“Liohippelates Apuzzo” Gets Swatted Down!!!

Kimberly And Jeff Were Well Prepared For Those Annoying Little Pests

Well, one the scientific names for flies is Liohippelates Pusio, and much like that annoying pest, Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq. got a double swat down in New Jersey. First, ALJ Jeff S. Masin decked him in testicles with a powerful Ankeny overhand smash, paragraphed a little by me for easier reading:

The second objection involves the meaning of the Constitutional phrase, “natural born Citizen.” Discussion and consideration of this issue is of course relevant only on the understanding that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. This issue has been the subject of litigation concerning Mr. Obama’s candidacy in several jurisdictions. No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act.

Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here; the subject has been thoroughly reviewed and no new legal argument on this issue has been offered here. While there are several decisions that could be cited, the decision issued by the Court of Appeals of Indiana in 2009 in Ankeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), is representative of the position taken by courts and other agencies who have considered the merits of the issue. As the court therein noted, and as the petitioners here have contended, the thrust of the argument against Obama’s status as natural born is that there is a “clear distinction between being a ‘citizen of the United states’ and a ‘natural born Citizen.’” Id. at 685.

The decision notes that the petitioner therein, as here, cites to an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” and to various early sources for support for their argument that one who is the child of a non-citizen cannot be natural born even if born in the United States. But the Ankeny court, relying upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890 (1898), rejected that position.2 In Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray wrote at great length about the understanding of the term “natural born” and its common law meaning, probing English authorities and concluding that the “law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, . . . 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. 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.”

This position as to the common law meaning is in accord with Justice Joseph Story’s statement, concurring in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99, 7 L. Ed. 617 (1830), “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents reside there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” See Wong Kim Ark, 160 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court also cited Justice Swayne’s comment in United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott 26, 40, 41 (1860).

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.

(Note) The Wong Kim Ark decision was preceded by Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167, 22 L.Ed. 627 (1874), where the Supreme Court stated that while the Constitution did not say “in words” “who shall be natural-born citizens” there were “some authorities” who held that “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” were citizens. The Court concludes that it was not necessary to decide that issue in Minor. Wong Kim Ark more directly addresses the issue of who is “natural-born” although it is acknowledged that neither of these cases involved the use of the term in connection with a presidential candidate and the unique Constitutional requirements for holding that office. Nevertheless, the Wong Kim Ark ruling certainly goes very far in defining the term and its meaning in this country. And the decision does not suggest that the common law rule identified therein only applied at the state level and not on a national basis, as counsel here claims.

The Wong Kim Ark Court then stated

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 [children of ambassadors, etc.], since as before the Revolution.

[Wong Kim Ark, supra, at 169 U.S. 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at
462].

The Georgia Secretary of State recently denied a similar challenge to Mr. Obama’s status as a natural born citizen in Farrar, et al. v. Obama, OSAH-SECSTATE-CE1215136-60-MAHIHI, where Georgia State Administrative Law Judge Mahili relied upon Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark for his ruling that the President was indeed a natural born Citizen.

Time does not allow for the fullest discussion of the case law addressing these issues, but suffice it to say that the status of “natural born Citizen” for Mr. Obama has not been denied by any court or administrative agency that has addressed the merits of the issue. This is not the place to write a law review article on the full analysis of the subject, but there is no legal authority that has been cited or otherwise provided that supports a contrary position. The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born Citizen” regardless of the status of his father.

Here is a pdf of the full decision:

88910250-Purpura-Moran-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin

Then, two days later, NJ Secretary of State Kimberly M. Guadagno accepted Masin’s findings and delivered a short and sweet little coup de grace swat to the poor, writhing little bug on the floor, in a  2 page decision which may be found here:

http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/89431332-Final-Decision-of-SOS-in-Purpura-Moran-Ballot-Objection-4-12-12

But, summertime is coming up on us. Like all flies, I am sure that Apuzzo laid some eggs in a big pile of manure somewhere and soon the little maggots will spread their wings and take the sky and file some more appeals.

Swat mercilessly.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is a still from the film, Just Imagine (1930), and may be found here:

http://zorchv38.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html

Note 2. Liohippelates Pusio. If you are interested in flies and pests, here is some info:

http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/livestock/flies/liohippelates.htm

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

72 responses to ““Liohippelates Apuzzo” Gets Swatted Down!!!

  • davidfarrar

    But Squeeky,

    We won the revolution! We are not mere subjects. We are citizens. There is a difference.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • whatever4

      The difference between subject and citizen:

      “The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:

      “Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.””

      United States v. Wong Kim Ark
      ___

      • davidfarrar

        Thank you, ‘whatever4’,

        Never have I read a more lucid and succinct rendering of the fallacy of the Wong Court decision when it comes to the Constitutional required “natural born” Citizen clause.

        The first fallacy is to assume the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention based the national government’s legal structure on British common law. As Mario Apuzzo recently pointed out; State charters and constitutions pre-date the American revolution, the formation of our national government, and its constitution. State charters and statutes were, indeed, based on the common law of England. This fact was well known to the 1787 Constitutional Convention delegates. As a consequence, the clear intent of those delegates was to excluded as much as possible English common law, and devote themselves to the construct of a legal system for the national government based on the legal principles of Emer Vattel’s, ‘The Law of Nations’, which saw free Citizens governed by a Constitutional Republic, rather than mere subjects to a sovereign king.

        But let’s focus on the heart of the dispute, represented here but your last quote from Wong: “The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

        Here, again, Wong is absolutely correct if you are talking about birthright citizenship prior to the adoption of the national government. Birthright citizenship was a “state” function under English common law. But birthright citizenship of the United States is based on free sovereign Citizens themselves, making a free choice as to how they want to be governed, and to their allegiance. It is for this reason, jus sanguinis must be required along with jus soli to be a natural-born Citizen of these United States.

        But in the end, it is not up to the courts, but to we the People. Do we want the legal structure of the federal government to assume we are mere subjects to the sovereignty of federal power, or do we want a legal system based upon free Citizens volunteering to live by a constitution in a Republic? You decide.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Mitch

          Farrar… you’re obviously not ignorant, you’re obviously not stupid. But I do believe you’re mentally ill. Man up and accept the FACTS. Obama is a natural born citizen, and no twisting of words can change this FACT.

        • davidfarrar

          What Chief Justice Grey is saying here is that after the victory of the American revolution, sovereignty was transferred from one person to the collective “State.” In other words, sovereignty, as the cornerstone of our “individual” liberty doesn’t exist — it never existed — only the sovereignty of the State.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

        • davidfarrar

          Mitch,

          Fair enough. Why don’t you “man up” and tell me just where English common law was used in the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, other than Amendment 5 & 7 of the Bill of Rights?

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

        • Frank Bolivar

          “Thank you, ‘whatever4′,

          Never have I read a more lucid and succinct rendering of the fallacy of the Wong Court decision when it comes to the Constitutional required “natural born” Citizen clause.”

          Then you’ve not read much, as it’s repeated many times over by scholars and court holdings.

          And you can claim WKA is wrongly decided all you wish, but by claiming so you admit it’s holding that if one is born on the soil he is a natural born citizen…. and, wrongly decided or not, it is the law of the land until and unless it’s overturned, which is highly unlikely.

          Also from Wong Kim Ark…

          Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.
          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.

        • Northland10

          David, did you just ask somebody to show where common law is used in the Constitution except for those places where common law is used in the Constitution? You just admitted the common law was used in the Constitution. I’m sorry but that is the most moronic thing I have seen in a long time. Your attorney is beginning to look brilliant.

        • Northland10

          do we want a legal system based upon free Citizens volunteering to live by a constitution in a Republic? You decide.

          Apparently, you do not want to live by a Constitution. So, you are free to go elsewhere.

        • justin

          @Frank B

          You state the holding in WKA is that one born on the soil is a natural born citizen, this is a blatant lie. You might want to actually read the holding. It states “becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.” The court NEVER calls WKA a natural born citizen. Your conflating the two is just as bad as what accuse Farrar of doing. You are just completely wrong. WKA actually supports the Birther argument and not yours. It clearly holds that the children of aliens are “citizens” and not “natural born citizens”.

  • Monkey Boy

    “We” (meaning you), lost the war to eradicate slavery in the United States, but that doesn’t stop dead-enders from having wet dreams of eventually destroying the United States.

    The fanatical enmity to President Obama is not personal, but a mere vehicle–i.e., pretense–to try to destroy our country. The same thing was tried during the Presidency of John Kennedy by traitors seizing on his Roman Catholicism, and during the Presidency of FDR by making ridiculous and meaningless charges of “socialism.”

    During the regime of President Carter, traitors and seditionists successfully expanded outside of the old Confederacy by using the familiar feedstock of anti-black racism, plus the same fake religious bigotry that the National Socialists used. The “Christian” militias formed during this period were just as antithetical to the teachings of Christ as the Third Reich was.

    And, incidentally, if our separation from GB was so absolute, why do you advocate that British law can still determine our citizenship?

    Send Darren $20 for the canteen–it’s the least you can do after inducing him to foolishly entrap himself.

    • RoadScholar

      Another similarity: the concept (pretext) of White Victimization. The deep lynch-mob Jim-Crow racist mentality was justified (in their minds) by claiming they were ‘protecting’ whites, esp. white women, from being victims of blacks.

      You can find the same thread on Fox or from Limbaugh every day. The ‘real racists’ are minorities; minority racism against whites is the ‘biggest form of racism today,’ etc. Utter lunacy, but they believe it because they want to justify THEIR racism.

      The same with modern militant Christians: they just LOVE the fantasy that they are being ‘persecuted,’ esp. by Obama… when they are in fact the ones who would LOVE to persecute Jews, homosexuals, Muslims, atheists, etc. and can’t stand the fact that society won’t let them spew their hate like they used to. They have made ‘tolerance’ a nasty word. They have painted ‘separation of Church and State’ as a grievous historical mistake, if not an outright evil plot against Christians.

      What else is “take our country back” other than the same sentiment the Nazis used to gain power? Isn’t the list of the people Tea Partiers want to ‘take their country back’ FROM much the same as the demographics of the Europeans rounded up and sent to the Concentration Camps?

  • davidfarrar

    Frank Bolivar,

    This is exactly my point: “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.”

    Dicta, orbiter dicta with no supportable facts.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Reality Check

      David,

      I don’t think you have a clue as to what OBITER Dicta actually means. Orbiter is something that goes around and around and never settles on one point ….. kind of like you.

      Justice Gray cited Dicey’s work in support of the central decision of Wong Kim Ark that WKA was a natural born citizen because the term although not specifically defined in the Constitution clearly should be interpreted using the definition from English common law.

      Gray even quotes Minor v Happersett and says the court was on the right track when it said that the meaning should be derived from common law. Justice Waite in Minor stopped short of a complete definition because that was not the question before the court. However, Justice Gray finished the job.

      Gray also destroys Apuzzo’s idiotic new theory that “American common law adopted Vattel’s definition of NBC”, in which he theorizes the founding fathers are supposed to have abandoned the English common law definition but never bothered to write it down anywhere. Gray quotes Justice Matthews from Smith v Alabama:

      There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

      • davidfarrar

        “…Gray even quotes Minor v Happersett and says the court was on the right track when it said that the meaning should be derived from common law.”

        Common law; whose common law, British or Vattel’s common law?

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Fred Muggs

          The answer is orbiting in your dicta.

        • Frank Bolivar

          Really stupid and ridiculous remark. The treatises and case law specifically refer to English Common Law.

          Anyone going into court arguing “Vattel’s Common Law” will be laughed out of court and should be sanctioned for bringing such a ridiculous and frivolous argument which clearly violates their duty of candor with the court, among other things.

        • Reality Check

          David

          Have you ever read Justice Gray’s opinion? Immediately upon quoting only two sentences from Minor Gray wrote pages of explanation of the meaning of “natural born” as derived from English case law.

          You should check out the discussion at John Woodman’s blog. Your hero Mario Apuzzo is getting filleted.

        • Dave B.

          Vattel’s common law? What hat did that rabbit come out of ?

        • Northland10

          Didn’t really come out of a hat. More likely, the other side.

      • justin

        Reality

        You need to reread Wong, “becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.” No where in the courts holding do they call WKA a natural born citizen. You are a liar.

  • davidfarrar

    Frank Bolivar,

    If the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention wanted to use the old English common law definition of a “natural-born” subject (jus soli) instead of Vattel’s common law definition of a “natural born Citizen (jus sanguinis), there would have been no reason for them to change Hamilton’s draft proposal of a “Citizen of one of the States” in the first place.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Northland10

      If the delegates were going to use a something other than the normal common law at the time (such as jus sanguinis), they would have mentioned it, just like they did for treason.

    • Frank Bolivar

      Really? Funny, once again neither history, the Constitution nor the courts agree with your (nor Apuzzo’s) BS.

      The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.” By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been “seven years a citizen of the United States,” and every Senator to have been “nine years a citizen of the United States.” and “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.” The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that
      all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,
      also declares that
      no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
      And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that
      the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.
      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]
      In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
      In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
      There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

      • davidfarrar

        Frank,

        Source: Minor v. Happersett – 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

        CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE: “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.”

        “…natives or natural-born citizens”…

        Here Waite rather directly equates “natives” with “natural-born” Citizens, using “English” common law, if you like. Any person using common sense would interpret this sentence to mean as it relates to citizenship: a person born in the same land of their parents.They are natural born “subject” to a sovereign power, or “Citizens” in a Constitutional Republic. This isn’t rocket science.

        Waite further adds:

        “In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.”

        Minor gives us three self-authenticating attributes of a natural born Citizen:

        1. A person born whose citizenship is never doubted.
        2. A person born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction.
        3. A person who is as much a citizen before the 14th Amendment as after the 14th Amendment.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • davidfarrar

          I seem to have gotten my judges mixed up, again.

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

        • Frank Bolivar

          So you finally admit to the use of English Common Law. That’s at least a start.

          Next, you and your birther cohorts need to get it through your thick skulls that Minor makes no holding as to citizenship. Period.

          Just as at least 5 recent court decisions have stated.

          It is appreciated, however, that you all keep running around the country setting precedent that completely contradicts your flawed concept of U.S. citizenship, and more specifically natural born citizenship, and confirms history, the Constitution, and the supreme law of the land as those mean old Obots have stated is the case since this sedition began by the birthers.

        • Frank Bolivar

          David… I was not going to mention the judge.

          You have way more mixed up than a judge.

        • justin

          And WKA holds that the children of aliens are “citizens” not “natural born citizens”.

  • davidfarrar

    Northland10,

    You are going to have to be more specific.

    From wikipedia: “The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely “levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or “violating” the Queen, were punishable as treason.”

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Monkey Boy

      “The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely “levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

      Remind you of anybody you know?

      • davidfarrar

        Judge: I rest my case.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Monkey Boy

          It’s a shame that you are not taking a “rest” along with your alleged paramour, Darren Huff. His treason of “levying war against the United States” and one of the several states was induced by whom? Who gave him aid, comfort and instruction?

          Text book treason motivated by a desire to destroy the Union.

    • Northland10

      David, you just explained what I was saying above. For treason, they specifically defined it in the Constitution as it differed from previous English Common Law. We see this in Wikipedia when they say, “a contrast.”

      As you now have pointing out, when they used a definition different than the understood English Law, they defined it in the Constitution. Notice, they made no definition to Natural Born Citizen. Hence, they used the definition known the them through English Common Law.

      See, how simple it is?

  • davidfarrar

    Frank Bolivar,

    “Minor makes no holding as to citizenship. Period.” Are you sure?

    Before the Minor court could address whether Virginia Minor had a right to vote, didn’t they have to establish the fact that she was a citizen?

    I just threw in that bid about English common law to avoid the distraction.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Frank Bolivar

      Yes, David, I am 100% sure. The court did not have to make any determination of Ms. Minor’s citizenship. Her citizenship was never in question, it was a conceded fact in the lower courts, never challenged, and was never part of the suit, the appeal, or the writ to SCOTUS. It was never a question.

      Have you actually read any of the decisions? Even Minor? Or do you just quote mine Apuzzo’s BS? If you’d actually read Minor you would not have to ask that question, nor would you state her citizenship was a question before SCOTUS.

      It’s no wonder you can’t read and understand court opinions, since you can’t get something that elementary right.

      • davidfarrar

        Even so, a predicate had to be established and followed to its logical ends; wouldn’t you agree?

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Frank Bolivar

          If by that you mean the Supreme Court had to establish that Virginia was a citizen, then no, I absolutely do not agree. What part of it was well-established, and never in controversy, that she was a citizen, therefore that issue did not need to be decided at the Supreme Court level, do you not get?

          The question before the court is clear that it was established she was a citizen and it was not an issue that was decided. The question before SCOTUS was:

          “The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination.”

          They go further to state that they didn’t need the 14th Amendment to decide the issue of suffrage, but that was the question presented nevertheless.

          So it is established in the question before the court that Ms. Minor is a woman, a citizen of the U.S.and of the State of Missouri.

          The only thing established in Minor is that as a woman (known, undisputed fact), who is a citizen of both the U.S. and MO (known, undisputed fact), according to the laws of the State of Missouri, can not vote, and that law is not unconstitutional.

          The issue of whether or not she is a natural born citizen, or whether any woman in MO who wished to vote was a natural born citizen, is irrelevant to the decision. She could have been a naturalized citizen and the holding would have been the same.

          Nothing in the question before the Court necessitated they her citizenship at all, and the (expressly) did not. Absolutely nothing in the holding nor the opinion of Minor establishes anything with regard to natural born citizenship.Period. The Court states that of course women can be citizens, as they are indeed persons, but nevertheless, in MO, they can not vote.

      • justin

        Frank

        Did you read WKA? The court says he is a “citizen”. It NEVER calls him a “natural born citizen”.

    • Northland10

      David,

      I will try to make it shorter and simpler. The Justices were attempting to demonstrate that being a citizen was not an automatic right to vote, especially for women (at the time). To avoid confusion or doubts on whom this might apply, they needed to show that the “type” of citizen was not significant. Therefore, they took the method of citizenship that had no doubts whatsoever. For the lack of a better term, they used the “purest form”, jus soli with citizen parents. This was the same citizenship held by Virginia Minor.

      The opinion was showing that the right to vote was not automatic no matter how the person became a citizenship. For, if a Natural Born Citizen with citizen parents is not entitled to vote, neither would any other citizen, such as naturalized. They did not need to go further as it was not needed for the opinion.

      The use of a basic definition of citizenship (dicta) was not to define citizenship but only to provide the scope of their decision on voting rights (i.e. the holding).

      • davidfarrar

        Wait a minute, Northland10.

        Frank Bolivar,

        do you agree with his statement:

        Therefore, they took the method of citizenship that had no doubts whatsoever. For the lack of a better term, they used the “purest form”, jus soli with citizen parents. This was the same citizenship held by Virginia Minor?”

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • davidfarrar

          Okay Number10,

          apparently Frank has run away from this question with his tail between his legs. So why don’t you tell me why you think Virginia Minor relied on her “natural born” citizenship status rather them the 14th Amendment?

          ex animo
          davidfarrar

        • Northland10

          You did not comprehend a thing I said. They used the citizenship statement to show the holding applied regardless if how citizenship was acquired. Her citizenship was not in dispute, but the holding would still apply whether NBC or naturalized.

  • davidfarrar

    Okay, Frank:

    a syllabus of the case. The Minor Court had to use Mrs. Minor’s natural born citizenship status to establish her citizenship without relying on the 14th Amendment, as the petitioner.

    The Minor case is a well known case within the Women’s Suffrage Movement in its own right for establishing the legal precedent that women are constitutionally equal to men for the first time.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Frank Bolivar

      So the fact that they did not establish her citizenship. As it was a conceded fact from the initial suit in the lower court, you just ignore, as that somehow fits your delusion and intellectually dishonesty.

      You just keep thinking that, the courts will continue to state you (and all Vattelist birthers) are wrong, sane people will just continue to laugh at and mock you, saying I told you so, as has been the case for over three years… Not because of corruption in the judiciary but because they, as do we, know better.

      • davidfarrar

        Frank,

        In the end, this issue isn’t up to the courts, nor any branch of government. It relies solely on we the People.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Andy

          David,

          You forget the We The People invested our control of these questions to the courts. So the courts have the full backing of the American people through the constitution. Either way, this is a losing argument for you.

        • Frank Bolivar

          Well, We the People are not going to allow you seditionist asshole to shred our constitution, subvert the law and undo this or any other legal election nor undo the will of 69 million + we the people.

        • Northland10

          And we the people voted, the electoral college voted and the Congress certified. We the people have spoken.

      • justin

        Just like you ignore in WKA that the court NEVER calls him a “natural born citizen”.

        • Reality Check

          The question before the court in WKA was whether or not he was a citizen so that is the way the final paragraph in the majority decision was worded. However, Justice Gray wrote pages to show that to find WKA was a citizen that he must be a natural born citizen. In fact the Chinese Exclusion Act in force at the time prohibited WKA or any Chinese to be naturalized.

          Birthers just cannot read and comprehend the ruling.

          There is a reason that several recent rulings beginning with Ankeny in Indiana have cited WKA as precedent for ruling President Obama is a natural born citizen. It is because those judges can actually understand the ruling.

        • Frank Bolivar

          Yes, the Wong court did call him a natural born citizen, by defining what that is, and according to their definition, he is one.

          See how that works?

        • justin

          Oh, but that definition is dicta. Dicta is not precedent as you obots keep saying.

        • Frank Bolivar

          No, it’s not dicta.

    • whatever4

      David – yes Minor is well-know in the Women’s rights movement. But do other courts cite Minor on Natural born citizenship? They don’t. They cite Minor on privileges of citizenship, voting rights, and that there are only 2 kinds of citizens. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=5117525999793250938&q=Minor+v.+Happersett&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22

      A controlling case that’s more than 100 years old should have a few citations on that topic.

      • Fred Muggs

        Oh David, paging David, where are you David?

      • davidfarrar

        Yes, it’s true. As to Minor: many believe findings in the Minor case defines Article II. This is wrong. The Minor case was not even about the qualifications for the office of President and it was never the intention of the judge in that case to define Article II nbC. The judge simply relied upon the special ordinary case of “born in the country to parents who are citizens” which is a native or natural born citizen in order to show Mrs. Minor that her legal argument did not hold up because she argued that her political rights within the society (her right to vote) where secured by the 14th Amendment. In other words, she argued that because she was a citizen by legal privilege of Positive Law, her natural right to vote was provided for in the Constitution. The court disagreed and related that her right to citizenship was a natural right, that she could claim a natural right to membership in the society (citizenship) that was not a function of the plenary authority of government, and that her right as a citizen preceded the 14th Amendment because the facts of her situation fit the description of born in the country to parents who are citizens as a special case of a native. They could have just as easily said she was born to a citizen father and that would have accomplished the same thing which was to defeat her argument that she was relying on governmental authority to define her citizenship in order to secure her natural rights.

        The court then said they could find no place in the Constitution that secured the natural right for women to vote which led to the 19th Amendment prohibition against discriminating voting rights based upon sex. So, Minor v Happersett does not define Article II nbC. One must delve a little deeper like I have done in order to arrive at the essence which is that our fathers provide us children with the natural inherited right to claim natural membership in his society and that we are entitled to all of the political rights that our fathers have secured to us in the Constitution.

        LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION!

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Frank Bolivar

          LOL

          Now there’s some fine word salad for you. That mess is even more convoluted that than the Minor does define nbc. And an even more wrong interpretation of Minor and the Constitution.

          Revolution my ass.

        • Monkey Boy

          LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTIONinsurrection to destroy the US!

        • RoadScholar

          Oh great. A revolution of pathetic thick-headed losers.

          We’re trembling in our jack-boots, Benedict Arnold.

  • Reality Check

    @ David Farrar

    Is Orly going to be able to spare a few minutes from her busy schedule of running for the Senate and deposing Bill and Hillary Clinton to submit a petition for Writ for Certiorari to SCOTUS in your case? Or has she dropped you like last week’s moldy bread?

  • Reality Check

    So maybe Orly is coming back to Georgia with a new case and a shiny “ham hock cervice” as Estevio called it? Courts just love it when people keep bringing back the same case over and over again. Just ask Chris Strunk up in Brooklyn. (If what Mario said is correct about the $80,000 charge from just one attorney Chris may be back in court soon, bankruptcy court that is.)

  • John Wayne

    PRAVDA THE COMMUNIST NEWSPAPER RIPS OBUMMER

    PRAVDA THE COMMUNIST NEWSPAPER RIPS OBUMMER

    n March 7th, 2012, Pravda called out the U.S. press for its deliberate neglect of the largest scandal in modern American history. Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio released credible forensic evidence that Barack Obama, presumed President of the United States, presented to the world a forged Birth Certificate on April 27th, 2011.
    Since then, the scandal has only expanded. Former United States Postal Service worker Allen Hulton has recently come forward with compelling testimony given under Oath, which leads to only one conclusion: Barack Obama attended College in the United States as a Foreign Student.

    DON’T TREAD ON ME !!!
    NBC *NATIONAL BABOON COMMISSION*******

  • John Wayne

    $25,000 Challenge to General Colin Powell
    Article II Super PAC

    On August 8, 2011 the Birther Summit issued a challenge to Gen. Colin Powell (Ret) to review a mountain of evidence clearly demonstrating the birth certificate officially released by the White House and posted on its server on April 27, 2011 was a forgery.

    Nine days later, the Arizona “Surprise Tea Party” collected 242 signatures on a petition requesting Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona to conduct an investigation into the birth certificate posted on the White House servers on April 27, 2011.

    One man honored his Oath of Office by immediately launching an investigation, while the other dismissed “We the People’s” challenge in classic Alinsky style — ridicule.

    Article II Super PAC revisited the original challenge and upped the ante. We are giving General Colin Powell a second chance to do what an honorable man does–honor his Oath. We are challenging him “to meet with Sheriff Arpaio in the reasonably near future, review the evidence, and issue a statement regarding that evidence. If you choose to accept this challenge, which we pray you will do, then we will make a $25,000 donation to the Wounded Warrior Project in your name.”

    Duty, honor and country–does it still matter? Will Gen. Colin Powell accept Article II Super PAC’s Challenge?

  • John Wayne

    A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.
    The ruling came as part of a motion by the conservative legal watch dog group Judicial Watch, who had sued the DOJ in federal court to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents pertaining to the the New Black Panthers case. Judicial Watch had secured many previously unavailable documents through their suit against DOJ and were now suing for attorneys’ fees.
    Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records produced in this litigation evidenced any political interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the New Black Panther Party case. But United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton disagreed. Citing a “series of emails” between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:
    The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.

    In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.

  • John Wayne

    A FEDERAL JUDGE RULED IT SO YOU OBUMMER TRAITOR LOVERS !!!!!!!!!!!

    A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party

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: