Posted on 07/19/2023 6:26:48 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Jul. 17, 2023) — Well, faithful P&E readers, here we go again. As another “exploratory” candidate for president appears on the scene – Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai –, it may be prudent to once again revisit the Supreme Court’s 1875 decision in Minor v. Happersett.
While the major holding of the case (i.e., that Missouri’s denial of suffrage to women did not violate the 14th Amendment) was abrogated 45 years later in 1920 by the 19th Amendment, the question remains as to whether the decision’s other “observations” and “comments” remain viable and relevant to the “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) presidential eligibility question.
The answer to that question, in turn, may impact not only Ayyadurai’s candidacy – competently explored here – but may in addition cast useful light on the questionable presidential candidacies and bona-fides of many others, including Vivek Ramaswamy; Nikki Haley; Kamala Harris; and, of course, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. A subsequent offering will address Dr. Ayyadurai’s eligibility arguments.
Turning specifically therefore to the decision in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S.162 (1875) – and totally apart from the now-abrogated women’s suffrage issue addressed by the Court in ruling against Virginia Minor – the relevance of the surviving, non-suffrage and non-abrogated portions of the opinion to the nbC issue remains. Those portions relate to the Court’s following observations, found at 88 U.S. 162, 167-168: ... continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2023/07/17/revisiting-minor-v-happersett/
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Poor Old Diogenes can not help but post “insane nonsense” - because he, and his buddies, have driven themselves off the Cliffs of Sanity with their full-blown delusional disorder.
At one point, the poor crazed nincompoop, disses the Wong Kim Ark court on because they wasn’t at the Constitutional Convention, while praising the Happersett Court, who also wasn’t there. He will just blather and drool nonsense for hours on end. None of it has to be consistent or logical, because this is not just a silly legal theory - but instead the verbal ranting resulting from a severe psychiatric disorder.
It is like a tale told by an Idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Oh, and let me explain further, for those of you who might think that I am simply being harsh when I call Diogenes, Kerchner and the rest of their ilk, mentally ill.
There is a place where people can simply be wrong about the law, and some issues where reasonable minds can disagree. Whether it takes two citizen parents to make a natural-born citizen (NBC) ain’t one of those places.
Take the birther argument that a 14th amendment citizen is different from an NBC. That was the Birther position in the Ankeny Case. The state court told them “No”, annd cited Wong Kim Ark, (WKA) which clearly said that the 14th amendment simply put pre-existing common law on the subject into the Constitution. Here is the language from WKA:
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.”
Natural-born citizens and 14th Amendment citizens are the same thing If the Birthers were sane people, and not delusional people, that would be enough. But they ain’t sane.
Then, they cite Vattel, and say,”Well, Vattel says that it takes two citizen parents!” First, sane people would not claim that an old book by a foreigner trumps a SCOTUS decision. And, a sane person would also admit that even Vattel said, in the paragraph following the two-citizen parent stuff,
” Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”
But, they ain’t sane. Finally, sane people would not cite Happersett as dispositive on NBC since that court clearly said that it was not necessary for them to do so, not to mention that WKA was decided AFTER Happersett, and did deal with the issue. From Happersett:
“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.
In summary, that is 3 or 4 instances where sane, rational people would clearly admit that they were wrong, and not continue to pursue the issue for 16 more years.
The fact that the Birthers continue to do so, is evidence that they are neither sane, nor rational. Like Barney Fife said about Ernest T Bass, “He’s a nut!” Two-citizen parent Birthers are delusional, and mentally ill.
I saw that one about the Constitutional Convention at #77. I had never heard that one before. I was wondering if you would give him credit for originality.
Another gem from Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 694 (1898)
To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.
The implication would be that the entire lineage would not be citizens because an ancestor, presumed to have been a citizen, was not. The court rejected the insane interpretation.
You are right in calling it an “insane” interpretation. Arguing with these people, unless it is just to see how low they will go intellectually, is pointless. It is like having a prolonged debate with a flat-Earther, or a sovereign citizen, about whether you need to get a license tag to drive.
No matter what you say, or what evidence you provide, they are not arguing in good faith, and they will never change their mind. Which, is not uncommon BUT, here the question is simply a legal one, and the WKA Court was very clear.
My BFF says that she has asked them before, why don’t you just admit that the current state of the law means that Obama was eligible, but that the law should be changed. That would be a defensible position, but she says that they would have none of it.
So yep, they are mentally ill people.
One is merely a citizen, the other a Natural Born Citizen. That is due to the effect of the 'sovereignty - citizenship' quality of the the word 'jurisdiction' in 'subject to the jurisdiction ...' found in the 14th Amendment you obsessively deny.
In this question, you are attempting to substitute *YOUR PREMISE*, that there is no difference between a natural born citizen and a 14th amendment or naturalized citizen, for my premise, which is that the meaning of "natural born citizen" descends from Vattel's writings on natural law, which specifies the difference.
One of the things I tell people all the time is "never accept the false premise of your opponents."
A naturalized citizen is not a "pretend citizen", but they are also not a "natural citizen."
They are naturalized. It's in the name. Don't see how you can have trouble understanding the difference.
Are we arguing about whether or not he is a citizen? Because I have no disagreement with the assertion he is a citizen. He is a citizen.
On the possible chance that I have failed to convey my thinking regarding the pronouncement of courts, let me attempt to clarify it now.
Unless the Judge has firsthand personal knowledge of the events in question, his opinion is no better than the local sheep herder.
Modern courts are rife with idiots and liars, and I have long argued that our legal system should be viewed with the contempt it so greatly deserves.
Failing in a modern court proves nothing in the way of reality. Indeed, they so often get things so absolutely wrong, failing in modern court would tend to indicate you are on the correct side of an issue. Examples are too numerous to mention, but here are a few. Abortion, Election fraud, homosexual marriage, transgenderism...
You have only shown me your mental health challenges.
Expressions of disdain have no effect on me. I consider them non arguments. If anything, they indicate an inability to put forth a good rebuttal.
Do I recall your description correctly?
Doesn't look like anything I ever said.
b. The court found that:
...
d. The court held:
...
That the condition subsequent may be beneficial is apparent in the light of the conceded fact that citizenship to this plaintiff was fully deniable.
Lot of verbal diarrhea to get to the nugget of what they held.
So Bellei was a "citizen at birth" because of a naturalization statute created by congress, and he lost his citizenship because he did not act to meet the conditions imposed on him by the statute that granted him citizenship.
Natural born citizens are not required to meet any conditions.
And what happened? Congress created a later statute removing some of the conditions, but if they had put *NO* conditions into the statute, these children would *STILL* be "naturalized at birth citizens", created by congress's power of naturalization.
They would *NOT* be natural citizens.
I find it entirely believable that the Washington Post spewed false claims. I have seen them do it so many times before, it is quite plausible that they did so in this case.
"The birth certificate was signed by Captain W.L. Irvine. I have now checked that name against the Naval Register for 1936, and I find that William Lorne Irvine was director of the medical facility at the submarine base hospital in Coco Solo, Panama Canal Zone, during that time period. You can see the entry here [DEAD LINK] I think this effectively disposes of any remaining doubts that McCain was born inside the Canal Zone."
This sounds familiar. This is more or less what I remember reading.
There is nothing in 14A, or U.S. citizenship law, about birth on a military base.
Well there is in Vattel's "law of nations" in the section that covers children born of people in service to their nation in foreign lands.
Again, it makes much more sense than the stuff we are told to believe nowadays.
It appears it was good enough to fool you.
Most of the people don't need to know the details about Naval/Military ranking or the particulars of what facilities are available to take care of servicemembers and their dependents. We all like to believe they are taken care of, and for many of us the particulars do not really matter so long as the results are good.
Of course all of my acceptance of the claim was based on the notion that a reporter for the Washington Post would not flat out lie regarding something in which his lie could be discovered. Apparently he is either dumber or more cynical than I would have thought plausible.
Now I like to believe that you are more honest and that when you say there are no military records showing a military hospital there at the time, I can trust this information because you have no reason to lie and you are quite diligent and effective at looking things up.
I therefore conclude that you are correct, and I am mistaken on this particular matter, but insofar as it would have had any practical effect, I think the issue is pointless.
Americans inherently understand that the children of servicemen should have full US citizenship. They understand that Vattel's view is correct, even if they had never seen it before.
It is clearly natural, and the right thing to do.
Clearly this point is important to you, while I don't care at all if it's from the debates on the 14th or the Civil Rights act of 1866.
The information it contains is still the same. So far as John Bingham was concerned, children born in the US were citizens so long as they were born "of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty."
And Bingham said similar things in the 14th amendment debates. If you feel strongly about it, I will go to the trouble of looking them up, but it is annoying to have to trudge through all that to find them.
As with the McCain thing, I regard the focus on where and when John Bingham said this particular thing to be irrelevant to the more significant fact that this was his position on the matter of children born in this country to aliens.
That's a strawman argument. Pointing out that our understanding of citizenship (as opposed to subjectude) derives from Vattel rather than English common law, is not even slightly equivalent to any desire to let Euroweenies have a say in our affairs.
This is you attempting to project views onto me that I don't have.
If we were referring to the Magna Carta as an early source of the rights we inherited from the English, you would be suggesting I want us to be ruled by England. Same sort of nonsense.
Noticing that the Happersett court was aware of "authorities" that had different standards is not "praising" the Happersett court.
Why I said I would consider a court credible if they were at the constitutional convention is because they would have first hand knowledge rather than hearsay.
I'm pretty sure the Happersett court did have first hand knowledge of the existence of authorities with different standards for describing citizenship.
No "hearsay" in the Happersett court regarding the point I made about them.
And now I am faced with the odd phenomena of a lawyer who prefers "hearsay" (from courts who weren't there) over actual first hand testimony.
People believe what they want.
You spend more time on that than you do putting forth an actual argument. From you it's "nincompoop" this, and "psychiatric disorder" that.
Maybe that stuff works on some people, but I don't consider it to be an argument in favor of your position. If anything it works against you because it makes you look helpless to defend your position.
That was the Birther position in the Ankeny Case. The state court told them “No”,
Probably one of the courts that says a homosexual man in a dress is a "woman." Modern Courts are a comedy act. They shouldn't be taken seriously. Woe unto people who have to put up with their silly rulings.
Natural-born citizens and 14th Amendment citizens are the same thing
Well if they were, we would never had had any natural born citizens until after the 14th amendment came along and created them.
The rest of what you write is strawmanning and circular reasoning. Not worth the trouble to address.
You have never heard of a preference for first hand witness testimony as opposed to hearsay? I was under the impression that you were somewhat familiar with the American legal process.
The states had various provisions to make legal residents into citizens. I recall seeing them. I'm thinking that after the civil war, this power was absorbed by the Federal government, but the behavior of all involved went on as before. People would come to be legal residents and would be regarded as citizens even if they went through no formal process.
But the elephant in the room is illegal aliens. These didn't exist in the time of Wong Kim Ark because there were no laws barring people from entering the country.
So your intention of applying that section from Wong Kim Ark to modern America doesn't really work. It's not quite honest about the difference between how things worked then, and how things work now.
It's pointless anyway because you do not argue in good faith. You do not say anything without punctuating it with smears and insults.
Who has time for this sort of crap?
My BFF says that she has asked them before, why don’t you just admit that the current state of the law means that Obama was eligible, but that the law should be changed. That would be a defensible position, but she says that they would have none of it.
Squeeky Fromme? The girl so clueless she didn't know this was the name of one of the Manson Family murders?
Why don't we just agree with her about what she says is the truth, despite evidence to the contrary? I dunno. I guess we are in the 25% of the population that simply won't accept something because people tell us so.
Or because some "authority" tells us so.
The framer's intent for natural born citizen can be divined by looking at what they said and did, not by looking at what judges decades or centuries later said.
We follow the evidence, not smug declarations of certainty, especially from the clown show that is the modern judiciary.
The Nazis were illegitimate too, (outside of Germany) but you d@mned well better do what they told you or there would be bad consequences.
That there are bad consequences does not address the issue of legitimacy. Or competence, such as with the courts.
Okay.
You agree a naturalized citizen is a real citizen not a pretend citizen.
Because in your post #74 you said they were pretend not real.
DiogenesLamp - “Shall be deemed” means “We will pretend.”
Now you are saying,
DiogenesLamp - “A naturalized citizen is not a “pretend citizen”, but they are also not a “natural citizen.”
Again just to clarify
When the Massachusetts naturalization acts listed by Mr Rogers in his comment #70 say,
“shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth”
You no longer claim that this means they are pretend citizens of the Commonwealth but in fact “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be” means “are citizens of this Commonwealth.”
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.