Covering up Minor v. Happerset SCOTUS precedent defining "Natural Born Citizen"

Originally posted by Phoenix
Show me and others when and where exactly WKA overrode M v. H.
Go ahead present that case law in its original form showing its exact prevalence over M v. H. or just get the heck off this thread.

OK.

From the dissent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark

I do not insist that, although what was said was deemed essential to the argument and a necessary part of it, the point was definitively disposed of in the Slaughterhouse Cases, particularly as Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167, remarked that there were doubts, which for the purposes of the case then in hand it was not necessary to solve.

The dissent in Wong Kim Ark states that Happersett didn’t address the question for children of aliens, which Wong Kim Ark was about. Moreover, the dissent states—

I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

The dissent understands that the majority’s opinion will make “everybody born within ... the United States,” including “children of foreigners,” “eligible to the Presidency.”

Otherwise specifically address the issue in the OP otherwise I'll have to report you to the mods as a troll or worse.

I have. And I have debunked it. I’m still waiting for your acknowledgement of my posts.

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Phoenix
Show me and others when and where exactly WKA overrode M v. H.
Go ahead present that case law in its original form showing its exact prevalence over M v. H. or just get the heck off this thread.

OK.

From the dissent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark

I do not insist that, although what was said was deemed essential to the argument and a necessary part of it, the point was definitively disposed of in the Slaughterhouse Cases, particularly as Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167, remarked that there were doubts, which for the purposes of the case then in hand it was not necessary to solve.

The dissent in Wong Kim Ark states that Happersett didn’t address the question for children of aliens, which Wong Kim Ark was about. Moreover, the dissent states—

I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

The dissent understands that the majority’s opinion will make “everybody born within ... the United States,” including “children of foreigners,” “eligible to the Presidency.”

Otherwise specifically address the issue in the OP otherwise I'll have to report you to the mods as a troll or worse.

I have. And I have debunked it. I’m still waiting for your acknowledgement of my posts.

If you're going to pick foreign law or European law as your basis to derail this thread then so be it, You are picking and choosing comments from a case irrelevant from the thread OP.

So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive, or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory, or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country which have gone the furthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent, Comm. 39, 50, 53, 258, note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N. Y. 356, 371.

OK back to the Constitution and whats really going on is what I wish.

Mods I think its time to jump in here! and keep this thread on subject.

Amazing,

In three pages not one poster has addressed directly the cover-up of the website modification as detailed - just wow is all I can say.

Originally posted by Phoenix
In three pages not one poster has addressed directly the cover-up of the website modification

You must have not read this thread, you were shown to be wrong on the first page, and several times later as well - why do you avoid reading thoe posts?

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Phoenix
In three pages not one poster has addressed directly the cover-up of the website modification

You must have not read this thread, you were shown to be wrong on the first page, and several times later as well - why do you avoid reading those posts?

Oh no Have you actually gone to and read the links provided or are are you just supposing the links are wrong based on others hearsay.

I recommend going back to the original OP and reading the links prior to making a judgment

Originally posted by Phoenix
Oh no Have you actually gone to and read the links provided or are are you just supposing the links are wrong based on others hearsay.f

You are the one working on hearsay, right here
www.abovetopsecret.com...
your claim in the OP is debunked - so why are you refusing to read it?

Same old argument.

The obots always claim english common law. Utter tripe. Blacks was never used in the US.

We used Law of Nations for every definition.

If we did use Blacks, obamas dad was a member of the kenyan royal family and as such considered a valid diplomat, automatically.

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Phoenix
Oh no Have you actually gone to and read the links provided or are are you just supposing the links are wrong based on others hearsay.f

You are the one working on hearsay, right here
www.abovetopsecret.com...
your claim in the OP is debunked - so why are you refusing to read it?

Claiming that the Justia.com issue is a "glitch" is an unprovable and convenient way to avoid the subject. So the "glitch" as you call it just happened at the best time for Obama almost sort of by accident

While we're at it lets just say that the Connecticut issued SS number was simply a clerical error

Originally posted by Phoenix
Claiming that the Justia.com issue is a "glitch" is an unprovable and convenient way to avoid the subject.

Claiming there is a conspiracy to omit references to one Supreme Court case when, based on the own links supplied by the person make the accusation in support of his conclusion, it is shown several other Supreme Court case citations are omitted as well, is just baseless.

This nonsensical allegation you are spreading here is demonstrably false, and Donofrio, and you, could have easily confirmed it as such. Donofrio is either incompetent or purposely spreading falsehoods. And you’re either naive and blindly believe the ludicrous things Donofrio says, or your purposely spreading falsehoods.

As I’ve demonstred before using the Wayback Machine link Donofrio provided one can readily see other case citations were omitted as well, not just Minor v. Happersett, as Donofrio and you claim.

Moreover, doing a simple experiment with other cases yields the same results. Take for instance, the Wong Kim Ark opinion — the case you stubbornly refuse to comprehend. Now if I use the Wayback Machine and check Wong Kim Ark on Justia, the same exact behavior is shown.

Here is a screenshot with a side-by-side comparison.

And yes, it’s probably a glitch. This explanation, at least, is infinitely more plausible than yours, and actually matches the data and experiments.

This thread should be in the Hoax section.

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Phoenix
Claiming that the Justia.com issue is a "glitch" is an unprovable and convenient way to avoid the subject.

Claiming there is a conspiracy to omit references to one Supreme Court case when, based on the own links supplied by the person make the accusation in support of his conclusion, it is shown several other Supreme Court case citations are omitted as well, is just baseless.

I argue that it is not baseless, as the entire web was clearly scrubbed during and just post election of anything to do with the name Obama. There is tons of evidence to back up that assertion, just google it.

Here is a link to get you warmed up.
theobamafile.com...

Originally posted by Lono1
Look at aptness' posting history. Its as if nothing else exists in the world but the use of pejoratives, ad hominim attacks, and misdirection all in the course of "debunking" for King Obama. That kind of committment is honorable, its something that you don't find often these days...blind loyalty and faith in government...

How is it an ad hominem attack if I addressed the claims being made? And, you decided to respond to ad hominem attacks, or so you claim, with an ad hominem attack yourself?

What misdirection are you talking about? The OP made a claim, and I used the links provided by the OP to demonstrate that claim is entirely unfounded.

If there are people engaged in misdirection here are those that keep claiming no one has addressed the claims presented by the OP and pretend they haven’t been debunked.

Originally posted by Libertygal
Here is a link to get you warmed up.
theobamafile.com...

and there we find a typical birther lie

Original, vault copy birth certificate -- Not released (lawyers' fees = $2,000,000

2 lies actually, that his original birth certificate was not released, and that Obama had spent $2million to cover up something that was private anyway!

And birthers consider this a good source....

Moreover, doing a simple experiment with other cases yields the same results. Take for instance, the Wong Kim Ark opinion — the case you stubbornly refuse to comprehend.

Many believe that case was too vague to interpret what is a "Natural Born" citizen as opposed to just a "Citizen"..

Obviously you'll interpret it as it suits you..

Originally posted by backinblack
Many believe that case was too vague

Just what is your source for that claim?

You do have a source, dont you?

Just what is your source for that claim?

You do have a source, dont you?

hesnotmypresident.wordpress.com...

‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.

How about YOU show me why it is correct as you interpret it??
I have read the decision and IMO it IS vague..
It continually jumps between Natural and Citizen till it's unsure what is actually being discussed..

Originally posted by backinblack
I have read the decision and IMO it IS vague..
It continually jumps between Natural and Citizen till it's unsure what is actually being discussed..

I would venture to say that this is because (1) you’re not a lawyer and (2) you already decided Obama is not eligible, therefore Wong Kim Ark can’t support that possibilty.

I would venture to say that this is because (1) you’re not a lawyer and (2) you already decided Obama is not eligible, therefore Wong Kim Ark can’t support that possibilty.

I asked Spoors to show me where they believe the case is definitive..
I posted what many consider a vague part..
You can do the same if you wish or simply continue the BS rant.

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Libertygal
Here is a link to get you warmed up.
theobamafile.com...

and there we find a typical birther lie

Original, vault copy birth certificate -- Not released (lawyers' fees = $2,000,000

2 lies actually, that his original birth certificate was not released, and that Obama had spent $2million to cover up something that was private anyway!

And birthers consider this a good source....

I debunked that whole assertion about legal fees pretty well in this post. The BC issue and original vault copy? Sorry, that wasn't the vault copy that was released, because it doesn't exist!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Way to try to obfuscate from the topic of the OP.

Link

[Editor’s note: Barack Obama’s lawyer, Robert F. Bauer, is threatening a D.C. attorney with “sanctions,” because the attorney is simply requesting that Obama show proof of his birth.

(snip)

Should you decline to withdraw this frivolous appeal, please be informed that we intend to pursue sanctions, including costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees, pursuant to federal Rule Appellate Procedure 38 and D.C. Circuit Rule 38.”

So, please, do tell how you settle for legal fees when according to you, it's all lies? It is right there in black and white. "Costs, expenses, and attorney's fees". The real lie is he has spent no money defending these cases, aside from the fact that it is pure fantasy he has not been defending against the cases legally, you also expect people to believe it's all done for free? Do you think Bauer became the official WH attorney by accident? Really?

Cannot refute anything about the contents on the essence of the post, so you try the "birther" insult. Except for one problem, I don't take it as an insult. Credit towards the attempt to obfuscate, however. Typical of Obamabots!

(Do I get credit for the Obamabots insult, or....?)

'Cause, anyone can play that game.

So back to the OP topic. I argue it is not baseless, because the web was scrubbed prior to and post election, and it stands to reason that legal and/or other websites were sanitized in support as well.

One could argue that other cases were omitted as well to make it NOT look so suspicious.

Got anything but poor attempts at insults?

Edit to add: And if you try the "I did not deny he is spending money to defend these cases, I am saying is he is not spending money trying to cover things up! line, defending these cases is the most obvious afront of attempting to cover it up. The entire point of covering it up is to *not* be required to present the legal vault copy in this case, and all oif the others. That is what all of these cases have been about. But he got free legal defense, right? Right?

So yes, it is in fact, spending money to keep it hidden, which failed him hugely in the end anyways, now didn't it?