English Common Law Requires Jus Sanguinis as Essential for Natural Born

Duh ...............Roberts was performing a ceremony when giving the oath, he was not in the court.

What do you think about the statutory construction blowing your silly WKA theory out of the water? ................ or you don't want or can't bear to think about it.

 

I think your construction is just that- a construction.

Real legal experts- the Appeals Court in Ankeny v Daniels, and the Congressional Research Service have said your 'construct' is hokum.

And if you seriously think that Chief Justice Roberts- a strict Constitutionalist and Conservative- would have sworn Barack Obama into office knowing that he was not eligible- a task that he is not required to perform- well that just shows how far down the rabbit hole you have gone.

 

Still we don't have anyone who can show that English common law requires other than what I have pointed-out, as stated by Lord Coke in Calvin's case, the very case cited by Chief Justice Horace Gray in the WKA case, as THE benchmark case in defining birth-right citizenship.

i.e. that if the dad ain't a subject, then the kid ain't a natural born subject, even if born in the realm.


.

 

Keep saying that to yourself.

The election, confirmation and inauguration of Barack Obama- and Chester Arthur says that the people and Congress of the United States are ignoring you.

 

Why shouldn't it? How do you think they established the Constitution, by guesswork? The whole thing was framed on English Common Law. They were, after all, Englishmen. When it says that the SCOTUS shall deal with matters of Law, what sort of law do you think they were talking about?

 

Yawn.

As Calvin case points out, aliens on English soil were temporary subjects, and so their children were natural born subjects.

 

Yes it was based on it... Not the same in the end.
And still, laws evolves, they aren't set in stone.

 

The SCOTUS in the Minor v Happersett court, made a reference to "common law".

Minor v. Happersett - 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

It is the contention, of those who say native birth in the US suffices to make a US "natural born citizen", that the defining authority as to what makes a "natural born" is the English common law & as this English common law allows children born within England to alien parents to be "natural born", then a child born in US to alien parents is also a "natural born".

There is a huge, glaring problem for those who embrace this absurd notion that native birth suffices to make a US "natural born Citizen".

The SCOTUS in the Minor v Happersett court, whilst expressing and holding that it was "never doubted" that a native born child to US citizen parents was a "natural born citizen", in the very same paragraph, the SCOTUS initiated a mention of some "doubts" as to whether a native born child to alien parents was even a US citizen at all.

Not only did the SCOTUS initiate the mention of the "doubts", but the SCOTUS also said nothing to object, dispel, counter or negate the "doubts", except to say that the "doubts" were not the issue at hand.

Basically the SCOTUS agreed that the "doubts" had some merit, otherwise the SCOTUS would have very quickly dispelled the "doubts", IF it were true that the SCOTUS fully and absolutely believed and held that native birth was sufficient to make a "natural born Citizen".

Now why would that be?

Why did the SCOTUS initiate the mention of the "doubts" and entertain the "doubts" without ANY objection or comment negating the "doubts", if they so (as alleged) fully believed that there was no doubt that native birth made a "natural born Citizen"?????

So it appears that the SCOTUS in Minor, either did NOT rely on the English "common law", if the English common law was really interpreted to mean native birth as sufficient to make a "natural born", OR, the English "common law" was being referred to by the SCOTUS in the Minor court, but with the SCOTUS interpreting the English "common law" to mean that BOTH native birth AND subject/citizen parents was required to make a 'natural born", OR, the SCOTUS in the Minor court was NOT referring to English "common law" at all, but was rather referring to ANOTHER "common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar", which must have been US "common law".

 

Because the Supreme Court, as a proper court, only answers questions in front of them.

The real question is why do you continue to focus on this case, when Wong Kim Ark and its progeny resolved any "doubts" conclusively?

 

I see you recognize the huge problem that the proponents of native birth = "natural born" have.

Citing the Wong Kim Ark case does nothing to answer my question.

The only "doubts" resolved, as to citizenship of a native born child to alien parents, in the SCOTUS WKA court, was with respect to whether the 14th Amendment was applicable to Wong Kim Ark based on certain circumstances

i.e.

The "doubts" referred to in the Minor court were as to whether a native born child to alien parents was a "CITIZEN", the "doubts" were NOT as to whether such a child was a "natural born citizen", which was already determined in the preceding words of the same paragraph, stating that BOTH native birth AND US citizen parents made a "natural born citizen".

With the careful consideration of WKA's circumstances, and even with all the discussion about "natural born", in the court's DECISION Wong Kim Ark was adjudged a "citizen of the United States" but NOT a "natural born citizen" like Virginia Minor was.

If the SCOTUS already (as is alleged) fully believed and held that the framers of the USC intended "natural born" to mean native born, then the SCOTUS would not have initiated the mention nor entertained the notion, without ANY negating comment or objection, that there were "doubts" that native birth was sufficient to make a "natural born citizen".

I won't go on here ................. you read my question ............. see if you can answer without trying to muddy the water with this tired, deceptive worn-out WKA mantra.

 

Because every legal source says your argument is silly. Here is the latest:

In a ruling yesterday in the case of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party, Judge Richard E. Gordon dismissed the action for a variety of reasons:

Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV) ; Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett does not hold otherwise

 

Still no one can explain why the SCOTUS in the Minor court referred to "common law", yet the SCOTUS initiated mention, without objection or negating comment, "doubts" that run completely contrary to what the SCOTUS are alleged (by Obots) to believe and hold as defined by the 'common law".

The worshipers of Obama throw-up trivial cases, with garbage holdings that have no precedence in SCOTUS, expecting to cover-up the glaring truth which they so desperately try to hide and suppress.

Now let's see if YOU can explain why the SCOTUS favorably observed "doubts" as to whether a child born native to US, but to alien parents, was a citizen at all, in light of your absurd suggestion that to the SCOTUS, native birth was sufficient to make a "natural born citizen".

 

Because they wanted to give background on the history of the concept. It's not a holding, nor is it dicta. It's nothing. They brought it up specifically to say that they were not resolving that issue, only the issue at hand, which was Minor's status.

Clearly you are unqualified to review this topic if you cannot grasp that basic concept of case briefing. If you can't get past that, you'd wash out of the first week of law school.

 

poor michael. still can't find a single legal expert or court who agrees with you.

 

Could it be that you birthers in your absolute certainty that no black man should ever be president are simply reading too much into the word.

Natural----NaturalIZE

the suffix "ize" describes some process.

Demonize
Hospitalize
Euthanize
Winterize


It really is that simple.

A natural born citizen is a citizen because he was born here. A naturalized citizen is a citizen because he went through the citizenship process.

All this really does is make you guys look stupid and racist. But, hey! Whatever floats your boat.

 

I don't care about inconsequential curiousity about irrelevant issues.

As I said before- actual legal expert say that Minor is irrelevant but that Wong Kim Ark is precedent.

In a ruling yesterday in the case of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party, Judge Richard E. Gordon dismissed the action for a variety of reasons:

Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV) ; Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett does not hold otherwise

Go argue with the Judge if you wish.

 

Who cares? Minor v. Happersett has never once been cited as precedent on this issue by a single subsequent court. And not only have we insisted for years now that Minor is irrelevant to any definition of natural born citizenship, we now explicitly have a court having made that same determination as well thanks to the Birther ballot challenge having turned into their worst nightmare.

In fact, we now have an additional three courts declaring that Wong Kim Ark is reigning precedent on that issue, and one explicitly saying the Minor is not.

It really sucks to be a Birther.

 

"English" common law says no such thing.

 

Garbage! ............. there was no need at all to even mention anything beyond what they had already established prior in the same paragraph when they stated that Minor was, due to native birth and US citizen parents, a natural born citizen

So according to your reasoning, the mentions of "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" in the Wong Kim Ark court were "because they wanted to give background on the history of the concept. It's not a holding, nor is it dicta. It's nothing. They brought it up specifically to say that they were not resolving that issue, only the issue at hand, which was" Wong Kim Ark's status as a "citizen of the United States" by way of the 14th Amendment, which may be and in the case of WKA was a separate entity to a "natural born Citizen, which, as was shown by SCOTUS in the Minor court, did NOT NEED the 14th Amendment to arrive at recognizing the "natural born citizen" status.

If Wong Kim Ark was considered by SCOTUS to be a "natural born citizen", then the court would have only needed recognize his status by the same method as the Minor court, without any need to apply 14th Amendment interpretation.

The DECISION for Wong Kim Ark was "citizen" and NOT "natural born".

The point is that the SCOTUS would not, without any passing objection or negating comment, have initiated nor entertained the notion of any "doubt" if they already interpreted and believed Article II "natural born" to mean native born.

Btw, who were the "some authorities" referred to by the SCOTUS, and in which cases were these "doubts" expressed?

.

 

No such what "thing"?

 

Obviously, you do.

 

That's the best you can do?

It really, really, really sucks to be an Australian Birther.

 

Ergo... obiter dicta.

Actually, no. That was the ratio decidendi that allowed them to reach the conclusion they reached. without it, the argument could not prevail.

How odd then that it has since been cited as precedent at least four times.

Every court and administrative body to consider the issue has held that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen who is eligible to serve as President. See, e.g.,:

1. Allen v. Obama et al, No. C20121317 (Ariz. Pima County Super. Ct., Mar. 7, 2012) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the 2012 ballot; finding that Obama is a “natural born citizen” under Wong Kim Ark; and expressly rejecting argument that Minor v. Happersett holds otherwise), appeal filed (Ariz. App. Ct. 2d Div., Mar. 8, 2012)

2. Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (“based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents”) transfer denied 929 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2010)

3. Farrar v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALlHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, Farrar v. Obama, No. 2012CV211398 (Ga. Fulton Cty. Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012)

4. Freeman v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 103 (Ill. Bd. of Elections Hearing Officer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (Obama's birth certificate "clearly establishes" his eligibility for office as a "Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. State Board of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012)

5. Jackson v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 104 (Ill. Bd. of Elections Hearing Officer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (Obama's birth certificate "clearly establishes" his eligibility for office as a "Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. State Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012)

6. Kelser v. Obama, No. 2012-162 (Ind. Election Comm’n Feb. 24, 2012) (denying objection seeking to keep Obama off 2012 ballot on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”)

7. Powell v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1216823-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, Powell v. Obama, No. 2012CV211528 (Ga. Fulton Cty. Super. Ct., Mar. 2, 2012), appeal pending, No. S12D1077 (Ga. S.Ct., filed Mar. 12, 2012)

8. Ripley v. Obama, No. 2012-163 (Ind. Election Comm’n Feb. 24, 2012) (denying objection seeking to keep Obama off 2012 ballot on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”)

9. Swensson v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1216218-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, Swensson v. Obama, No. 2012CV211527 (Ga. Fulton Cty. Super. Ct., Mar. 2, 2012), appeal pending, No. S12D1076 (Ga., filed Mar. 12, 2012)

10. Swihart v. Obama, No. 2012-176 (Ind. Election Comm’n Feb. 24, 2012) (denying objection seeking to keep Obama off 2012 ballot on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”)

11. Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3: 12-cv-00036-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012) (order dismissing complaint) (dismissing in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and holding that “t is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens” and that plaintiff’s contentions otherwise are “without merit”), appeal pending, No. 12-1124 (4th Cir., filed Jan. 30, 2012)

12. Welden v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215137-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, Welden v. Obama, No. 2012CV211527 (Ga. Fulton Cty. Super. Ct., Mar. 2, 2012), appeal pending, No. S12D1059 (Ga., filed Mar. 7, 2012)

13. Also Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 66 (D.N.H. 200 (“Those born ‘in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding and thus eligible for the presidency.”) (internal citations omitted)

 

Look, obviously you just don't understand how to read a case. You're just going to have to take my word for it, as someone who is actually a legal expert.

If you can't understand it at this point, I don't really know that I can dumb it down any further. I guess you're never going to realize your question has been answered several times. Sorry.

 

Like in Minor v Happersett, without proceeding to examine Virginia's status as a citizen, then the SCOTUS could not reach a conclusion as to her Constitutional rights.

The discussion in the Wong court that touched on "natural born" was not necessary to establish Wong's citizenship under the 14th Amendment, because it only needed born in the land and subject to the jurisdiction to establish "citizen of the United States".

It was merely to establish the principle of native birth-right as it was observed to exist in the 14th Amendment, it is merely an intrigue that the native born in England were CALLED "natural born".

Unfortunate for Wong and YOU more particularly, the court could not CALL Wong a 'natural born' and he ONLY got "citizen", because he did not qualify as a "natural born" by US Constitutional standards.

With Minor, the 14th Amendment was not needed to establish "natural born" for Minor, as it was established through recognition of BOTH born in the land to citizen parents, which is obviously considered by the SCOTUS to be a higher standard than "subject to the jurisdiction" and mere long term domiciled residency.

That's why the mention of "natural born" in the Wong court was merely dicta, unnecessary and superfluous to come to the decision at hand.

NOWHERE in the Wong court is Wong ruled as a "natural born".

So you have it, the Minor court mentioned a 'common law' and it determined that by that 'common law' a child born native, to US citizen parents was a 'natural born citizen', but IF it was so that English common law recognized native birth as sufficient to a make a "natural born", then the Minor court (IF it was referring to the English common law) had no necessity to either consider Virginia Minor a "natural born" by any means other than the 14th Amendment, nor was there ANY NEED to mention ANY "doubts" about whether native birth could make a "citizen", let alone a "natural born".

So what was this "common law" that the SCOTUS in the Minor court was referring to?


.