Tweet
A Nation of Fools
WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING OF “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?”
The Post & Email
Jedi Pauly, ©2012
2/8/2012
Excerpts:
"For some time now, I have been trying to explain the facts of life to the world regarding the true meaning and interpretation of Article II “natural born Citizen” requirements for the Office of President, and that Mr. Obama cannot possibly meet these requirements, as he was born to a foreign father who was never a U.S. citizen. I believe I have been viciously and unjustly attacked by the public at large and by some of the attorneys who have filed cases against Mr. Obama.
I contend and maintain that not one case filing so far has properly identified and argued the true and correct meaning and interpretation of Article II “natural born Citizen.” They have all missed the obvious, which I will once again state in light of the recent finding by Judge Malihi in the Georgia cases.
I am finding that I am forced to agree with Judge Malihi on one point: that Minor v Happersett is not a controlling case with regard to defining Article II “natural born Citizen.” It is, however, very useful in determining what is defining. One could even say it is controlling, but not for the reasons stated by the plaintiffs.
The judge is quite correct in his reading of the Minor case that the justices in Minor simply applied a general rule to Mrs. Minor: that those born within the U.S. to citizen parents are themselves “natives” or “natural born citizens” with a lower case “c” which, according to the Minor v Happersett judges, are synonymous terms. Such offspring are therefore members of the general class of “citizens” of the U.S. However, this does not mean that Mrs. Minor had the recognized and protected natural political right to be President that is implied in Article II by the term ”natural born Citizen” with a capital “C”. The Minor case was not even about Mrs. Minor’s right to be President; thus for this reason and others, it is not a controlling case.
In fact, the court in Minor went on to find that even though Mrs. Minor was already a citizen, and even a “natural born citizen” as a general category or type of “citizen” prior to the 14th Amendment, she still did not have any natural political rights recognized or protected by the Constitution. Nor did she possess any rights protected by the definition used by the court of what constitutes a “natural born citizen,” because the court found that she could not even vote, nor that she had any political rights secured by the Constitution at all. It required an Amendment to the Constitution to secure her natural political rights, her right to vote, regardless of the fact that she was determined to be a “natural born citizen.”
Obviously if she could not even vote, she could hardly be expected to be a candidate for the Office of President and qualify as a “natural born Citizen” by Article II. In fact, the court, using the findings in Minor v Happersett, actually proves that the definition of “one born in the country to parents who are citizens” IS NOT what is meant by “natural born Citizen” in Article II. In this sense, Minor might actually be a controlling case.....................................
.............. Article II is using the most restrictive case of one born to a citizen father, and that is all that is required or necessary. That is what is meant by “natural born Citizen” in Article II. This is actually proven by Minor v Happersett. So Minor is controlling, but not for the reasons espoused in the Georgia filings because nbC has nothing at all to do with the place of birth or the citizenship of the mother, and the Minor court case proves this."
View the complete article at:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/02/...tion-of-fools/
WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING OF “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?”
The Post & Email
Jedi Pauly, ©2012
2/8/2012
Excerpts:
"For some time now, I have been trying to explain the facts of life to the world regarding the true meaning and interpretation of Article II “natural born Citizen” requirements for the Office of President, and that Mr. Obama cannot possibly meet these requirements, as he was born to a foreign father who was never a U.S. citizen. I believe I have been viciously and unjustly attacked by the public at large and by some of the attorneys who have filed cases against Mr. Obama.
I contend and maintain that not one case filing so far has properly identified and argued the true and correct meaning and interpretation of Article II “natural born Citizen.” They have all missed the obvious, which I will once again state in light of the recent finding by Judge Malihi in the Georgia cases.
I am finding that I am forced to agree with Judge Malihi on one point: that Minor v Happersett is not a controlling case with regard to defining Article II “natural born Citizen.” It is, however, very useful in determining what is defining. One could even say it is controlling, but not for the reasons stated by the plaintiffs.
The judge is quite correct in his reading of the Minor case that the justices in Minor simply applied a general rule to Mrs. Minor: that those born within the U.S. to citizen parents are themselves “natives” or “natural born citizens” with a lower case “c” which, according to the Minor v Happersett judges, are synonymous terms. Such offspring are therefore members of the general class of “citizens” of the U.S. However, this does not mean that Mrs. Minor had the recognized and protected natural political right to be President that is implied in Article II by the term ”natural born Citizen” with a capital “C”. The Minor case was not even about Mrs. Minor’s right to be President; thus for this reason and others, it is not a controlling case.
In fact, the court in Minor went on to find that even though Mrs. Minor was already a citizen, and even a “natural born citizen” as a general category or type of “citizen” prior to the 14th Amendment, she still did not have any natural political rights recognized or protected by the Constitution. Nor did she possess any rights protected by the definition used by the court of what constitutes a “natural born citizen,” because the court found that she could not even vote, nor that she had any political rights secured by the Constitution at all. It required an Amendment to the Constitution to secure her natural political rights, her right to vote, regardless of the fact that she was determined to be a “natural born citizen.”
Obviously if she could not even vote, she could hardly be expected to be a candidate for the Office of President and qualify as a “natural born Citizen” by Article II. In fact, the court, using the findings in Minor v Happersett, actually proves that the definition of “one born in the country to parents who are citizens” IS NOT what is meant by “natural born Citizen” in Article II. In this sense, Minor might actually be a controlling case.....................................
.............. Article II is using the most restrictive case of one born to a citizen father, and that is all that is required or necessary. That is what is meant by “natural born Citizen” in Article II. This is actually proven by Minor v Happersett. So Minor is controlling, but not for the reasons espoused in the Georgia filings because nbC has nothing at all to do with the place of birth or the citizenship of the mother, and the Minor court case proves this."
View the complete article at:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/02/...tion-of-fools/
Comment