Quantcast

Supreme Court Defines "Natural Born" Citizen in Minor v, Happersett

Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA 2011/12/06 04:02:56
Filed under 2012 Election by on December 5, 2011 at 11:13 am

According to the United States Supreme Court, Obama is ineligible to be the President. That’s right, you read that correctly. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that Obama is ineligible to serve as President.


It’s not that you haven’t been paying attention lately and yes, you can be excused for missing the ruling as it came down, not in the last few days but back in 1875.


This is the argument currently being made by the Liberty Legal Foundation.


The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed not 1 but 2 lawsuits, one in Arizona and the other in Tennessee neither of which have one single thing to do with Obama’s birth certificate OR challenging whether or not Obama was born in the United States.


There is no need for either in regard to these lawsuits.


At the core of this action is a simple request that Federal courts uphold the Supreme Court ruling. Both lawsuits, and the Liberty Legal Foundation promises there will be more, would render it impossible for the Democratic National Committee to place Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot.


Here’s the crux of it.


Back in 1875, the United States Supreme Court, in Minor v, Happersett, ruled that:


“Natural Born Citizen” was defined as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. It found: “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.”


Read a supporting article here: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-ha...

Read More: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Kaleokualoha 2012/06/24 04:49:37
    Kaleokualoha
    Sorry, but the Minor v Happerset claim is hogwash. For a detailed legal analysis, see http://www.obamabirthbook.com...

    The operative definition within the United States is: "Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government" (i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad). — Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). It is similar to the earlier Black's Law definition: Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad. (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., 1991, p.1026) - http://people.mags.net/tonche...

    This is perfectly reflected in a 2011 Congressional Research Service report:

    "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 ...









    &

    Sorry, but the Minor v Happerset claim is hogwash. For a detailed legal analysis, see http://www.obamabirthbook.com...

    The operative definition within the United States is: "Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government" (i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad). — Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). It is similar to the earlier Black's Law definition: Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad. (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., 1991, p.1026) - http://people.mags.net/tonche...

    This is perfectly reflected in a 2011 Congressional Research Service report:

    "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."
    - http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mi...

    Those who try to redefine "natural born citizen" for their own agenda are no better than those who try to redefine "torture" (e.g., waterboarding) for their own agenda.

    Such rhetorical deception was highlighted in the story of Alice's adventures in "Through The Looking-Glass,"

    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."
    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
    - Lewis Carroll, English author & recreational mathematician (1832 - 1898)

    Fortunately, the Rule of Law supersedes the Rule of Man in civilized societies.
    (more)
  • Adakin ... Kaleoku... 2012/06/24 05:35:54
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    RE: "Sorry, but the Minor v Happerset claim is hogwash. For a detailed legal analysis, see http://www.obamabirthbook.com...

    But from your own link... is this rebuttal:

    "The operative definition within the United States is: "Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government" (i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad). — Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). It is similar to the earlier Black's Law definition: Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad. (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., 1991, p.1026) - http://people.mags.net/tonche...

    This is perfectly reflected in a 2011 Congressional Research Service report:

    "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 ...&




















    RE: "Sorry, but the Minor v Happerset claim is hogwash. For a detailed legal analysis, see http://www.obamabirthbook.com...

    But from your own link... is this rebuttal:

    "The operative definition within the United States is: "Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government" (i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad). — Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). It is similar to the earlier Black's Law definition: Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad. (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., 1991, p.1026) - http://people.mags.net/tonche...

    This is perfectly reflected in a 2011 Congressional Research Service report:

    "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 ...&
    Sorry, but the Minor v Happerset claim is hogwash. For a detailed legal analysis, see http://www.obamabirthbook.com...

    The Court did not simply accept the parties’ concession that Minor was a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment. It showed by way of a thorough and well-reasoned analysis that women had always been considered to be “citizens,” even before the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted and that they therefore did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to be “citizens.” The Court also showed that given that Virginia Minor was born to citizen parents, she was not only a “citizen” but also a “natural-born citizen.” This is the first time that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that women could be as much as men “citizens” and “natural-born citizens” and the decision was, indeed, precedential in that regard.

    As an additional point about citizenship, the Court did recognize that there were “some authorities” who contended that a child born in the country to alien parents was a “citizen.” The Court said that “there have been doubts” whether that child was a “citizen.” The Court did not say that the doubts were whether that child was a “natural-born citizen” or that if that child was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen,” he or she would be included in the “natural-born citizen” class. Clearly, that child could not be a “natural-born citizen.”

    First, Minor did not say that the Fourteenth Amendment in any way altered the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Rather, the Court set out to define a “natural-born citizen” under “common-law” which given the Court’s analysis shows that the Fourteenth Amendment did not abrogate that “common-law” which was American “common-law” and not English “common-law.”

    Second, the Court defined in that same paragraph a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in a country to citizen parents and a child born in the United States to alien parents simply did not satisfy that definition.

    Third, the Founders and Framers, in using the “natural born Citizen,” clause for presidential eligibility, could not have intended that the clause would have had more than one definition. Minor gave us that only one definition and said that there were no doubts about that definition. The Founders and Framers would have known and accepted that same definition that had no doubts attached to it and used it for presidential eligibility which would have needed bright line standards.

    Fourth, Minor only raised the point about “some authorities” claiming that children born in the United States to alien parents being “citizens” and stating that “there have been doubts” whether they were correct without deciding it because it was not necessary to do so given that Virginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen.” That the Court only granted this separate issue one or two lines does not take away from the Court’s thorough analysis of what citizenship was in the United States before the Fourteenth Amendment, its statement that the Fourteenth Amendment did not define a “natural-born citizen,” and that under “common-law” a “natural-born citizen” was a child born in a country to parents who were citizens of that country. What is also important about this additional point that Minor made is that the U.S. Supreme Court told us what the state of the law was as to the citizenship of children born in the United States to alien parents. Throughout the history of the United States, there had been doubts whether such children were even “citizens,” let alone “natural-born citizens.” It there were such doubts, the Founders and Framers surely would not have considered them “natural-born citizens.” In fact, given the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802, we know that the Founders and Framers considered such children aliens which means that they surely did not considered them to “citizens,” let alone “natural-born citizens.”

    In Lockwood, Ex Parte (Ex Parte Lockwood), 154 U.S. 116 (1894), the Court looked to Minor and said: “In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since.”

    Then in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Court said in referring to Minor: “The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.” U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 680 (1898).

    Looks like both Lockwood and Wong told us that Minor “held” or made a “decision” about Virginia Minor’s citizenship. Id. at 680.

    So as you can see, there is no merit to your position on Minor."
    (more)
  • Kaleoku... Adakin ... 2012/06/24 06:15:30 (edited)
    Kaleokualoha
    Congress and Black's agree that a NBC is "Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad." The requirement that both parents must be citizens is hogwash. Minor v Happersett does not affect this operative definition.
  • Steve ☮ R ☮ P ☮ 2012 ☮ 2011/12/09 19:18:10
    Steve ☮ R ☮ P ☮ 2012 ☮
    +1
    This is not surprising. The Supreme Court also ruled on 2 separate occasions that the 16th amendment did not give the government any new power of taxation. And since they had ruled (prior to those jusdgments) that the government had no power to tax the wages of anyone, then the Income Tax is completely illegal.

    Nothing will come of this Obama eligibility situation. Without the government themselves pressing it, the people will not listen. Americans (collectively) are so weak minded that we stand no chance to ever achieve our freedom again. The rule of law means nothing to most people if it isn't pushed by the authorities. It's sickening, but true.
  • Striker Steve ☮... 2011/12/09 22:12:47
    Striker
    +1
    When most of "the law" is bad, it's best not to be ruled by it!
  • Bikermike Striker 2011/12/11 22:15:22 (edited)
    Bikermike
    The alternative....to be ruled by men or anarchy?
  • John "By God" American 2011/12/09 12:16:09
    John "By God" American
    +4
    This renders every decision he has made irrelevant.
  • Adakin ... John "B... 2011/12/09 14:47:53 (edited)
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    +2
    Including Obamacare and every other bill that has been signed into law since Jan'09
  • John "B... Adakin ... 2011/12/09 19:14:55
    John "By God" American
    +1
    A beautiful thought...
  • Annie~Pro American~Pro Israel 2011/12/09 10:03:45
    Annie~Pro American~Pro Israel
    +2
    The Supreme Court has failed us along with liberal MSM and the Democrat Party. The Supremes should have been up on top of this on DAY ! and those who vetted Obama belong in prison.
  • Steve ☮... Annie~P... 2011/12/09 19:21:15
    Steve ☮ R ☮ P ☮ 2012 ☮
    +2
    Actually, the Supreme Court hasn't failed us, they sold us out. Not surprising considering that Congress and the Presidency are completely corrupt. Justices are nominated by the President, and confirmed by Congress. Is there any chance at all that they are putting an honest, independent minded person in that seat? No. In my opinion, the Supreme Court is THE MOST CORRUPT organization on the planet. Because they are supposed to overrule legislation that usurps the Constitution and infringes on the freedom of the people, but they don't.
  • Striker Steve ☮... 2011/12/09 22:14:17
    Striker
    +1
    really *smart* to have GOVERNment run our "justice system"!
  • Dan ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮ 2011/12/06 05:12:51 (edited)
    Dan ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮
    +5
    I'm just annoyed that this is only recently becoming viral. I've been pointing this definition out since before the second fake Birth Certificate (well, technically first, but the media lied and said that the short form was it and nothing else existed...)

    But good to hear more people are becoming informed... just it might be too late. 93% of Senators and Obama already stated that they dont give a rat's ass about the constitution, and its likely that the supreme court is going to rule in favor of the elite anyway now...
  • Adakin ... Dan ☮ R... 2011/12/06 05:32:25
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    +6
    Dan, Liberty Legal Foundation doesn't care what SCOTUS says... that's why they are suing in state court to simply have their state AG uphold the EXISTING United States Supreme Court ruling in Minor v, Happersett. If the Dems then propose to register their CANDIDATE Obama, they will have to prove that he has two American Citizen parents to the Atty General of AZ and Tenn. (and others according to the articles)...The U.S. SCOTUS can remain hiding under their desks. But the various state AG's will have to uphold the ruling as dictated by their own state courts and tell the Democratic Party to provide only candidates that are qualified... which opens another can of worms... enter Hillary as the new Democrat Party nominee...
  • Icanbean Arschloch 2011/12/06 05:07:19
    Icanbean  Arschloch
    +7
    Congress, along with the the Supreme Court, should demand his immediate resignation!
  • Annie~P... Icanbea... 2011/12/09 10:12:27 (edited)
    Annie~Pro American~Pro Israel
    +6
    Bingo Icanbean. If it was up to the House of Reps, they would declare Obama ineligible in a heart beat. It's the Democrat dominated Senate who would block any attempts to remove Obama right now. Thats why in November 2012 we need to take the Senate. Currently, demoRATS hold 2/3 of the power. It appears the Rep controlled House has slowed Obama down a bit but, we can stop most of his radical Marxist agenda if we can win either the POTUS seat or win control of the Senate. Hopefully, its both.
  • Icanbea... Annie~P... 2011/12/09 17:17:19
    Icanbean  Arschloch
    +2
    That's what I've been praying for!!!
  • Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA 2011/12/06 04:13:08 (edited)
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    +3
    Hmmm, this could be a BIG problem for the GOP...

    All of the Republican POTUS Wannabee's have targeted PresBO as the likely Democrat Nominee. But what if Liberty Legal Foundation is successful? It would appear that Hillary's dreams would come true, along with ol' foot in mouth Joe Biden, as he could be the primary beneficiary of such a ruling.

    On the other hand, if Barry was proclaimed ineligible for being the Dem nominee, it would only stand to reason that he was similarly ineligible to hold his current office. And if that assumption was upheld, then all of his appointments... including VP appointee Joe Biden, would be null and void (as would Obamacare, Stimulus spending, appointment of dozens of "Czars" etc, etc...) That would put speaker of the house John Boehner in direct line for the Presidency.

    Again, this is pure speculation. But as all of our judicial history is built upon existing case law... What if LLF really has a valid point? Can you say PRESIDENT John Boehner?

    John Boehner
  • Annie~P... Adakin ... 2011/12/09 10:17:04
    Annie~Pro American~Pro Israel
    +2
    Yes, I can go for a REAL American Patriot, Boehner as POTUS. I could then sleep well at night. Boehner is also a hell of allot better to look at too. Obama is homely, his nose has honestly become way to long and gets longer by each passing day.
  • Shigyrl... Adakin ... 2011/12/09 14:00:33
    Shigyrl but outspoken on my future
    +1
    That is an interesting scenario. Could explain the weak republican field. Also explains why the republican field is so weak.
  • Striker Adakin ... 2011/12/09 22:17:02

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/29 00:26:11

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals