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

1875 Supreme Court Decison, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

The pertinent text of the decision, concerning the issue of what constitutes a “natural-born” citizen, is as follows:

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 the key words, “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also”

I have been slammed by some old friends simply by posting this text from a Supreme Court decision, which would indicate that our current POTUS does not satisfy our US Constitutional requirements of “natural-born” for the office of President, irregardless of where he was born. Obama’s father was a Kenyan, and as such was a British subject at the time of Obama’s birth.

Justia.com is the premier free legal search site. The main player at Justia was an Obama supporter, as well as a major donor. They attempted to scrub all references to Minor v Happersett while the 2008 campaign was underway. Thankfully, they have restored it today. 

Strangely, since John McCain’s daddy was an Admiral in the US Navy, and he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which we had a lease for since the early 1900’s, the subject of his Article II Presidential qualifications did come up in the US Senate:

RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a ‚”natural born Citizen’’ of the United States;

Whereas the term ‚ “a natural born Citizen’‘, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to American citizens serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‚ “a natural born Citizen’’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‚Äò‚Äònatural born Citizen’‘;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a “Natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),

Chairman, Committee On The Judiciary,

On The Introduction Of A Senate Resolution

April 10, 2008

Today I join Senator Claire McCaskill in introducing a resolution to express the common sense of everyone here that Senator McCain is a “natural born Citizen,” as the term is used in the Constitution of the United States. Our Constitution contains three requirements for a person to be eligible to be President ‚Äì the person must have reached the age of 35; must have resided in America for 14 years; and must be a ‚Äò‚Äònatural born Citizen’’ of the United States. Certainly there is no doubt that Senator McCain is of sufficient years on this earth and in this country given that he has been serving in Washington for over 25 years. However, some pundits have raised the question of whether he is a “natural born Citizen” because he was born outside of the official borders of the United States.

John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. Numerous legal scholars have looked into the purpose and intent of the “natural born Citizen” requirement. As far as I am aware, no one has unearthed any reason to think that the Framers would have wanted to limit the rights of children born to military families stationed abroad or that such a limited view would serve any noble purpose enshrined in our founding document. Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens.

Why did Barack Hussein Obama’s qualifications not also come under purview as well in the Senate?

Okay, I guess that anyone who is not impressed that Obama meets the “Natural-born” requirements of our Constitution is a “birther”, a pejorative used by the lefty media and their commie allies in the White House to attack the messenger. I accept that.

The Senate did not see fit to examine Obama’s Article II “natural born” citizenship bona-fides in 2007 or 2008. Hillary Clinton’s campaign did though, the first questions about Obama’s qualifications were asked by Hillary’s people. Funny how that works, isn’t it?

In response, we had a posting from the “Daily Koz” which said, hey here’s Obama’s  birth Certificate, and they linked to a Photobucket jpeg image! I guess Obama just couldn’t do it himself, even though they eventually used the very same image, compressed it some more, and scrubbed the meta-data. I have the original, complete with meta-data, if anyone is interested.

I’d like to say this again: The DailyKoz linked to a Photo-Bucket image, which Obama’s people used! How great is that?

It was a forgery.

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

  1. Re: “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.”

    Why do birther sites cut out the part of the ruling in which it said “We do not have to decide?”

    Why do birther sites not explain the legal concept of “dicta”–which says that a statement in a ruling about X subject cannot be used as a precedent on Y subject? And Minor vs Happersett was a voting rights case, not a citizenship case.

    Why do birther sites not explain that the Wong Kim Ark case was AFTER Minor vs Happersett, and hence would have overturned it (IF Minor vs Happersett was actually a ruling, which it wasn’t)

    And the Wong Kim Ark case ruled that EVERY child born in the USA, except for the children of foreign diplomats, is NATURAL BORN.

    “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

  2. During an 1866 House debate James F. Wilson quoted Rawle’s opinion, and also referred to the “general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations” saying
    …and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born citizens of the United States.[25]
    An English-language translation of Emerich de Vattel’s 1758 treatise The Law of Nations (original French title: Le Droit du gens), stating that “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens,” was quoted in 1857 by Supreme Court justice Peter Vivian Daniel in a concurring opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[26] as well as by Chief Justice Melville Fuller in 1898 in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.[27]
    Joseph Story (1779-1845), an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1811-1845), wrote in his 1840 guidebook to the Constitution, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, about the natural-born-citizen clause:
    It is not too much to say that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people.[28]
    Those same words, using the same significant synonym “native citizen” for “natural born citizen” also appeared in his 1834 work The constitutional class book: being a brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States: Designed for the use of the higher classes in common schools.[29]
    Alexander Porter Morse, the lawyer who represented Louisiana in Plessy v. Ferguson,[30] wrote in the Albany Law Journal:
    If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.[31]

  3. Pingback: On Birthright Citizenship | Rich TAkes!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*