Breaking News!!! 1880 Republicans “Scrubbed” Libraries of Minor v. Happersett!!!

Republican Scrub Team At The Astor Library - 1880

Oh, this is BREAKING NEWS!!! According to a very well-known Vattle Birther lawyer (my humorous term for the two citizen parent Vattel Birthers) , who wishes to remain anonymous, and will just be called Deep Threap, Republicans scrubbed libraries of the 1875 Minor Happersett decision by the United States Supreme Court prior to the presidential election of 1880!!!  Several Vattle Birther attorneys have lodged similar complaints about 2008 and the alleged scrubbing of this case which they say defines natural born citizenship by operatives of President Obama.  In the words of one Vattle Birther attorney, Leo Donofrio, Esq.:

The Court’s unanimous opinion in Minor defines those born in the US to citizen parents as natural-born 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. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Here is a link to this excerpt:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/justia-com-surgically-removed-minor-v-happersett-from-25-supreme-court-opinions-in-run-up-to-08-election/

In 1880, Chester Arthur ran for the vice-presidency as a Republican. It was well-known that his father was born in Ireland and was NOT a citizen of the United States at the time of Arthur’s birth.  As wiki says:

William Arthur’s [Chester Arthur’s father] frequent moves would later form the basis for accusations that Chester Arthur was not a native-born citizen of the United States. After Arthur was nominated for Vice President in 1880, his political opponents suggested that he might be constitutionally ineligible to hold that office. A New York attorney, Arthur P. Hinman, apparently hired by his opponents, explored rumors of Arthur’s foreign birth. Hinman initially alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland and did not come to the United States until he was fourteen years old, which would make him ineligible for the Vice Presidency under the United States Constitution’s natural-born citizen clause. When that story did not take root, Hinman spread a new rumor that Arthur was born in Canada, but this claim also failed to gain credence.

Deep Threap, the anonymous Vattle Birther attorney, says that had people only known of the Minor v. Happersett decision 4 years earlier, the place of Arthur’s birth would not have mattered. Arthur would have been ineligible because of his father. As Deep Threap explains, the fact that nobody objected to Arthur because of his father not being a citizen is CONCLUSIVE PROOF, that America’s libraries had been scrubbed of the case.

As Deep Threap explained:

I don’t know how they did it.  How they managed to scrub all the libraries in America, all the law libraries, and all the newspaper files.  I don’t know how they managed to keep all the judges and lawyers, even the opposition lawyers and judges, quiet about Minor v. Happersett, but they did.  They must have found a way, or the American public never would have voted for Chester Arthur, and somebody would have complained that Arthur was not a natural born citizen under the decision in Minor v. Happersett.  The only other alternative is that us Vattle Birthers could be wrong about Minor v. Happersett, and that the case did not define natural born citizenship.  And that certainly couldn’t be the case. I mean, there’s no way we could ever be wrong.  No, they had to scrub all the libraries in 1880. That is the only answer that makes any sense.

As someone who has read the case, it is very easy for me to accept the possibility that the Vattle Birthers could be wrong.  All one has to do is read the COMPLETE paragraph quote from Minor v. Happersett, not the scrubbed version on Mr. Donofrio’s website:

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. 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.

Somehow, the Vattle Birthers keep forgetting to put in the bolded part which proves the Minor court did NOT attempt to define natural born citizenship. But, as a Girl Reporter, I must report the news as I get it.  But WAITE!!!  Here is another important part of this tale of alleged scrubbing and political favors. Guess who swore in Chester Arthur when he became President??? None other than Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, who wrote the opinion in Minor v. Happersett!!!

Yes, in this case which supposedly defined natural born citizenship, the Judge who wrote it, swore in a guy as President who had a non-citizen father, which fact was very well known.  Oh, the silly Vattle Birther world!!!  Ivory Soap ain’t the only thing floating there.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Notes 1: What did a REAL Court say about Minor v. Happersett???

The Indiana Court of Appeals 2009, Ankeny v. Governor:

In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:

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.

Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12

This case is provided above, in the header, as The Case The “Two-Citizen Parent” Birthers Just HATE!!!

Threap means:

Verb: To maintain obstinately against denial or contradiction; also to contend or argue against (another) with obstinacy; To contend obstinately; to be pertinacious (stubborn and obstinate.)

Noun: An obstinate decision. A pertinacious affirmation.

Bonus: Image of Ivory Soap Ad from 1898, the year of Wong Kim Ark:

 
Advertisements

About Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

Hi!!! I am a Girl Reporter on the Internet. I am 31. Plus I am a INTP. I have a Major in Human Kinetics, and a Minor in English. I have 2 cats, and a new kitten! I write poetry, and plus I am trying to learn how to play guitar. I think that is all??? Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter View all posts by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

22 responses to “Breaking News!!! 1880 Republicans “Scrubbed” Libraries of Minor v. Happersett!!!

  • David Farrar

    Please read the bold section in the unanimous decision of the Minor court once again: “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.”

    Chief Justice Waite, the man who swore Chester Arthur into office, is stating that, “…there have been doubts about” 14th Amendment citizenship status (…children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.) “…but never as to the first” (natural born citizens).

    “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”(Because the Minor court had already established Virginia Minor’s natural born citizenship…it was unnecessary to resolved these 14th Amendment doubts.

    When listing presidents who have recognized the Minor court’s definition of a natural born citizen; I purposely omit the sad affair of the man who appointed Horace Grey to the Supreme Court, Chester Arthur.

    After given instructions to actively destroy his record after his death, he implicates himself, which, in turn, actually substantiates the Minor court definition of a natural born Citizen — of which Chester Arthur knew he wasn’t one.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

      I am not sure what you are trying to say. Doubts are doubts.

      Plus, the judge did not say this: “there have been doubts about” 14th Amendment citizenship status.

      If you can ever learn to read these cases WITHOUT preconceived ideas that the 14th Amendment made some new class of citizen, then this stuff would make a lot more sense to you.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • David Farrar

    Dear child:

    It doesn’t matter what doubts. What matters is that natural born citizen had less doubts, and, as such, is indisputably what the authors and signatories of this Constitution wanted.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar
    * Print/Screen

  • David Farrar

    Good God! Your right.

    I’ll get back to you.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    I stand by my statement.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

    Which one??? That I’m right???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  • David Farrar

    No. I am right and you are wrong.

    “Plus, the judge did not say this: ‘there have been doubts about” 14th Amendment citizenship status.”‘

    I was paraphrasing what Waite said. Which part don’t you understand?

    1. (…children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.) That is the 14th Amendment.

    2. “…there have been doubts about”

    Ergo: there have been doubts about the 14th.

    What don’t you understand?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Dr. Ron Polland

    It’s amazing how stupid and deceitful liberals are. They will read two different interpretations into the same statement, depending on which one supports their irrational logic.

    Plus, thry vacilliate between infinitely stretching the meaning of a word or phrase to making a strictly literal interpretation based on one entry in a dictionary!

    But, more importantly, they leave out any evidence that refutes their conclusions.

    Minor is a perfect example of it. The case was about a woman’s citizenship that was denied in another state. The 14th Amendment was intended to protect the citizenship of a person regardless of in which state he was born. It was specifically meant for the citizenship of blacks born in one state being denied that citizenship in another.

    Minor was not black, but a woman born to two US citizen parents making her a natural-born citizen of the United States in EVERY STATE. Article II Section 1 has ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS been understood by the supreme Court to mean born on US soil to two US citizen parents.

    But, the lying lunatic liberals, who talk out of both sides of their mouths, chose to spew total nonsense out the left side – that because the Supreme Court did not rule on any SPECIFIC CASE in which the meaning of NBC clause was SPECIFICALLY the issue, then therefore claim that SCOTUS never defined it.

    What is proves is that, besides being totally ignorant of the issue underlying Obama’s ineligibility and the court cases that were dismissed ONLY because of LACK OF STANDING, and not the merits of the case, as liberals falsely state, they are also totally ignorant of Supreme Court holdings and how legal precedents are set beyond the intent of the case before it.

    Again, for proof, the libtards repeatedly point to Wonk Kim Ark – a case that has absolutely nothing to do with natural-born citizenship but 14th Amendment citizenship – entirely different from NBC.

    Another totally bogus argument that libtards make is that a child born with dual citizenship is a natural-born citizenship because, they claim, there is no SPECIFIC CASE that spells it out for them.

    So, while they can fallaciously and deceitfully stretch the Wonk Kim Ark case to apply to NBC, as well as cite the 1970 Immigration and Nationality Act of 1790 in which the word, “natural-born citizen” appears while lying by omission in not mentioning that five years later, the INA of 1795 replaced “natural-born citizen” with “citizen” – FURTHER PROOF of the specially-reserved category of natural-born citizen.

    Now, since they bitch and complain that SCOTUS has not resolved the issue, you would think they would welcome a case that did.

    FAT CHANCE! That would mean the end of their bullsh*t and they are vehemently opposed to anything that would prevent them from spreading their bullsh*t .

    End of story. Minor defined NBC. Deal with it.

  • Dr. Ron Polland

    Yes, I know there are a few typos. So what?

  • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

    Hi Dr. Ron!!!

    First, I don’t care if you have typos. The Obots worry about stuff like that, not me. I am a “Big Picture” thinker.

    As for Minor, you can try as much as you like but there is just no way you can get past the “doubt” stuff in that paragraph. Plus, why would it matter whether or not Virginia Minor was a NBC or even naturalized. The issue was she was a woman, and was not allowed to vote.

    As for the WKA and 14th Amendment stuff, where you guys go wrong is to think that the 14th Amendment created a new class of citizenship. It didn’t. It simply moved the existing types, NBC and naturalized to the Constitution and made the U.S. citizenship primary over state citizenship.

    Lookit at what WKA said NBC was:

    Being born here and under the jurisdiction.(Which means NOT the kid of a diplomat or invading soldier.)

    What was a 14th Amendment born here citizen?:

    Being born here and under the jurisdiction.(Which means NOT the kid of a diplomat or invading soldier.)

    Darn if they aren’t the same thing! That is why the exact language did not matter to the Ankeny court. They were looking at the meanings of the words, not just the words themselves.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  • bob

    “Dr.” “Polarik”: Perhaps the wit of the article obscures to you its thesis.

    1. Birthers like yourself claim Minor established the rule that natural-born citizenship requires by in the United States to two citizen parents.

    2. At the time, the citizenship of President Arthur’s parents was well known, i.e., they were not U.S. citizens are the time of President Arthur’s birth.

    3. The birther of Arthur’s era, Hinman, never once cited Minor, which was decided only a few short years before Arthur was elected vice president (and later became president).

    • Squeeky Fromm - Girl Reporter

      And to make stuff even worse, think about the world, if what Dr. Ron said was true. Here is how it would look:

      1875 Minor Happersett says it takes 2 citizen parents to be NBC.

      1881 Judge Waite, who wrote that decision, would not have sworn Chester Arthur in.

      1875 and afterwards- Legal writers would have written about the very important case, for that reason, not just as a voting rights case.

      1876 Civics books and text books would have mentioned it takes 2 citizen parents to be a president.

      1898 Wong Kim Ark case would have noticed this fact, and discussed it in the case. Instead, when discussing NBC, there is NOT A WORD about needing two citizen parents.

      2008 Jerome Corsi would have mentioned the fact in his book Obama Nation.

      2008,2009: Hillary Clinton and John McCain’s attorneys would have discovered the Minor case and tried to block his campaign.

      2008,2009,2010,2011 Most major news outlets would be running stories about this issue.

      2008+ Conservative and Republican lawyers and judges across the nation would be raising hell about this.

      I could go on, but you get the picture. The real world does not look anything like this. None of this stuff happened. Not one single thing.

      Sooo Dr. Ron’s Theory is just wrong.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • David Farrar

    Here’s the record and why I believe birthright citizenship is unconstitutional.

    Birthright citizenship as defined by Section 1401 of Title 8 in the U.S.
    Code: “…means any person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof….”

    To my untrained eye, this is exactly what Alexander Hamilton had in mind when he proposed, while sitting as a member of the Rules Committee to the first Constitutional Convention on June 18, 1787: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States”

    Shortly thereafter, Chief Justice of New York, and Constitutional Convention delegate, John Jay, wrote a letter to G. Washington, presiding president of the convention, suggesting, among other things, that “…the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

    A few weeks later this phrase, a “natural born” Citizen, was adopted by the Constitutional Convention over Alexander Hamilton’s “born Citizen” suggestion.

    Therefore, a born Citizen cannot be a natural born Citizen within the meaning of the Constitution, as adopted.

    Furthermore; in adopting the “natural born” Citizen clause, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were undeniably stating that the President, as Commander-in Chief of the Army, should be of only one allegiance from birth, which could only be represented at that time by a citizen father.

    Since that time, Congress has given the right of allegiance to the mother, as well.

    My Conclusion:

    Since the clear action of the Constitutional Conventional delegates was to insure a single allegiance birthright Commander-In-Chief, both parents must be citizens, being born within the jurisdiction, to be an Article ll, natural born Citizen.

    The Minor court’s definition of an Article ll, natural born Citizen as a person being born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction further confirms to this conclusion.

    Lastly, the record of elected presidents observing the born of two-citizen rule cannot be ignored, and only acts to further strengthen the two-citizenship rule for a natural born Citizen.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • bob

    “Lastly, the record of elected presidents observing the born of two-citizen rule cannot be ignored, and only acts to further strengthen the two-citizenship rule for a natural born Citizen.”

    Like President Arthur and his no-citizen parents?

  • David Farrar

    Hi bob,

    As I have stated before, and as the readers of my material know: I don’t count Chester Arthur as an elected president, only vice-president; who, by his instructions given after his death, to destroy all of his papers, did, in fact, indirectly acknowledge the two-citizen parent rule, and was trying obscure his record.

    Just for the record; I believed his mother was a US citizen. Thank you for that correction.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • bob

      @David:

      The U.S. Constitution requires vice presidents and presidents to be natural-born citizens. What you consider President Arthur to be is irrelevant.

      Have you read Hinmen’s book? Hinmen knew that President Arthur’s father was a British subject. Hinmen also knew that President Arthur’s mother was born in Vermont, but then married a British subject.

      Regardless of the effect of the marriage on her citizenship status, Hinmen was well aware of President Arthu’s past, as noted in the book that Hinmen wrote WHILE PRESIDENT ARTHUR WAS STILL ALIVE. Which blows your “Arthur’s past was a secret” nonsense right out of the water.

      Vice President (and the President) Arthur did not have two-citizen parents. Not only did he serve, NO ONE complained about his lack of two-citizen parents despite Minor being decided JUST A FEW YEARS before his service.

      • David Farrar

        bob,

        We all are welcome to our own delusions, as is Hinmen. But there were questions raised over Arthur’s natural born Citizenship credentials throughout his administrations. The record speaks for itself in this regard.

        But let’s be clear about what your are saying. Are you saying just because you found one exception, the precedent has now been set that other non-natural born Citizens can now be elected President and Commander in Chief of the America’s Armed Forces?

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

  • bob

    “The record speaks for itself in this regard.”

    Exactly: President Arthur did not have two citizen parents. This fact was known during President Arthur’s administration. And despite knowledge of this fact, no one during President Arthur’s administration challenged his elibility on this basis — even in light of the recent decision in Minor.

    But rather than conclude that their two-citizen-parent requirement is erroneous, birthers somehow conclude a non-natural-born citizen was elected vice president (and became president) despite the common knowledge of this purported “ineligibility.”

    • David Farrar

      bob,

      We are seeing history repeat itself right before our very eyes, and you wonder why nobody was able to address Arthur’s qualifications. Let me suggest to you, as I did before, the record is replete with questions being raised throughout Arthur’s administrations over his qualifications.

      I think history can provide you with an answer to your last question as to why no one raised up above the crowd and demanded answers: Someone did, the People; when they elected Grover Cleveland as president for the next two terms.

      Just like Chester Arthur, I think Barack Obama is going find out that nobody is going to knowingly re-elect someone to the office of the presidency who is there illegally, and the same goes for Mitt Romney.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

  • bob

    NOTHING in “the record” indicates that President Arthur’s qualifications were challenged BECAUSE HE LACKED TWO CITIZEN PARENTS. If that happened, please provide a specific citation.

    President Arthur was not the republican nominee in 1884. And NOTHING in “the record” indicates President Arthur lost the nomination to Blaine due to any concerns about President Arthur’s qualifications. If that happened, please provide a specific citation.

  • Harold Pack

    Those who authored and passed the 14nth amendment knew of the constitutional requiewmwnt of two parants (plural not singular) and it was reafirmed and is in the congressional record that they did so as they passed it.I am sending this link as I beleive the information it contains is valid, however, I am confident that you have the ability to verify the information on the site. Trust but verify is the rule. Notice that in order to be a Natural born citizen as per the 14nth amendment the requirement is to be the offspring of citizen parents (plural not singular) as they stated in the record, both parents must be US citizens. These statements by the people who authored and pased the 14nth amendment at the time it was passed are clarification of the original intent of the amendment.
    Original intent: The theory of interpretation by which judges attempt to ascertain the meaning of a particular provision of a state or federal constitution by determining how the provision was understood at the time it was drafted and ratified.
    . http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: