusal of Reese Happersett, a Missouri state registrar, to allow her to register to vote was an infringement of her civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/index.html
Madison is saying that place of birth is the most certain criteria in the United States, but doesn’t say it’s the ONLY criteria. English common law, according to Calvin’s Case, list THREE criteria for being a ‘subject born,’ part of which is the legal status of the parents.
Also regarding Vattel, if you want a recent opinion, he was cited five times in the 2004 decision SOSA v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN.
Waite also quotes Minor, "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."
Yes, I did think of Minor v. Happersett right before I hit the send button. What was a Jamesee to do quote Justice Waite? LoL. And besides, I gave you a good entry. ;-)
Minor wrote: “The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words “subject,” “inhabitant,” and “citizen” have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more...
...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.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
Notice that in Minor, it wasn’t NBC who might be limited to those with citizen parents, but any citizenship might fall in that category - “It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
So Minor recognized as undisputed that the child of a citizen was also a citizen, noted that there were disputes about the citizenship of a child born of alien parents, and left it an open question.
Minor did NOT suggest just that a NBC might need citizen parents, but any degree of citizenship might.
Twenty years later, WKA had to answer that unanswered question. And they said yes, the child of an alien IS a citizen if born within the USA. And they said this was true because of the meaning of NBC, and because of what it means to be within the jurisdiction & what the text of the 14th Amendment says.
So no. Minor didn’t deal with the question of NBC or even if the child of a non-citizen is a citizen. They left it open. WKA shut the door. Minor did allow two paths for citizenship - by birth (because of the NBC phrase) and by naturalization (which the Constitution gave power to Congress to determine). Minor, like WKA, doesn’t distinguish between citizens born - if born a citizen, you are a NBC, and if not, you need to be naturalized. TWO categories, not three.
And Minor didn’t attempt to determine the citizenship of someone born of alien parents, since the person in question was born from citizens.
Please also note that Minor, like WKA, considered subject and citizen to be words addressing the same condition, only under different forms of government.
That says it all! The corrupt system has to fall back on some 20th century rule that is not codified as law to keep it from seeing the light of a courtroom. You are so pathetic, I almost feel sorry for you.
Thomas Jefferson, A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens of This Commonwealth May 1779
and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens
As Minor recognized, there was debate between those who said a child had to be born of citizen parents to be born a citizen, and those who said the parents did not need to be citizens. Minor didn’t create two classes of citizens by birth, with those who had citizens for parents being NBC, and those with alien parents being native citizens, or just plain citizens. At least as late as Minor (1875), there was debate: those born of citizen parents were certainly citizens, while those born of alien parents may or may not be citizens - it was in dispute.
In 1898, the Supreme Court had to determine the answer: Was a person born of alien parents a citizen by birth, or did he require naturalization (or not) under the authority of Congress? And rightly or wrongly, WKA decided that a child of alien parents WAS born a citizen. And in subsequent decisions, native born and natural born citizens were used interchangeably, because they both concern a citizen by birth. The two categories of citizenship referred to in Minor remain - by birth, or by naturalization.
As I’ve said many times before, I think the dissent in WKA has a better case. But I don’t get a vote. The Supreme Court decided against my position, so now the recognized law in the US since 1898 says a person born in the US of parents in amity - here with the permission of the government - is born a citizen. The father (or mother) doesn’t have to plan to live here forever. The parents of WKA and Elg both left the US and never returned. But if they were here with permission of the government, then while they were here, they were within the jurisdiction of the US and their children were born citizens.
In Obama’s case, it is a bit ridiculous to argue he is an English citizen or a Kenyan, when he has never resided in either country or traveled on their passports or claimed citizenship in them. The problem with Obama isn’t his citizenship, it is that he is a traitor to his country. Like Rev Wright, he hates America and whites. And how anyone could vote for him is something I do not understand.
LMAO! The ultimate irony of ironies. Ole' Barry referred to Vattel in a course he taught!
LOL. Oh, that's rich.
No, he didn't leave the question open at all. He chose a definition for which there was no doubt and left it clear that other definitions are doubtful. Second, he makes a clear distinction between alien women and children as opposed to native women and children (adhering to his definition of no doubt of natives being born in the country to parents who are citizens). And then he rejects the 14th amendment as being needed to establish citizenship for those born under the no-doubt conditions of natural born citizenship. This is why Justice Gray could not and DID NOT declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen.
Minor did NOT suggest just that a NBC might need citizen parents, but any degree of citizenship might.
Then under those conditions, you are admitting that Obama cannot be a citizen. I can't argue against that. The thing that changed this in WKA is not your errant connect-unconnected-dots talking point about 'the meaning of NBC.' Gray used Waite's same definition and did not offer to resolve any doubts. He cited a lower court ruling that said, "... when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship ..." and followed that with a statement that the 14th amendment affirms a principle of citizenship "including all children here born of resident aliens." He repeats the need for residence or domicile here, "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." Again, Obama does not fit this definition since Barak Sr. had his permanent domicile in Kenya.
Please also note that Minor, like WKA, considered subject and citizen to be words addressing the same condition, only under different forms of government.
Except that BOTH Minor and WKA used the same no-doubt definition of natural born citizenship. They both made the same distinction between natural born citizenship and citizenship dependent on the 14th amendment. No amount of spin is going to change this.
Someone hijacked this hijacked thread long, long ago; but this has always been about how the courts would rule if the question were put to them and how likely was it that they allow the question in the first place. The truth is that they don’t want to answer the question and you have very clearly summarized the findings in law that will allow the courts to continue to avoid the issue. Only some smoking gun, impeccable piece of evidence will change that dynamic and Mr. Obama has spent a sizable fortune to ensure that such a document never turns up.
Its not a perfect world, but every two years there is an election. I believe that the next one is in six days.
Thank you for that. Nothing worth accomplishing in life ever comes easy.
“He chose a definition for which there was no doubt and left it clear that other definitions are doubtful.”
Actually, he wrote, “there have been doubts...For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts”. He doesn’t state his thoughts on it either way, just notes that doubts exist. And he leaves it an open question.
“And then he rejects the 14th amendment as being needed to establish citizenship for those born under the no-doubt conditions of natural born citizenship.”
He was dealing with the question of citizenship for a woman born in the US of citizen parents. The question is if sex affects citizenship, and he denies it totally.
“Other proof of like character might be found, but certainly more cannot be necessary to establish the fact that sex has never been made one of the elements of citizenship in the United States. In this respect men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws precisely apply to both. 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.”
“This is why Justice Gray could not and DID NOT declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen.”
Saying sex had no impact on citizenship is not in any way answering the question of who is a NBC. The plaintiff undoubtedly met the qualifications for a NBC. Others with different circumstances might as well, but he didn’t need to determine that. As he said earlier, “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts”. He simply punted.
WKA could not punt. The question involved, not sex, but was a person born of alien parents born a citizen. And WKA replied yes, and used BOTH the NBC clause and the 14th to justify their decision. And while I disagree with their basis, my side lost and it is now established law.
“Except that BOTH Minor and WKA used the same no-doubt definition of natural born citizenship.”
No. WKA spent pages discussing WHY a person born of alien parents met the criteria for NBC. I know you don’t believe me, and we could shout “Yes they did!” vs “No they didn’t!” forever. Goodness knows, we have done so many times now. So I propose that at this point, we agree that we disagree and that neither is likely to convince the other. We’ve posted our arguments. Others can decide for themselves. I with you well, but I still disagree with your legal analysis. But the links are posted and anyone who wants can read them and decide.
WKA:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Minor:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
The Minor case affirms this general principle too (something Rogers won't want to hear).
"Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States," [n3] and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain ...
"Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.
"Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization."
Citizenship was resevered by those who declared their independence to Britain. The only way to add to that citizenship is birth or naturalization, which implies you had to be born to one of these citizens or naturalized if you were from another country. Thereafter, the children born to naturalized citizens could be born citizens. Rogers already says "Minor did NOT suggest just that a NBC might need citizen parents, but any degree of citizenship might." Therefore it would be impossible to add citizenship by birth to anyone but those born of the original citizens, natural born citizens or naturalized citizens. The bottom line is that to be a citizen by birth PRIOR to the 14th amendment, you needed to be born to citizen parents which is how Minor and WKA both defined natural born citizenship. Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization.
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.