English Common Law Requires Jus Sanguinis as Essential for Natural Born

When one follows another, they are supposed to know where the one ahead is going or has gone.

The Indiana court lost their way.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress...s-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

As well as that, Indiana court has no precedence over SCOTUS, so their delusional holding is as useful as tits on a bull.

SCOTUS case Minor v Happersett precedent says both parents as citizens and born in the land to make a 'natural born Citizen'.

.

 

You are linking World Net Daily?

For once why don't you go to Fordham ED US Law and read the statutes and Title 8 for yourself?

 

That is impossible without endangering his reality. Ours might be different than the WND one he inhabits.

 

WND has more kookery and lies on record than DEBKA.

Is Michael a US citizen?

 

Insert "Duh" here.

Minor v. Happersett set no precedent on that issue.

1. It was a suffrage case, not a citizenship case. Virginia Minor's citizenship was never even a question before the court.

2. It refused explicitly to address and settle the issue of the citizenship status of children of aliens.

3. The Wong decision settled that issue.

Thanks for playing, try again.

 

No............... what makes you think that?

I already have, and there is nothing there that defines a USC Article II 'natural born citizen'................. maybe you can point-out in Title 8 where precisely the part is that you keep harping about.


Here's the relevant US Code with NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER to an Article II 'natural born Citizen'.

It is notable that in most cases listed in 1401, it is the status of the PARENT(s) that matters.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sup_01_8.html

So as you can see, just to be a 'citizen' ............. in most, nearly every case, it is the status of the parent that is essential, so don't you think that to be an Article II 'natural born Citizen' to be eligible for POTUS that the status of the parents REALLY, REALLY matters?

You expect it to make sense that the parent's status doesn't matter for one to be eligible to be POTUS????? ......... ROTFLMFAO


It's your political bias that stands in the way of your common-sense and logic.


.

 

Actually... no. The vast majority of cases fall neatly into:

You will note that I have not copied your parenthetical insert which is, as all thinking people know, a lie.

All you are left with is instances of personal born outside of the US and not subject to its jurisdiction. In those cases, yes... the extra-constitutional issue of jus sanguinis raises its head.

That would be the law. yes. Your judgment regarding what does or does not "make sense" is really of no interest.

 

Duplicate!

 

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/justiagate-say-it-aint-so-carl-malamud/

It must really suck to be so delusional as to have such a huge ego and political bias that these impediments stand in the way of acknowledging the truth.


.

 

Oh... you have no clue!! Leo Donofrio also believes that he is the Holy Spirit sent to earth to announce the second coming of Christ who is the drummer for some obscure British punk band.

I'm not making it up. You can't make that stuff up.

 

When the going gets tough, resort to fallacy......... lol

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

.

 

It's not a fallacy, Michael. It goes directly to Donofrio's competence as a "failed lawyer." If you are wondering who am I quoting there, I am quoting Donofrio himself. He further blamed that failure as a lawyer on both massive drug use and no small dose of mental illness.

Here is just one of his autobiographical sketches:

See what I mean? This is the guy whose legal analysis you are depending on. Here... it gets worse:

Having fun yet Mike? This is from the same reference:

There you go... this is the guy who invented the whole fake "two citizen parent" requirement and who is hallucinating now that Minor v. Happersett sets a precedent it doesn't even actually address.

So...now you know why Leo has never won a case, and why the last case he was involved in is going to cost him $250K in sanctions.

 

Here's some more expert opinion that proves Minor v Happersett was precedent in defining a 'natural born Citizen' of US as one born in US of US citizen parents.

Go here to read the whole article........

http://storyreportscomments.blogspot.com/2011/10/supreme-courts-holding-in-minor-v.html

That 'ol ego must be taking a hit. lol


.

 

Whose? Leo's?

The man thinks he's God for heaven's sake. Nothing will dent that sort of ego!!

 

And there is still more that proves Minor v Happersett was held as precedent by SCOTUS in SEVERAL cases that followed Minor...............

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress...-precedent-on-citizenship-obama-not-eligible/

.

 

And more .........

http://unlawfulpresident.com/minor-v-happersett-proof-obama-is-unlawful-potus/

.

 

Not on the definition of natural born citizen. Never once has it been held as precedent for that purpose.

Unlike, of course, Wong Kim Ark.

 

More what? More Birther crap?

No spinning, even from people who hallucinate they are God, can save Birthers from the following truths.

1. Minor v. Happersett was not a citizenship case. It was a suffrage case. Virginia Minor's citizenship was never a question before the court.

2. It explicitly refused to settle the issue of citizenship status for children of aliens born on US soil.

3. Wong Kim Ark did settle that issue and set the reigning precedent as proven by the Ankeny decision.

Birthers are wrong. Simple as that.

 

“A judge’s power to bind is limited to the issue that is before him; he cannot transmute dictum into decision by waving a wand and uttering the word ‘hold’.”

United States v. Rubin (1979), J. Friendly, concurring.

 

Just pointing out one more time that actual legal experts- real actual legal experts- the Appeals Court of Indiana disagrees with Michaels opinion and Leo's opinion.

No the Appeals Court of Indiana doesn't have precedent over the Supreme Court- but neither do Michael or Leo and the Indiana Court of Appeals has far more weight, and is the opinion of actual recognized legal experts.

And since the Indiana Court of Appeals opinion represents the actual reality in the United States- the reality recognized by the voters, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts, everything falls neatly into p;ace.

 

A new Congressional Research Service white paper on the meaning of "natural born citizenship."

Birthers... read it and weep:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/...ral-Born”-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement

 

Jack Maskell is dishonest and biased, his ramblings are deliberately selective and partisan.......... he is abusing his position of trust.


.

 

Suck it up Mike. The Congressional Research Service is excruciatingly independent and non-partisan.

This paper is detailed and of the highest levels of scholarship. And it shreds every single one of your arguments into pieces so small they are unrecognizable. It destroys the Vattel argument. It destroys the "Minor is precedent" argument. It destroys the "two citizen parent" and the "no dual citizen" arguments. Jack Maskell did not merely provide us with a casual gloss here. He apparently studied the Birther arguments in detail... and then eviscerates them each in turn.

All Birther hopes of Congressional action on their delusions have died with this white paper.

 

MichaelN: Fordham Law School website has the US law without commentary. Why don't you READ it?

Meanwhile:

British Nationality Act, 1948


1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6.) CHAPTER 56.

http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm

 

Oh what fun. I liked this, which I hadn't ever seen before:

"Rather, there is in this country a general legal presumption of eligibility of the adult citizenry to hold political office and, as noted as early as 1875 by former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, and former Member of Congress (and chairman of the Committee on Elections), George W. McCrary, in his book, A Treatise on the American Lawof Elections, discussing federal congressional elections, the legal presumption is always of eligibility, and thus the initial burden of proof is always upon those who challenge a candidate’s eligibility, and not on a candidate to “prove” eligibility:"