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

Originally posted by aptness



Are all these so called eligibility ‘lawyers’ insane?

Did you even confirm this on your own before creating this thread?

And you have followed the second link where Leo proves by "way back" that files were edited or did the site put back edited material after they were caught red handed.

You still have not addressed the main subject of this thread which is the apparent editing of SCOTUS records back in February 2008 and who knew what when.

Why are you trying to throw off the subject?

reply to post by spoor

Why would they? They just must believe that Obama is not the legal president

No mate, I'm merely confused at all the different interpretations of who is or isn't a "Natural Born Citizen"..

By yours and Aptness interpretation ANYONE born on US soil is regardless of any other criteria..

That would make being "Natural Born" easy to achieve and then I'd ask why a President must only be "Natural Born" ??

reply to post by Phoenix


You should of taken screen shots. If the content is back up it's kind of a loss cause now.
Maybe there was an error with the website that caused a link to be pointing the wrong way or content was deleted or overwritten by the site administrator?
Maybe they got the files put back from a backup.

I don't know.

Originally posted by backinblack
No mate, I'm merely confused at all the different interpretations of who is or isn't a "Natural Born Citizen"..

Then simply follow what the US Supreme Court states, and stop visiting and believing silly birther sites

And by the Supreme Courts definition Obama is naturally born, and that is the only definition that counts!

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by Phoenix

 

You should of taken screen shots. If the content is back up it's kind of a loss cause now.
Maybe there was an error with the website that caused a link to be pointing the wrong way or content was deleted or overwritten by the site administrator?
Maybe they got the files put back from a backup.

I don't know.

The second link on the OP has screen shots of the changes for documentation. Just click, read and follow, its all there.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by spoor

 

Why would they? They just must believe that Obama is not the legal president

No mate, I'm merely confused at all the different interpretations of who is or isn't a "Natural Born Citizen"..

By yours and Aptness interpretation ANYONE born on US soil is regardless of any other criteria..

That would make being "Natural Born" easy to achieve and then I'd ask why a President must only be "Natural Born" ??

The confusion stems that the Constitution does not define a Natural-Born Citizen.
I think the the 14th amendment section 1 and the case law cited in this thread come close to clearing up the issue. Plus the precedents with 6 other presidents a VP and presidential candidates make the argument moot.

Originally posted by Phoenix
And you have followed the second link where Leo proves by "way back" that files were edited or did the site put back edited material after they were caught red handed.

And did you realize that practically every other cited case was omitted as well and only showed up as ‘@’?

From the Way Back Machine link you told me to follow—

And Mr. Justice Swayne, in 83 U. S. 126 [omitted], declared that "a citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States." But in @ [omitted] 60 U. S. 404, Mr. Chief Justice Taney, delivering the opinion of the Court, said: ...

In @ [omitted] 31 U. S. 762, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall declared that "a citizen of the United States residing in any State of the union is a citizen of that state," and the Fourteenth Amendment embodies that view. ...

All white persons or persons of European descent who were born in any of the colonies or resided or had been adopted there before 1776 and had adhered to the cause of independence up to July 4, 1776, were by the declaration invested with the privileges of citizenship. @ [omitted] 58 U. S. 539; ...

It was said by Mr. Justice Catron in his separate opinion in @ [omitted] 60 U. S. 525: ...

The sixth article of the treaty of 1819 with Spain, 8 Stat. 256, contained a provision to the same effect as that in the treaty of Paris, and Mr. Chief Justice Marshall said, @ [omitted] 26 U. S. 542:

And so on. This was most likely a glitch on the Justia site that affected all the citations. But birthers immediately jump to conclusions and conjure up conspiracies.

Why are you trying to throw off the subject?

There is nothing to this subject.

Originally posted by grey580

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by spoor

 

Why would they? They just must believe that Obama is not the legal president

No mate, I'm merely confused at all the different interpretations of who is or isn't a "Natural Born Citizen"..

By yours and Aptness interpretation ANYONE born on US soil is regardless of any other criteria..

That would make being "Natural Born" easy to achieve and then I'd ask why a President must only be "Natural Born" ??

The confusion stems that the Constitution does not define a Natural-Born Citizen.
I think the the 14th amendment section 1 and the case law cited in this thread come close to clearing up the issue. Plus the precedents with 6 other presidents a VP and presidential candidates make the argument moot.

No it's not moot because you can not point to case law or anything except supposition. The case law for precedent is what I have posted.

reply to post by aptness


I think you are on the right track.
I'm a web admin and sometimes if you change a line of code in one place you can totally bjork your website.
I wish that we had screen shots to look at.

Originally posted by Phoenix
No it's not moot because you can not point to case law or anything except supposition. The case law for precedent is what I have posted.

and it has been pointed out that you are wrong, the proper case law is US vs Wong Kim Ark, why do you ignore that?

Originally posted by Phoenix
No it's not moot because you can not point to case law or anything except supposition. The case law for precedent is what I have posted.

This is a complete lie. Wong Kim Ark unambigously states that anyone born in the United States, whose parents aren’t enemy soldiers or foreign diplomats, is a natural born citizen.

If the birther interpretation of natural born citizen is supported in law why didn’t anyone in Congress raise an objection during Obama’s certification? His father’s citizenship was public knowledge.

reply to post by spoor


So in 2012 there could be a President that is the son of two illegal Mexican immigrants or a President who was born here while his parents were on holiday from Palestine..??

Could be interesting..

I find it very interesting that after two pages of response that not one poster has addressed the conspiracy brought up by the original OP which is the suppression of case law by Obama or his supporters.

Almost all posts have been off subject, prevaricating or attempting to change the subject - a few have even appeared to be - well I won't go there just yet.

I'd like someone just to address the conspiracy of information denial that is apparent here without resorting to the normal attack mode that seems to prevail around anything Obama related, Seek the truth ATS members or are you part of the machine?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by spoor

 

So in 2012 there could be a President that is the son of two illegal Mexican immigrants or a President who was born here while his parents were on holiday from Palestine..

If the people wanted them, and they met the other criteria, then yes.

What do YOU think the criteria should be then?

Be a WASP? Are women allowed?

Originally posted by Phoenix
I find it very interesting that after two pages of response that not one poster has addressed the conspiracy brought up by the original OP which is the suppression of case law by Obama or his supporters.

There was no suppression of case law, as has been pointed out...

If there was, just how do you know it was Obama or his supporters?

I'd like someone just to address the conspiracy of information denial that is apparent here

It HAS been addressed, but you refuse to read those posts as they would destroy your conspiracy theory

the motto here is "Deny Ignorance", not "Embrace Ignorance"!

reply to post by Phoenix



I thought the person below answered your conspiracy.

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Phoenix
Wong Kim Ark did not override this precedent - period.

You can repeat it how many times you want, you’re still wrong.

Quit trying to prevaricate and derail this thread by obfuscating the issue at hand which is why would a leading reference website for SCOTUS records attempt to hide reference to Minor v. Happersett.

I did, and like every other Donofrio claim, this is one is just as baseless.

Donofrio says

For example, in Boyd v. Nebraska ex Rel. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135 (1892) we see the US Supreme Court, in a case on citizenship, quoting Justice Waite in Minor directly as precedent for his holding regarding US citizenship:

“As remarked by Mr. Chief Justice Waite in @ 88 U. S. 167: ...

Notice how Justia has removed the case name, “Minor v. Happersett” from the citation in the case.

I just opened that case in Justia, using the link Donofrio provided, and guess what, Minor v. Happersett is not omitted. Edit: here is the screenshot.

Are all these so called eligibility ‘lawyers’ insane?

Did you even confirm this on your own before creating this thread?

edit on 8-7-2011 by aptness because: added screenshot

Originally posted by Phoenix
I find it very interesting that after two pages of response that not one poster has addressed the conspiracy brought up by the original OP which is the suppression of case law by Obama or his supporters.

Donofrio’s conspiracy, that you spread here, was promptly debunked by simply following the links he provided and realizing practically all citations were omitted, and not just the Minor v. Happersett as Donofrio claims.

Oh btw. I wanted to point something out I just read.

The Tenth Amendment explicitly states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people.

I'm going to change my statement and declare that since the constitution does not define what a natural born citizen is. That power is up to the state to decide.

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Phoenix
No it's not moot because you can not point to case law or anything except supposition. The case law for precedent is what I have posted.

This is a complete lie. Wong Kim Ark unambiguously states that anyone born in the United States, whose parents aren’t enemy soldiers or foreign diplomats, is a natural born citizen.

WKA is not the subject of this thread, suppression of Minor v. Happersett is the thread subject. Try as you may and try as you might WKA in no way no how overrides M v. H period.

Wish I may wish I might does not work here,

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.

Go ahead assume I'm from Missouri and its the show me state,

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

Originally posted by grey580
Oh btw. I wanted to point something out I just read.

The Tenth Amendment explicitly states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people.

I'm going to change my statement and declare that since the constitution does not define what a natural born citizen is. That power is up to the state to decide.

According to the decision of Chief Justice Waite it up to Congress to decide but absent that he defined it in his decision.

Its way off subject but I have to compliment your support of States rights according to the tenth amendment which precludes national health-care as written.