Love It: Lawsuit Filed On Democratic Party For Them To Define If Obama Is Qualified
- Thread starter USArmyRetired
- Start date
USArmyRetired
Rookie
- May 29, 2010
- 2,601
- 365
- 0
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #142
The link offers absolutely no proof Obama is a natural born Citizen as specifically required by Article 2 Section 1 and it ignores Minor vs Happersett which is binding precedent and hasn't been overturned. Nice try though. At least you're not spamming anymore. Thank you.
Based on what? There is no legal definition of natural born citizen. And the broadest definition, that of someone born in US territory, and thus has citizenship on birth, is that most often applied.
USArmyRetired
Rookie
- May 29, 2010
- 2,601
- 365
- 0
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #144
See the Supreme Court ruling in Minor vs Happersett.
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
[DISCLAIMER: First of all I'm not an Obama supporter, I'm a Republican and have been so since I came of age to vote in 1978. However my dislike of the man's policies have no influence on how I read and interpret laws and court opinions which define how laws are interpreted and applied.[/DISCLAIMER]
************************************************
For those who wish to "hang their hats" on Minor v. Happersett as definitive in regards to qualifications for President of the United States solely because of an "s" which appears after parents, they are probably in for a rude awakening if/when SCOTUS actually accepts a case involving the qualifications to hold that office.
My reasons are described below.
1. First of all, there has NEVER been a SCOTUS case involving the qualifications to hold the Office of President. All the cases that are normally flung around are narrow, cherry picked, out of context quotes from Minor, Ark, and a couple of others. All those cases dealt with citizenship and not eligibility for President.
2. As a result of #1, people are corrupting the idea of "stare decisis" as it compares to the idea of "dicta". Stare decisis is in fact the principal that a case once decided by the court defines a precedence that is considered binding on lower courts for cases involving similar circumstances. Since the cases involved regarded citizenship and not Presidential eligibility, then their use as stare decisis on Presidential eligibility is automatically suspect. The out of context sections oft quoted would more naturally be considered dicta, specifically "obiter dictum" (latin for something said in passing.) Because the court used an "s" associated with parent(s), does not mean that plural "parents" is stare decisis. More likely is that the plural "parents" is dicta as the case had noting to do with single parent v. dual parents.
3. Paragraph 5 cited below from the decision is important because it provides some context on the use of the word "citizen", which is what the case is about. It is important to note that "citizen" is the word used in a representative republic and equates to the word "subject" used in a monarchy.
4. Shortly after para 5, the court then renders the opinion below. The importance of this section is that there are only TWO types of citizens. Those born into a status of citizen and those who achieve citizenship after birth through a naturalization process. For those that wish to use Minor as stare decisis based on an "s" after parent, you much also recognize Minor as stare decisis on there being only two routes to citizenship: being born a citizen and being naturalized later in life. You can't cherry pick an "s" and then say there are 3-classes of citizen (Natural-born, born, and naturalized) without being hypocritical in your application of the case.
5. An so we get to the passage that some like to take out of context
6. In item #3 it was pointed out that the court in Minor equated "citizen" used in a representative republic as the same as "subject" used in a monarchy. In the paragraph above the court points out that since the Constitution itself does not define "natural born citizen" that then the court must look to the nomenclature of the time. Natural born citizen being a derivative (or outgrowth) of natural born subject, they would look to the common law at the time. A child born within the domain of the King was a natural born subject UNLESS that child was born to someone not under the jurisdiction of the King (i.e. ambassadors from another country).
2. As a result of #1, people are corrupting the idea of "stare decisis" as it compares to the idea of "dicta". Stare decisis is in fact the principal that a case once decided by the court defines a precedence that is considered binding on lower courts for cases involving similar circumstances. Since the cases involved regarded citizenship and not Presidential eligibility, then their use as stare decisis on Presidential eligibility is automatically suspect. The out of context sections oft quoted would more naturally be considered dicta, specifically "obiter dictum" (latin for something said in passing.) Because the court used an "s" associated with parent(s), does not mean that plural "parents" is stare decisis. More likely is that the plural "parents" is dicta as the case had noting to do with single parent v. dual parents.
3. Paragraph 5 cited below from the decision is important because it provides some context on the use of the word "citizen", which is what the case is about. It is important to note that "citizen" is the word used in a representative republic and equates to the word "subject" used in a monarchy.
"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."
4. Shortly after para 5, the court then renders the opinion below. The importance of this section is that there are only TWO types of citizens. Those born into a status of citizen and those who achieve citizenship after birth through a naturalization process. For those that wish to use Minor as stare decisis based on an "s" after parent, you much also recognize Minor as stare decisis on there being only two routes to citizenship: being born a citizen and being naturalized later in life. You can't cherry pick an "s" and then say there are 3-classes of citizen (Natural-born, born, and naturalized) without being hypocritical in your application of the case.
"Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," [n7] and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization."
5. An so we get to the passage that some like to take out of context
Note A. In Minor, the association is made that all "natives" are considered "natural born citizens". The highlighted section below clearly shows that the court associated with "natural-born" being equal to and synonymous with "native".
Note B. Immediately following the the oft cited snippet from Minor is the courts own qualification on the passage. Which very clearly points out that there has been doubt about citizens born within the United States to parents who are not citizens, and this group is specifically excluded under the conditions of the case as part in terms of stare decisis.
Note B. Immediately following the the oft cited snippet from Minor is the courts own qualification on the passage. Which very clearly points out that there has been doubt about citizens born within the United States to parents who are not citizens, and this group is specifically excluded under the conditions of the case as part in terms of stare decisis.
"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. (Note A above) Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] 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. (Note B) 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."
6. In item #3 it was pointed out that the court in Minor equated "citizen" used in a representative republic as the same as "subject" used in a monarchy. In the paragraph above the court points out that since the Constitution itself does not define "natural born citizen" that then the court must look to the nomenclature of the time. Natural born citizen being a derivative (or outgrowth) of natural born subject, they would look to the common law at the time. A child born within the domain of the King was a natural born subject UNLESS that child was born to someone not under the jurisdiction of the King (i.e. ambassadors from another country).
From a legal perspective, and in my own opinion, I think that those that rely on Minor as definative stare decisis, I think you might be in for a rude shock if the court uses it because the case does not provide the basis they think it does.
Link -->> Minor v. Happersett
>>>>
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,527
- 2,165
- Banned
- #147
The plaintiffs have no standing. The affirmative is on you, USAR, and your case fails summarily on that point. It will be dismissed quickly.
An interesting point is that once again you fail to recognize the Constitution sets the requirements for candidate eligibility, not the states, not the party organizations, and certainly not race hates like you. Dismissed.
Last edited:
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,492
- 223,744
- 3,615
Guess what Army Retard?
Even if the Supreme Court were to redefine the rules regarding natural born citizen they would not apply to President Obama.
Given that he is already president, any subsequent rules would apply to presidents elected after him. He would be Grandfathered in
Even if the Supreme Court were to redefine the rules regarding natural born citizen they would not apply to President Obama.
Given that he is already president, any subsequent rules would apply to presidents elected after him. He would be Grandfathered in
Full-Auto
Gold Member
- Jun 13, 2009
- 13,555
- 1,625
- 153
USArmyRetired
Rookie
- May 29, 2010
- 2,601
- 365
- 0
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #150
Not true.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,492
- 223,744
- 3,615
Very True
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
Correct me if I am wrong but it would apply for the 2012 election.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,492
- 223,744
- 3,615
You can't change the rules until he completed his second term. You can't tell a man who has already been president for four years that he is no longer qualified
Same applied to FDR when he won four terms and they put a two term limit
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
It's two separate terms of office, doesn't he president take the oath twice if he wins a reelection like congress does?
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,492
- 223,744
- 3,615
Doesn't matter....Obama would be grandfathered
Rinata
Gold Member
- Oct 5, 2009
- 6,790
- 973
- 153
Don't be stupid. Legal analysis??? All one needs for this one is the ability to use common sense. Which lets you out.
Rinata
Gold Member
- Oct 5, 2009
- 6,790
- 973
- 153
Wrong. Apparently nobody thinks it's serious but you. Mention it in your next love letter to Sarah. Maybe she'll discuss it with you.
Last edited:
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
Well, isn't that for the courts to decide?
Rinata
Gold Member
- Oct 5, 2009
- 6,790
- 973
- 153
Rinata
Gold Member
- Oct 5, 2009
- 6,790
- 973
- 153
Why do you keep giving everybody instructions like you're some kind of big shot??? Notice how your "instructions" are being ignored by everyone??? Think about it. Maybe they think you're a dope. I know I do!!!
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Mexican Navy Ship Just Crashed Into The Brooklyn Bridge!!- Started by RhodyPatriot
- Replies: 91
-
one of the most important brain research papers in 50 years
- Started by scruffy
- Replies: 1
-
-
Video: Repo Man Wrecks Entire Block of Cars Trying to Repo One Truck
- Started by RhodyPatriot
- Replies: 16
