Sheriff Arpaio revives birther controversy at Trump rally

rahl · Dec 27, 2015

Bluesguy said: ↑

Nope showed you by statutory law the SHALL they have no other choice in the matter.
Click to expand...

The state of hawaii disagrees. I'll take their word over a random internet birther.

Did the state of Hawaii have in it's posession a long form birth certificate pertaining to Obama?

Yes

By law they must make that available to him, it is a separate and distinct document from the short form.

"Each agency that maintains any accessible personnel record must make that record available to the individual to whom it pertains in a reasonably prompt manner and in a reasonably intelligible form. Where necessary, the agency must provide a translation into common terms of any machine readable code or any code or abbreviation employed for internal agency use."

Where does it say "except long form birth certificates"?

If you can show where the law says differently or a court has ruled differently then do so. Else argue with the state legislature of Hawaii which passed the law.
Click to expand...

Already refuted this.

No I haven't but then when your arguments have no merit labeling is all you have left isn't it.
Click to expand...

Of course you have. And my arguments have completely demolished the nonsense you have been parroting for 5 years.

Obama is a natural born citizen, if you have reading comprehension difficulties that's not my problem.
Click to expand...

I know he is. But you keep parroting birther arguments about his bio, his college applications and his birth certificate. All of which have been refuted.

SFJEFF · Dec 27, 2015

Penrod said: ↑

No. According to British law they were still British subjects and would have hung had they lost. Their parents were British subjects and so were they. They had plenty of problems with it or they would not need a grandfather clause

http://birthers.org/USC/ArtIIS1.html
Click to expand...

Considering that all of the Founding Fathers were at least on July 4, 1776, British subject

As of July 4, 1776- yes.

As of July 5, 1776- no. They were citizens of the United States as they foreswore their British citizenship.

Meanwhile- Thomas Jefferson was a dual citizen- French and American while President.

As I point out again- if Thomas Jefferson didn't have a problem with his own dual citizenship as President- why do you?

- - - Updated - - -

Bluesguy said: ↑

Nope showed you by statutory law the SHALL they have no other choice in the matter.

Did the state of Hawaii have in it's posession a long form birth certificate pertaining to Obama?

Yes

By law they must make that available to him, it is a separate and distinct document from the short form.

"Each agency that maintains any accessible personnel record must make that record available to the individual to whom it pertains in a reasonably prompt manner and in a reasonably intelligible form. Where necessary, the agency must provide a translation into common terms of any machine readable code or any code or abbreviation employed for internal agency use."

Where does it say "except long form birth certificates"?

If you can show where the law says differently or a court has ruled differently then do so. Else argue with the state legislature of Hawaii which passed the law.
.
Click to expand...

According to your interpretation.

Meanwhile the State of Hawaii interprets the law differently.

SFJEFF · Dec 27, 2015

Penrod said: ↑

Looks like they did.

http://www.federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered/
Click to expand...

Among the many dishonesties of the Birthers is their knowing lie by omission regarding Minor

Here is what you posted:

Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. “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.”

Birthers like yourself always leave off the next sentence- because the very next sentence cuts your argument to the bone- and is why Wong Kim Ark is precedent- not Minor.

- - - Updated - - -

Bluesguy said: ↑

And you dont even know what Birthers are, you seem quite clueless here.

So quote me where I have claimed Obama is not a NBC and not eligible to be president or admit you have nothing of substance to admit just lame attempts to label people.
Click to expand...

You just carry Birther's water- you aren't a real 'Birther'.

You just like to make many of their arguments for them.

- - - Updated - - -

Bluesguy said: ↑

Scroll back the law at the time has been posted several times and it doesn't matter if the parents are married. Obama could ONLY gain his citizenship by his place of birth which he did. Why do you think it was an issue if it was simply a matter of his mother being a citizen, no one ever disputed her citizenship.
Click to expand...

Because Birthers don't give a damn about facts when it comes to attacking Obama.

Like I said- the question is moot- but once again- the claim if he was born outside the United States his mother could not have established his citizenship is unproven- since it has not been and will not be legally challenged.

But if his mother was not legally married- her status as an unmarried mother would have established her child's citizenship regardless of her age.

SFJEFF · Dec 27, 2015

birddog said: ↑

A juvenile response, but what I expected. You have a lot of class, but it's all low.
Click to expand...

LOL- all you do is troll.

SFJEFF · Dec 27, 2015

APACHERAT said: ↑

You might want to look at Obama's short form certificate of live birth again, it doesn't meet all of the requirements.

What's missing on the short form certificate?

Registrars signature.
Except it is on the BC

Embossed, impressed, or multicolored seal of registrar.

And Barack Obama's short form has that.

Place of birth.

Shown right on the BC- Honolulu, Hawaii
So if the U.S. State Department will not accept Obama's short form certificate of live birth, why should the rest of America ?

Well the rest of the United States has accepted Barack Obama' birth certificate- remember- he was elected twice- voters were more than convinced by the State of Hawaii' official confirmation.

And there is no reason why the State Department would not accept it.

The only question is why you refuse to believe the evidence from the State of Hawaii.

Still.
Click to expand...

birddog · Dec 27, 2015

sfjeff said: ↑

lol- all you do is troll.
Click to expand...

major pkb alert!

Penrod · Dec 27, 2015

rahl said: ↑

Plyler v doe. Everyone inside US borders is subject to the complete jurisdiction of the US. You lose, again
Click to expand...

Show me. Of course you have to ignore all precedent prior to Kim Wong to even make such a claim

Penrod · Dec 27, 2015

SFJEFF said: ↑

Considering that all of the Founding Fathers were at least on July 4, 1776, British subject

As of July 4, 1776- yes.

As of July 5, 1776- no. They were citizens of the United States as they foreswore their British citizenship.

Meanwhile- Thomas Jefferson was a dual citizen- French and American while President.

As I point out again- if Thomas Jefferson didn't have a problem with his own dual citizenship as President- why do you?

- - - Updated - - -

According to your interpretation.

Meanwhile the State of Hawaii interprets the law differently.
Click to expand...

It matters not. They still were and would have hung as traitors. Thats why they made the grand father clause

As were all the others beside Jefferson except they were dual citizens of Britain and the US like Obama is. If Britain declared them no longer citizens you may have a point.

Jefferson had a problem with it for all those who did not fall under the grand father clause.

Penrod · Dec 27, 2015

SFJEFF said: ↑

Among the many dishonesties of the Birthers is their knowing lie by omission regarding Minor

Here is what you posted:

Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. “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.”

Birthers like yourself always leave off the next sentence- because the very next sentence cuts your argument to the bone- and is why Wong Kim Ark is precedent- not Minor.

- - - Updated - - -

.
Click to expand...

That confirms that an NBC has both parents born here and is born here. What are you talking about?

MINOR v. HAPPERSETT REVISITED.

…the only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:

“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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

There’s a quote for you. It really exists. And it tells you exactly who are natural-born citizens; those born in the country of parents who are citizens. The words are plain-spoken and self-evident. There are two classes of persons discussed in the above quotation. Those born in the country of citizen parents were labeled by the Court as “natives or natural-born citizens”, but these were also further identified as being “distinguished from aliens or foreigners”. The distinction is crucial.

On one side are those who have no citizenship other than that of the United States… as distinguished from those on the polar opposite side who have absolutely no claim to citizenship in the United States; “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Those who fall in between these two extremes make up a third class of persons whose citizenship status, the Court noted, was subject to doubt:

“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Id. (Emphasis added.)

Had this third class been contemplated as having any claim to being natural-born citizens, the distinction employed by the court would not make sense. The distinction was employed to more specifically identify the class of persons who were natural-born citizens under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. The two classes discussed are in direct polar opposition to each other. Had this distinction not been employed, it might be argued that those born in the country of one citizen parent were also natural-born. But the distinction leads to the necessary conclusion that the Court in Minor was identifying a two-citizen parent rule.

For example, a person born in the US to a British father and U.S. citizen mother would, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (and at the time Minor v. Happersett was decided), be considered as a natural-born subject of the U.K. Whether this child would be, at his birth, a citizen under the 14th amendment, was left undecided by the Court in Minor. But let’s assume that the child was a U.S. citizen. Where does that child fit into the distinction offered by the Court in Minor? The child is not on either polar extreme, since the child was not exclusively a US citizen at birth, nor was the child exclusively a British subject at birth. He does not fit into the distinction.

By choosing two extremes – those who, at their birth, are nothing but U.S. citizens – “as distinguished from aliens or foreigners” – those who, at their birth, are in no way U.S. citizens – the Supreme Court in Minor provided the necessary criteria to properly discern their holding.

Nothing has been left open as to the Minor Court’s definition of a natural-born citizen. This is further made clear by the Court’s other – somewhat overlooked – federal citizenship holding:

“The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association…

For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. 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.”

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 165-166 (1874). (Emphasis added.)

Therefore, when the Court uses the words, “citizen” or “citizenship”, no other meaning may be imputed other than, “membership of a nation”. But Jack Maskell believes he can overrule this specific holding of the Supreme Court by inserting the words “natural-born” where they do not appear. ”Natural-born” only pertains to a requirement for the municipal office of President. Those who are natural-born meet that qualification, but all who are citizens, natural-born, naturalized abroad, naturalized here, at birth or later in life, are members of our nation. The word citizen – according to the Supreme Court in Minor – refers to “membership of a nation, and nothing more“. It’s the “nothing more” that Maskell fails to recognize.

In Maskell’s CRS memo, he alleges that the following statement from Minor left open the issue of whether persons born of aliens could be considered as natural-born citizens:

“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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” Id. at 167-168. (Emphasis added.)

Reading this passage in light of the definition of “citizen” from pg. 166 of Minor’s unanimous opinion, it becomes evident that what is referred to here is membership in our nation, and nothing more. Any attempt to insert the words – “natural-born” – into this passage to imply that the court left open the issue of whether those whose citizenship was in doubt might also be eligible to be President would be in direct opposition to the Court’s very holding of the case. This expression of doubt must be limited to the political status of the person, not to their eligibility to hold a municipal office. Political status is a legal term of art which means, “membership in a nation, and nothing more”. Presidential eligibility refers to municipal status. The holding not only determined Virginia Minor’s citizenship, it directly defined “citizen”, and that definition remains the law of the land today.

First, on pgs. 165-166, the Court defined the meaning of the word “citizen”. Then, on pgs. 167-168, the court defined the class of “natural-born citizens”. The Court left open the issue of who were “citizens” under the 14th Amendment, which the Court wisely avoided by exercising judicial constraint. Instead, the Court construed Article 2 Section 1, Clause 5, the natural-born citizen clause. In doing so, they defined and closed that class to persons born in the country to parents who are citizens.

The Minor Court’s unanimous opinion and definition of natural-born citizen have never been overruled or even questioned. In fact, the very passage defining the natural-born citizen class was re-stated in Justice Gray’s opinion from Wong Kim Ark. Had he intended to take issue with that definition, or to expand it, then his opinion would certainly contain something like this:

Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen eligible to be President.

But no such statement exists. It’s also important to remember at all times that the Court in Minor specifically avoided construction of the 14th Amendment, thereby defining the class of natural-born citizens and identifying Virginia Minor as a member of that class. Virginia Minor directly petitioned the Court to determine that she was a citizen under the 14th Amendment. But the Minor Court declined to construe the 14th Amendment, and thereafter set about defining the class of persons who were natural-born citizens of the United States in determining that she was a citizen.

In 1996, the US Supreme Court’s majority opinion by Justice Breyer in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996), stated that when the Court discusses a certain reason as an independent ground in support of their decision, then that reason is not simply dictum:

“Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we explicitly labeled this reason an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision, id., at 334. We cannot accept petitioners’ claim that it was simply a dictum.”

The Minor Court’s construction of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, of the United States Constitution was the independent ground by which the Court avoided construing the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.

Therefore, such construction is precedent, not dicta, despite POTUS eligibility not being an issue. The Court determined it was necessary to define the class of natural-born citizens, and the definition is current legal precedent.

Had the Court in Wong Kim Ark identified him as a natural-born citizen, there would have been no need to construe the 14th Amendment, just as it wasn’t necessary to construe it to determine Virginia Minor’s citizenship. But Wong Kim Ark was not natural-born, and therefore the Court was required to construe the 14th Amendment to determine his citizenship status.

Again, had Justice Gray’s opinion intended to state that Ark was natural-born, there would be a sentence in Gray’s opinion stating, Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen. But there isn’t. No amount of tongue twisting can insert those words where they do not exist and do not belong.

The same is true for the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Minor v. Happersett. Had the court intended to say – Some authorities go further and include as natural-born citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents – then that is exactly what the US Supreme Court would have said. But they didn’t.

And the same can be said for the framers of the 14th Amendment. Had they intended to include the words “natural-born citizen” in the Amendment, then that is exactly what they would have done. But they didn’t. Any attempt to read those words into the 14th Amendment would render Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, to be superfluous. And that goes directly against our entire body of national jurisprudence on the issue of statutory construction.
Click to expand...

https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-happersett-revisited-2/

APACHERAT · Dec 28, 2015

U.S. Supreme Court opinions.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)

Minor v. Happersett

88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162

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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. ...

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/case.html
Click to expand...

APACHERAT · Dec 28, 2015

Penrod said: ↑

That confirms that an NBC has both parents born here and is born here. What are you talking about?
https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-happersett-revisited-2/
Click to expand...

You beat me to it Penrod.

SFJEFF · Dec 28, 2015

birddog said: ↑

major pkb alert!
Click to expand...

Like I said- all you do is troll.

- - - Updated - - -

APACHERAT said: ↑

U.S. Supreme Court opinions.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)

Minor v. Happersett

88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting a more complete version of Minor- which points out quite clearly that Minor does not say only children born of parents are natural born citizens.

SFJEFF · Dec 28, 2015

Penrod said: ↑

That confirms that an NBC has both parents born here and is born here. What are you talking about?
https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-happersett-revisited-2/
Click to expand...

Since you are just posting walls of text from Birther sources- I might as well respond in kind.

Note- Minor says 'at common-law'- what common law?

Well I am going to quote a blog- like you do- but my quote contains the analysis of an actual court

Following closely on the heels of the news of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ denial in Berg v. Obama comes this stunning decision from the Indiana Court of Appeals, rejecting the appeal of Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse in their Obama eligibility lawsuit directed at the Governor Daniels of Indiana.

Ankeny and Kruse had argued that neither Obama nor McCain were natural born citizens as required by the U. S. Constitution. The Court said:

… However, we note that even if the Governor does have such a duty, for the reasons below we cannot say that President Barack Obama or Senator John McCain was not eligible to become President.

The court then goes on to say (after a lengthy analysis of the law) that:

The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” …

And (by jingo) the Court even cited the dissenting opinion in Dred Scott:

The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.

The Indiana Court of Appeals then concludes:

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.

In an important footnote to this article, the Court made it clear that:

We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/11/indiana-appeals-court-defines-natural-born-citizen/#more-5623

Who agrees with the court in Ankeny v. Daniel?

Well the voters, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts among just a few- essentially everyone who matters.

- - - Updated - - -

Penrod said: ↑

Show me. Of course you have to ignore all precedent prior to Kim Wong to even make such a claim
Click to expand...

LOL- you don't quite understand how precedent works

Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe are precedent.

SFJEFF · Dec 28, 2015

Penrod said: ↑

Jefferson had a problem with it for all those who did not fall under the grand father clause.[/QUOTE

Jefferson was a dual French and United States citizen as President- no one had a problem with him being a dual citizen and President- you would think Jefferson would know that was forbidden if that was what the Constitution said.

Or was intended to say.
Click to expand...

rahl · Dec 28, 2015

Penrod said: ↑

Show me. Of course you have to ignore all precedent prior to Kim Wong to even make such a claim
Click to expand...

well no I don't, but here you go................

In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment support that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." [n10] We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized [p212] that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:

Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.
Click to expand...

and..........

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish
Click to expand...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/202

anyone inside US borders is subject to US jurisdiction.

rahl · Dec 28, 2015

APACHERAT said: ↑

U.S. Supreme Court opinions.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)

Minor v. Happersett

88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162
Click to expand...

and the line you birthers always dishonestly leave out......

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. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea
Click to expand...

Minor is not precedent for NBC. Wong Kim Ark v the US is.

- - - Updated - - -

APACHERAT said: ↑

You beat me to it Penrod.
Click to expand...

it does no such thing at all. It specifically says they are not answering that question in the ruling. You birthers just dishonestly leave out that part when you cite minor. It is not precedent. Wong kim ark is.

Penrod · Dec 28, 2015

rahl said: ↑

and the line you birthers always dishonestly leave out......
Minor is not precedent for NBC. Wong Kim Ark v the US is.

- - - Updated - - -

it does no such thing at all. It specifically says they are not answering that question in the ruling. You birthers just dishonestly leave out that part when you cite minor. It is not precedent. Wong kim ark is.
Click to expand...

No you after birthers simply dont understand English

Kim Wong is a bad decision and we showed why.

“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Id. (Emphasis added.)

Had this third class been contemplated as having any claim to being natural-born citizens, the distinction employed by the court would not make sense. The distinction was employed to more specifically identify the class of persons who were natural-born citizens under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. The two classes discussed are in direct polar opposition to each other. Had this distinction not been employed, it might be argued that those born in the country of one citizen parent were also natural-born. But the distinction leads to the necessary conclusion that the Court in Minor was identifying a two-citizen parent rule.

For example, a person born in the US to a British father and U.S. citizen mother would, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (and at the time Minor v. Happersett was decided), be considered as a natural-born subject of the U.K. Whether this child would be, at his birth, a citizen under the 14th amendment, was left undecided by the Court in Minor. But let’s assume that the child was a U.S. citizen. Where does that child fit into the distinction offered by the Court in Minor? The child is not on either polar extreme, since the child was not exclusively a US citizen at birth, nor was the child exclusively a British subject at birth. He does not fit into the distinction.

By choosing two extremes – those who, at their birth, are nothing but U.S. citizens – “as distinguished from aliens or foreigners” – those who, at their birth, are in no way U.S. citizens – the Supreme Court in Minor provided the necessary criteria to properly discern their holding.

Nothing has been left open as to the Minor Court’s definition of a natural-born citizen. This is further made clear by the Court’s other – somewhat overlooked – federal citizenship holding:

“The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association…

For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. 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.”

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 165-166 (1874). (Emphasis added.)

Therefore, when the Court uses the words, “citizen” or “citizenship”, no other meaning may be imputed other than, “membership of a nation”. But Jack Maskell believes he can overrule this specific holding of the Supreme Court by inserting the words “natural-born” where they do not appear. ”Natural-born” only pertains to a requirement for the municipal office of President. Those who are natural-born meet that qualification, but all who are citizens, natural-born, naturalized abroad, naturalized here, at birth or later in life, are members of our nation. The word citizen – according to the Supreme Court in Minor – refers to “membership of a nation, and nothing more“. It’s the “nothing more” that Maskell fails to recognize.
Click to expand...

Your like Jack. No where does Kim Wong say he is an NBC either.

Had the Court in Wong Kim Ark identified him as a natural-born citizen, there would have been no need to construe the 14th Amendment, just as it wasn’t necessary to construe it to determine Virginia Minor’s citizenship. But Wong Kim Ark was not natural-born, and therefore the Court was required to construe the 14th Amendment to determine his citizenship status.

Again, had Justice Gray’s opinion intended to state that Ark was natural-born, there would be a sentence in Gray’s opinion stating, Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen. But there isn’t. No amount of tongue twisting can insert those words where they do not exist and do not belong.

The same is true for the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Minor v. Happersett. Had the court intended to say – Some authorities go further and include as natural-born citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents – then that is exactly what the US Supreme Court would have said. But they didn’t.

And the same can be said for the framers of the 14th Amendment. Had they intended to include the words “natural-born citizen” in the Amendment, then that is exactly what they would have done. But they didn’t. Any attempt to read those words into the 14th Amendment would render Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, to be superfluous. And that goes directly against our entire body of national jurisprudence on the issue of statutory construction.
Click to expand...

rahl · Dec 28, 2015

Penrod said: ↑

No you after birthers simply dont understand English
Click to expand...

huh? you PURPOSEFULLY leave out the line that destroys your claim about minor. They specifically state they are not defining natural born citizen.

Kim Wong is a bad decision and we showed why.
Click to expand...

your opinion of the ruling is meaningless. It is binding US precedent.

Your like Jack. No where does Kim Wong say he is an NBC either.
Click to expand...

you need to actually read the ruling, I've linked directly to the relevant portion in about 5 separate threads. US law is based on English common law. English common law states anyone born in the kings realm is a natural born subject. The court ruled the terms natural born citizen and natural born subject are identical, legally.

danielpalos · Dec 28, 2015

Anyone born in the several United States is an automatic citizen of that State and the Union, since 1808.

rahl · Dec 28, 2015

Penrod said: ↑

No you after birthers simply dont understand English

Kim Wong is a bad decision and we showed why.

Your like Jack. No where does Kim Wong say he is an NBC either.
Click to expand...

Just for fun..............

the Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]....II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.
Click to expand...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

This is the binding precedent from Wong Kim Ark regarding natural born citizen, and cited in Ankeny V Daniels which confirmed Obama is a NBC.

Bluesguy · Dec 28, 2015

rahl said: ↑

The state of hawaii disagrees.
Click to expand...

No it doesnt as codified in their law which you cannot show this execption you are claiming.

I'll take their word over a random internet birther.
Click to expand...

So you are also ignorant if what being a "birther" is too.

You guys should really come to these discussions better prepared.

Already refuted this.
Click to expand...

You have not refutted the fact the State of Hawaii had a long form birth certificate in it posession. When did they claim that? Where is your link? You have not refuted the fact that they must allow access to ANY document in their posession to any person to which that documents pertains. That some administrator in a minor department is ignorant kfnwhat Hawaii law requires of him refuted nothing.

Of course you have.
Click to expand...

Yes have cited the law which you ccan't refuted.

And my arguments have completely demolished the nonsense you have been parroting for 5 years.

That law still stands and anyone requesting a copy of a long form birth certificate willbget one if Hawaii has one in its possession.

I know he is.
Click to expand...

Yes so do I.

But you keep parroting birther arguments about his bio, his college applications and his birth certificate. All of which have been refuted.
Click to expand...

I make no claims about his birth certificate other than it proves he was born in Hawaii and is a natural horn citizen. I make no claim about his college application, what are you claiming you refuted. I posted the facts about his bio you refuted nothing about it and in fact made fallacious claims which I refuted.
Click to expand...

rahl · Dec 28, 2015

Bluesguy said: ↑

No it doesnt as codified in their law which you cannot show this execption you are claiming.
Click to expand...

yes it does. You've been shown, repeatedly, the state of Hawaii stating flat out they do not and will not provide the long form.

So you are also ignorant if what being a "birther" is too.
Click to expand...

no. you parrot birther arguments. whether you believe any of the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you post isn't relevant. you are a birther.

You guys should really come to these discussions better prepared.
Click to expand...

why? everything you've posted so far on the subject has been demolished.

You have not refutted the fact the State of Hawaii had a long form birth certificate in it posession.
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing the fact they have the long form.

When did they claim that? Where is your link?
Click to expand...

strawman.

You have not refuted the fact that they must allow access to ANY document in their posession to any person to which that documents pertains.
Click to expand...

of course I have. The state of Hawaii stated flat out they do not and will not issue long form BC's. A special exception was made for the president of the united states.

That some administrator in a minor department is ignorant kfnwhat Hawaii law requires of him refuted nothing.
Click to expand...

refutes you, an internet birther. Hawaii knows Hawaiian law better than a random internet birther does.

Yes have cited the law which you ccan't refuted.
Click to expand...

but I did refute you.

That law still stands and anyone requesting a copy of a long form birth certificate willbget one if Hawaii has one in its possession.
Click to expand...

proven false. Hawaii states flat out you won't get one if you ask for one. a special exception was made for the president.

I

make no claims about his birth certificate other than it proves he was born in Hawaii and is a natural horn citizen. I make no claim about his college application, what are you claiming you refuted
Click to expand...

.
you are "curious" why he didn't settle the matter immediately, even though he did. You are "curious" about if he claimed foreign citizenship on his college application, even though you have absolutely no reason to suspect he did.

I posted the facts about his bio you refuted nothing about it and in fact made fallacious claims which I refuted.
Click to expand...

actually I refuted the nonsense you posted about the obscure pamphlet. The author said Obama never saw it, and that she made a mistake. She publically apologized for it.

birddog · Dec 28, 2015

The Kenyan B. Hussein Obama is an illegal liar if he was born in Kenya, and that is quite likely. Arguments to the contrary indicate gullibility, the need for PC, and adherence to lies.

A copy of a phony document only means the copy is an authentic copy.

rahl · Dec 28, 2015

birddog said: ↑

The Kenyan B. Hussein Obama is an illegal liar if he was born in Kenya, and that is quite likely. Arguments to the contrary indicate gullibility, the need for PC, and adherence to lies.

A copy of a phony document only means the copy is an authentic copy.
Click to expand...

you seem extremely confused here. It is not in any way likely Obama was born in Kenya. It has been proven beyond any and all doubt(to sane people)that he was born in Hawaii. He provided his birth certificate, which the state of Hawaii, under a republican administration, confirmed as authentic.

lol, birthers.

birddog · Dec 28, 2015

rahl said: ↑

you seem extremely confused here. It is not in any way likely Obama was born in Kenya. It has been proven beyond any and all doubt(to sane people)that he was born in Hawaii. He provided his birth certificate, which the state of Hawaii, under a republican administration, confirmed as authentic.

lol, birthers.
Click to expand...

If you look up the word "gullibility" in the dictionary, your name should be there!

Log in or Sign up

Sheriff Arpaio revives birther controversy at Trump rally

rahl Banned

SFJEFF New Member

SFJEFF New Member

SFJEFF New Member

SFJEFF New Member

birddog New Member

Penrod Well-Known Member

Penrod Well-Known Member

Penrod Well-Known Member

APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

SFJEFF New Member

SFJEFF New Member

SFJEFF New Member

rahl Banned

rahl Banned

Penrod Well-Known Member

rahl Banned

danielpalos Banned

rahl Banned

Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

rahl Banned

birddog New Member

rahl Banned

birddog New Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Sheriff Arpaio revives birther controversy at Trump rally

rahl Banned

SFJEFF New Member

SFJEFF New Member

SFJEFF New Member

SFJEFF New Member

birddog New Member

Penrod Well-Known Member

Penrod Well-Known Member

Penrod Well-Known Member

APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

SFJEFF New Member

SFJEFF New Member

SFJEFF New Member

rahl Banned

rahl Banned

Penrod Well-Known Member

rahl Banned

danielpalos Banned

rahl Banned

Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

rahl Banned

birddog New Member

rahl Banned

birddog New Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches