A Minor Inconvenience For the Knot Heads

When You're A Knot Head, It's Hard To See The "NOT"

The Vattel Birthers,  particularly Leo Donfrio, Esq. and Mario Apuzzo, Esq., claim that Minor v. Happersett (1875) is the case that defines beyond a shadow of a doubt that  two citizen parents are  required for a person to be a natural born citizen and thus eligible for the Presidency or Vice-Presidency.  This case, they claim, is The One.

Rational people say this case was merely a voting rights case, and did not define natural born citizenship and note that the Minor judges, themselves, explicitly stated that they were not going to address that citizenship issue.

What did a neutral observer from 1876 think about this???

Here is what the American Law Review 1n 1876 said about the ground-breaking, earth-shattering most importantest, biggest dang Citizenship case in the Universe!!!  (Hint:  If you are having problems finding it, look for the 19 word sentence in the third paragraph.)

Meanwhile, the case on dueling has more written about it. Apparently, the Vattle Birthers (my humorous term for the two citizen parent crowd.) have a little problem understanding the meaning of the word, “Not.” Perhaps it is the CRYPTIC language the Minor judges utilize, and which I have bolded in this paragraph from the case:

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. 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.

What a strange universe we live in.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter


For people who do not know what a Knot Head is, from The Urban Dictionary:

(1) A person who has trouble thinking in a logical progression. this is usually caused by a profound amount of circular reasoning tying their brain into a knot.

(2) A dumb ass

(3) – Any person that is unwilling to listen to, learn from and heed the counsel and the wisdom of someone who has gone before them, and foresees the pain, consequences and heartache that lie ahead in the path the person has chosen.

(4) – Someone who only learns by suffering and/or sad experience.

(5) – A student of the School of Hard Knocks.

Here is a link to the google book, above:


About Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

I am a Girl Reporter on the Internet. I am 36 Plus I am a INTP. I have a Major in Human Kinetics, and a Minor in English. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter View all posts by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

10 responses to “A Minor Inconvenience For the Knot Heads

  • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

    I have now. Pretty much a bunch of nonsense. Lot of quote butchering, law mangling, and conclusion instead of analysis. Half right about a couple of points that were mostly unimportant.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  • Ad

    Why don’t you be specific in your critique? There is no reliance on Vattel in the argument and he establishes where Minor is about both voting rights and also about citizenship. This is contrary to the points you are making on your blog. I guess it is just easier for you to call people dumb.

    • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

      I am thinking about doing a separate Internet Article on it. I am not sure yet. Here is the problem. First, Minor is being mis-represented for what it is. A case that does NOT solve doubts, is not going to resolve doubts, period. There are 3 possibilities for natural born citizens born inside the country:

      1. Kids born to 2 citizen parents;
      2. Kids born to 2 alien parents;
      3. Kids born to 1 alien and 1 citizen parent.

      Minor just says the obvious, that No. 1 are NBC. It does not say Nos. 2 and 3 are NOT NBC. There is no way it can be made to say that.

      IF it was a citizenship case and it did decide on Nos.2 and 3, then it would still be trumped 23 years later by Wong Kim Ark which did decide. Since WKA cited Minor, but not for the alleged definition of NBC, then that is as far as Minor goes for those purposes.

      Sooo, that would be the easy way to handle it. But, to do it right, somebody has to run down all the other cites and show where they are NOT for the purposes of determining NBC. Which from what I read, they aren’t. But I don’t know if I want to spend a lot of time refuting something that would be trumped by WKA anyway.

      And if I did, the Vattle Birthers would not believe it anyway.

      The lazy way is just to show that Minor had “doubts.” But I will think about it.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • Ad


    “Now we turn to US v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, the US Supreme Court held that (some) persons born in the United States of alien parents were “citizens”. In doing so, the Court stated that it was specifically construing only the 14th Amendment. And here lies the rub of clarity:

    If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, the Supreme Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.)”

    “Neither the Court in Minor nor Wong Kim Ark alleged that the 14th Amendment superseded Article 2 Section 1. If the 14th Amendment had superseded the natural-born citizen clause, the Court in Minor would have been required to construe the 14th Amendment.

    In US v. Wong Kim Ark, the US District Attorney argued that Ark was not a citizen because his parents were aliens. Ark was a person from the other “class” discussed in Minor whose citizenship was in doubt. Since Wong Kim Ark was not a natural-born citizen, his citizenship could not be determined by Article 2 Section 1. Therefore, the Supreme Court looked to the 14th Amendment to grant Wong Kim Ark US citizenship.

    Again, if Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, the Supreme Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.)”

    • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

      You said:

      “If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, the Supreme Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.)”

      “Neither the Court in Minor nor Wong Kim Ark alleged that the 14th Amendment superseded Article 2 Section 1. If the 14th Amendment had superseded the natural-born citizen clause, the Court in Minor would have been required to construe the 14th Amendment.”

      You end up with this CONCLUSION because you start with the same CONCLUSION that there is something wildly different between the 14th Amendment and NBC. THERE ISN’T.

      The 14th Amendment simply incorporated existing citizenship classes into itself. Read the “A Place to Get The REALLY Right Answers About Natural Born Citizenship” that is here.

      That is why the WKA court went through and defined NBC, to show what NBC was and what the “jurisdiction” requirements had been for NBC. Then, the 14th Amendment was called “declarative of these rights”:

      The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens. . .

      This is the same thing that Judge Waite said, and when you stop reading these cases with the preconceived notions, you will see it. Why do you think Judge Waite said Virginia Minor did not need the 14th Amendment to give her citizenship rights???

      Not because Virginia Minor was some different sort of citizen, but because the 14th Amendment did not add anything to the classifications of citizens that wasn’t already there. Virginia was a NBC before the 14th, and she was one afterwards because the law on NBC was moved from common law and enshrined in the Constitution as an Amendment. This way, a contrary court opinion, or law passed by Congress or one of the states could not overturn it. How do I know this??? Easy. I am reading WKA without preconceived notions. Where it says this:

      V. In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.

      That is the point you need to concentrate on until you get it. It would be a lot easier for you if you chunked out your pre-conceived notions and just read the case with an open mind. The WKA judges are pretty direct about it.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • Ad

    Please. WKA did not decide or define A2S1 NBC. Why do you think it did?


    • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

      Why??? Because I read the WKA case:

      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, and 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.13

      All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

      Reading the WKA case will work for you, too. Drop your pre-conceived notions and just read it. If you want the simple short version of it, read the Indiana Ankeny case. Al those judges did was take what was in WKA, and apply it.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • Ad

    There is nothing about presidential qualifications there…but you already know that because you read it. Take your own advice and drop YOUR pre-conceived notions.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: