• Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 23 other followers

  • October 2011
    M T W T F S S
    « Sep   Nov »
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
  • Recent Comments

    URL on Obama’s Lawyers Officially Adm…
    FBI Rewrites Federal… on FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Le…
    The Grey Enigma on FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Le…
    The Grey Enigma on FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Le…
    vernon on the deportation of Obama
  • Categories

  • Blog Stats

    • 3,395 hits
  • Blogs I Follow

Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship – Obama Not Eligible.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Recently, the New York State Board of Elections was caught trying to amend the US Constitution with an eraser by listing POTUS eligibility as available to any person “born a citizen”.  (Please review Pixel Patriot’s excellent analysis on this issue, “New York State BOE Web Site Cover Up“.)  The Constitution states that only a “natural born Citizen” may be president, a much more stringent requirement than simply being “born a citizen”.

snip

We turn now to an esteemed legal scholar and Government attorney who specialized in citizenship law.  He will provide unquestionable clarity on the issue of why Minor v. Happersett is precedent on citizenship as well as voting rights.

FREDERICK VAN DYNE, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR US DEPARTMENT OF STATE

//////////////////////

Read the rest at the above link.

Advertisements

15 Responses

  1. ONLY the blog you cite, Leo Donofrio, says that Minor v Happersett set a precedent requiring two citizen parents. No one else does.

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President….”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    “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, Sixth Edition

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

    “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004

    The Wall Street Journal put it this way:

    “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”

  2. However, the last time I checked, the Supreme Court over rules all the rest.

    There are many references to a Natural Born Citizen requiring two citizen parents. This includes the Senate that stated McCain was a Natural Born Citizen due to his parents being citizens. Oh yeah, they never vetted Mr. obama the British Subject that is currently squatting in “Our” Whitehouse.

  3. Re:

    “However, the last time I checked, the Supreme Court over rules all the rest.”

    Answer: Sure, but the US Supreme Court HAS TURNED DOWN EVERY SINGLE BIRTHER CASE.

    Are you getting your hopes up that IF the US Supreme Court were to take the case, it would rule the way that Leo Donofrio claims and not the way that all the authorities cited say? If so, dream on.

    The Minor v Happersett case did not say what Leo claims that it said. And the Wong Kim Ark case, which was after Minor and hence would have overturned it (if Minor was a ruling, which it wasn’t), said that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born.

    Yes, the Senate said that McCain was eligible. That was to add his eligibility to that of Obama, whose eligibility was never in question. The reason that there was no Senate resolution on Obama, while there was a Senate resolution on McCain was that there was a question about McCain, who was not born in a state, and none about Obama, who had been born in Hawaii (as has been proven overwhelmingly)

    The Senate resolution is based on this definition, as you can see, both persons born in the USA are eligible (regardless of the number of parents who are citizens) and persons born outside of the USA are eligible if they have US parents. Notice the OR.

    “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, Sixth Edition

  4. Re: “They never vetted.”

    Are you under the crazy notion that McCain was “vetted.” Well, if so, did he actually prove that he was born in the Canal Zone and that both is parents were US citizens. (Answer, no he didn’t. The Senate simply took his word on that matter.)

    Were you under the impression that the Senate, or any government agency “vetted” the eligibility of George Bush, or his father, or Clinton, or Reagan. Or that there was a formal way, or even an informal way, in which the political parties “vet” their candidates.

    There have for decades been letters of eligibility, sent by the political parties to some of the states that request them. BUT there’s no checking before the letters are sent; the parties take the words of the candidate and his team. And, both parties have always sent different letters to the different states, depending on the wording of what the state requires.

    And, so far, NONE of the Republican candidates for president has shown her or his birth certificate. In contrast, Obama has show his birth certificate twice–the short-form and the long-form–and THREE Republican officials in Hawaii (and several Democrats too, of course) have confirmed the facts on it. In short, Obama’s birth in the USA has been checked on far more than any other president’s or candidate’s.

  5. The Supreme court has already decided that to be a Natural Born Citizen you must have 2 citizen parents in Minor v Happersett.

    As to the vetting of McCain, he presented a “long form” birth certificate to the Senate. I do NOT claim that McCain was eligible since he was born in a foreign country. The hospital they claimed he was born in was not built on the military base until after he was born. It’s a little difficult to be born in a hospital before it is built. As for the other Presidents you mentioned, there was never any question as to their eligibility.

    Mr. obama’s eligibility was questioned prior to the election and was ignored. He is NOT eligible due to his foreign father. Mr. obama was born a British citizen/subject and there has never been any documents showing that he gave up that citizenship. He was adopted in a foreign country and there are no records of him “ever” reclaiming his American citizenship.

    Every birth record Mr. obama has shown has been proven to be a forgery. Do you still believe that Mr. obama is a true and legal President?

    He is only a squatter sitting in “our” Whitehouse! He should be in prison!

  6. Let’s begin with this:

    “Every birth record Mr. obama has shown has been proven to be a forgery. Do you still believe that Mr. obama is a true and legal President?”

    Answer:

    The following experts say that the birth certificate was not forged:

    Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said: “The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”

    Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it. … I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”

    John Woodman, independent computer professional, said in a series of videos that the claims of fakery that he examined were unfounded.

    Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily: “All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.”

    And: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tea-party-conservative-refutes-claims-of-obama-birth-certificate-forgery-2011-08-30

    In contrast, WND has quoted as an “expert” Paul Irey, who has stated that he believes that Obama did not attend Columbia College (despite Columbia saying that he did, and also graduated). And Douglas Vogt, whose autobiography says:

    “About the author:
    Douglas Vogt is a geologist and science philosopher. He has funded and directed three expeditions to the Sinai desert where he was the first person since Baruch (Jeremiah’s grandson) to discover the real Mount Sinai. He discovered all the altars that Moses describes in the Torah. In addition he was the first person since Moses to see the real Abraham’s altar also located at Mount Sinai and not in Jerusalem. He has discovered the code systems used by Moses when writing the surface story of the Torah, which enabled him to decode the Torah and other earlier books of the Hebrew Scriptures.” (http://www.vectorpub.com/Reality_Revealed.html)

    And yet you believe the WND experts and not the other experts. Why?

    Moreover, THREE Republican officials in Hawaii (including the former governor) have confirmed the facts on Obama’s birth certificate. Moreover, as I will show, it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE that Obama was born anywhere else than in Hawaii.

    • To beging with, where Mr. obama was born does not matter in the least. His father was never a U.S. citizen which makes Mr. obama ineligible to be President of the U.S.

      None of Mr. obama’s records have been ceritified as true copies. NONE!!

      As for the ones saying they have seen them, Gov of HI etc, they are all politicians and having an R or D by their name does not make them honest or truthful. My opinion is just as good as theirs. And from the documents I have downloaded and examined, a child could make better copies.

      I realize that your paycheck depends on you defending Mr. obama, the British citizen/subject, but I don’t have to read the lies you put out in his favor. I can and have read the Constitution and understand what it says.

      So, unless you have something intelligent to say, don’t bother answering.

  7. Re: “The Supreme court has already decided that to be a Natural Born Citizen you must have 2 citizen parents in Minor v Happersett.”

    Answer: No it didn’t.

    Leo Donofrio says that it did, but it didn’t. It is laughable to believe that the US Supreme Court made a decision that said that two parents are required, when such experts as Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the two conservative US senators quoted above say that birth in the USA is sufficient. And remember that the US Supreme Court has turned down every single birther case. Unless and until the US Supreme Court takes the case, the law in the United States is as the cited Constitutional experts say it is, not as Leo Donofrio says it is. Moreover, the US Electoral College, which had about 60% lawyers as members, elected Obama without a single Elector changing a vote. That was despite a letter-writing campaign by two-fers and birthers to get the electors to change their votes.

    The idea that you could get five votes on the US Supreme Court that two US citizen parents are required, while hundreds of electors, and hundreds of members of Congress (including Rep. Ron Paul) hold that birth in the USA is sufficient, is simply crazy.

    Meese is right:

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President…”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    And Donofrio is wrong.

  8. Re: As to the vetting of McCain, he presented a “long form” birth certificate to the Senate. ”

    Answer: Prove it. There is no article that says that McCain showed anything to the US Senate or any Senate Committee or any member of the Senate. McCain did not post his birth certificate (the one that is online is not his; it is a forgery. It claims that McCain was born in Colon, Panama, which is not in the Canal Zone, while McCain claims to have been born at the Family Hospital at the US Naval Base in the Canal Zone.

    Re: “I do NOT claim that McCain was eligible since he was born in a foreign country. ”

    Regardless of the place of his birth, he fulfills the second of the two criteria, birth overseas to two US parents:

    “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, Sixth Edition

    Re: “As for the other Presidents you mentioned, there was never any question as to their eligibility. ”

    Ah, but the fact that someone did not claim that Herbert Hoover was not born in Spain (as he was) does not mean that he was born in the USA. Nor does the fact that no one noticed that FDR was born in Canada mean that FDR was born in the USA. I claim right now that Mitt Romney was born in Mexico, and Rick Perry was born in Canda, and Ron Paul was born in Poland. Does that mean that they have to show their birth certificates because of my CLAIM?

    So far none of the Republican candidates for president has shown their birth certificates? What do they have to hide?

    In contrast, Obama has shown his birth certificate proving that he was born in Hawaii. And THREE Republican officials confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii. And there were notices of his birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961. And, there is no US travel document showing that Obama was outside of the USA in 1961 or an INS document showing that he was checked into the USA in 1961.

  9. Re: “. He was adopted in a foreign country and there are no records of him “ever” reclaiming his American citizenship..”

    This is another birther myth. There is no evidence that Obama was adopted in Indonesia (or anywhere else for that matter). Adoption in Indonesia requires the action of a district court (as it does in Hawaii), and no one has shown any such document. Nor can they point to a case where an Indonesian newspaper ever said that Obama had been an Indonesian citizen or that he had been adopted, or that Soetoro’s blood children addressed Obama as “brother” (which they would have if he had been adopted), and not as their former step-brother.

    US citizenship can only be relinquished BY A WRITTEN STATEMENT filed at a US Consulate, and no such document has been found. Moreover, it is easy to determine whether Obama was ever an Indonesian citizen or not (he wasn’t). The method is to call the Indonesian Embassy and ASK. I did, and they told me that he was never an Indonesian citizen. Oh, and the stuff about Obama having received financial aid as a foreign student—that is all crap too. That all came from an April Fool’s article in April 2009.

  10. For Obama to have been born anywhere else than in HAWAII, all six of the following would have to be false, but all six are accurate:

    1. Obama’s two official birth certificates, with the state seals on them. (The official physical copy of the long-form birth certificate was handed around in the White House press room, and one reporter said that she had felt the seal and took a photo of the document. http://turningthescale.net/?p=541)

    2. The confirmation of the facts on the two birth certificates–that Obama was born in Hawaii–by THREE Republican officials in Hawaii.

    3. The notices of Obama’s birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961. (The claim that the notices could have been placed by lying relatives turns out to be false because whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital, Hawaii insisted on a witness statement.)

    4. The absence of a US travel document for Obama in 1961. Nor has there been an application for such a travel document found.

    5. This witness, who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii in Kapiolani Hospital in 1961 and writing home about it http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece (The birther allegation that Dr West had retired by 1961 turns out to be false).

    6. Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said repeatedly in the taped interview that he was BORN IN HAWAII, and she said in another interview (Hartford Courant) that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter FROM HAWAII.

  11. To make the point about the absence of US travel documents completely clear, here are some details:

    I’ll bet that you know (but probably have forgotten) that the US government requires, and has long required, that a child being carried into the USA requires some kind of official travel document to be admitted. This is usually a US passport for the child. Or, it could be the fact that the child is entered on the mother’s US passport. Or, it could be a US visa for the child on a foreign passport. Without one of those, we would not let the child into the country.

    So, IF Obama really had been born in Kenya, he would have had to have one of those documents–wouldn’t he? His family would have had to show the passport, wouldn’t they? To show the passport, they would have had to have applied for the passport or the visa for Obama. And, if Obama really were born in Kenya, they would have had to have applied for it in the US consulate or embassy there, wouldn’t they? (And the same applies for any country other than the USA.)

    Such applications are FILED by the US government. The documents exist in multiple files, the actual application itself, communication about it with Washington, entries in the passport file, entries in the application file, entries in the places where the child is carried into the USA. The Bush Administration was in charge of the State Department and the INS for eight years before Obama was elected. Don’t you think that they would have checked the claim that he was born in Kenya?

    All they had to do was find one of those files and McCain would win the election.

    Well, they never did. There is no such file.

    Try to explain why there is no such document. Was the Bush Administration part of the conspiracy? Were all the travel documents, and the applications for them an the communications about them scrapped or hidden?? Why hasn’t WND and other birther sites even discussed this???

  12. Re Dual Citizenship.

    Like the “two US parent” idea, it also is false. In fact, both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were dual citizens at the time that they were president, having been made full voting citizens of FRANCE by the French National Assembly during the French Revolution. Mor importantly, the notion that dual citizenship CAN affect is absurd. If it were true a country could just make a candidate one of its citizens, and she or he would not be eligible. Even more importantly, under strict construction principles, a law has to say something or the US Constitution has to say it, or it is not the law, and the US Constitution does not say it. And the meaning of Natural Born Citizen at the time that the US Constitution was written refers ONLY to citizenship due to the place of birth.

  13. My last comment to you obots:

    The Court in Minor, referring directly to Article 2 Section 1, and specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment, held that women, if born in the US to citizen parents, were citizens and that their citizenship was equal to men. The Court further stated that this “class” of persons were “natives, or natural-born citizens”.

    The Court also held that while women were equal citizens to men, the Constitution did not provide a right to vote to anyone, male or female. This part of the holding was later erased by the 19th Amendment, but the citizenship determination remains as good law today. Therefore, the Court’s decision in Minor operates against Obama being eligible, since his father was never a US citizen.

  14. Here are the actual words of what was stated in Minor v Happersett:

    “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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] 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. ”

    Do you see the part where it said “IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SOLVE THESE DOUBTS”???

    That means that it did not rule. It was obvious, and I do not disagree, that a person born in the county with two US citizen parents is a Natural Born Citizen. There were no doubts. Agreed.

    But that is like saying that there is no doubt that if you wear both suspenders and a belt you will hold your pants up. Using both is a certain remedy, but the court does not say that both are required. In fact, it says that there are some people who “include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. ”

    And then it says that it does not have to decide whether or not this is true. In short, it did not rule.

    You can keep on claiming that the Minor ruling stated that two citizen parents are required, but IT DIDN’T, and that is why scores of Constitutional experts hold that all US citizens who were born in the USA are Natural Born Citizens. If you think that the Minor decision said that two citizen parents are required, dream on. And the Wong Kim Ark decision clearly said that EVERY child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is NATURAL BORN.

    The US Supreme Court has turned down every single birther case, and the chance of it taking one and actually ruling that two citizen parents are required is about one in 33 trillion. IF it too the case, the odds are overwhelming that it would rule the way that Meese said, not the way that Donofrio said.

    I have always wanted to know how two-fers, those that hold that two citizen parents are required, can justify their beliefs after reading these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

    There is no question that the writers of the Constitution did not believe that Blacks and Indians are created equal to others. But on the other hand there is no evidence that they held that the US-born children of foreigners were not equal to the US-born children of US citizens. And, guess what, Alito, Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts, whose mother’s maiden name was Pedrasy) are ALL the US-born children of foreigners (maybe some other justices too, but those three are conservative votes, votes that the two-fer side will never get).

    The proof that Obama was born in Hawaii is overwhelming, and every US citizen who was born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. The only kind of a US citizen who is NOT a Natural Born Citizen is a naturalized US citizen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Natural Born Citizen

Respecting the Constitution?

drkatesview

Thoughts on Our Constitutional Republic

Friends of Citizen Wells

A place for discussion of just about anything.

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

WordPress.com

WordPress.com is the best place for your personal blog or business site.

%d bloggers like this: