Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

Minor vs Happersett, 1875

Posted: 6/14/2012 6:41 AM

Minor vs Happersett, 1875 


According to this decision, both parents must be citizens of the USA, in order, for that person to be a natural born citizen. This opinion handed down by the US Supreme Court was written by the chief justice.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/14/2012 8:27 AM

Re: Minor vs Happersett, 1875 


Hey there, JL.  I've been wondering...since Romney is your "chosen one" to replace the great Satan, is Joseph Smith your new Jesus Christ?  Will you be changing your username to JosephLives?
"In its purest sense, baseball and softball is a kid and a parent  playing a 30-minute game of catch"

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/14/2012 12:48 PM

Re: Minor vs Happersett, 1875 


I can't say that I like the fact that this nomination was purchased and by whom?
I am more anti-BHO than I am pro Romney.

Image Detail
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/14/2012 12:51 PM

Re: Minor vs Happersett, 1875 


Newt was my first choice. He is the only one to get to a balanced budget for four years.
Harry Reid hasn't even passed a budget in 3 years.

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/14/2012 12:54 PM

Re: Minor vs Happersett, 1875 


Besides that, I stick with this case in 1875, BHO is not a natural boirn citizen! And is in violation of the
U.S. Constitution.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/14/2012 6:48 PM

Re: Minor vs Happersett, 1875 


JL never read the case.  It has nothing to do with citizenship and the presidency.  Some right-wing blogs attempted to take pieces out of context and make it seem as if the SCOTUS was ruling on this issue.  Isn't lying breaking one of Moses's Big 10?

Last edited 6/14/2012 6:49 PM by nealyfan

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/14/2012 9:13 PM

Re: Minor vs Happersett, 1875 


Isn't that case about women's suffrage?

                           

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/14/2012 9:48 PM

Re: Minor vs Happersett, 1875 



WildWillieCat wrote: Isn't that case about women's suffrage?

Yup . . . something else JL hates.

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/14/2012 9:48 PM

Re: Minor vs Happersett, 1875 


Irregardless of the case, the chief justice clearly states that a natural born citizen is one whose parents are themselves citizens. Both parents, not one parent but parents.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/14/2012 9:53 PM

Re: Minor vs Happersett, 1875 



Jesuslives wrote: Irregardless 
NOT A WORD!  

sorry pet peeve

                           

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/14/2012 10:07 PM

Re: Minor vs Happersett, 1875 


There have been four cases , in which, a natural born citizen is one whose parents (both) are themselves citizens of the United States.
Minor vs Happersett does reiterate that FACT in the option written by the chief justice,so there.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/14/2012 10:26 PM

Re: Minor vs Happersett, 1875 



Jesuslives wrote: There have been four cases , in which, a natural born citizen is one whose parents (both) are themselves citizens of the United States.
Minor vs Happersett does reiterate that FACT in the option written by the chief justice,so there.

If this case is so obvious, why did it take the right-wing brain trust 4 years to find it?  Besides, I thought right-wingers hate judges.

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/15/2012 8:26 AM

Re: Minor vs Happersett, 1875 


There are new things being found out about Obama's health care legislation.
How many  cases have been decided in the U.S. Supreme Court, it takes find to find them.
Why is it that Obama and the Democrats think they are above the law?
Why do those on the left so vividly defend him? Is it insanity or just plain stupidity?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/15/2012 8:30 AM

Re: Minor vs Happersett, 1875 



Jesuslives wrote: There are new things being found out about Obama's health care legislation.
How many  cases have been decided in the U.S. Supreme Court, it takes find to find them.
Why is it that Obama and the Democrats think they are above the law?
Why do those on the left so vividly defend him? Is it insanity or just plain stupidity?
that's right JL, we're the ones that are stupid or insane, and Obama is the DEVIL! 

what's that behind you?

BOO!!

scared ya, didn't I?

                           

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/15/2012 8:33 AM

Re: Minor vs Happersett, 1875 



WildWillieCat wrote:
Jesuslives wrote: Irregardless
NOT A WORD!  

sorry pet peeve
Thanks, WWC.  We must drive this incorrect usage from our midst at all costs.tongue
"these Wildcats were the sum of their parts. There were few stars. They just played hard-nosed football out there on the Plains."
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/15/2012 8:35 AM

Re: Minor vs Happersett, 1875 


I fixed your post. 

What you really meant to say:

Why did it take four years, Nealy?
There are new things being made up by us cranky right wingers about Obama's health care legislation.
How many  cases have been decided in the U.S. Supreme Court, it takes find to find them and we don't have the find.
Why is it that Obama and the Democrats think they are above the law?  Our right wing Supreme Court runs this country so the Dems and the administration need to staunchly follow the blind leadership of the far right and its money factory.
Why do we on the right so vividly attack him? It is a combination of insanity, jealousy, racism and just plain stupidity.
"In its purest sense, baseball and softball is a kid and a parent  playing a 30-minute game of catch"

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/15/2012 9:32 AM

Re: Minor vs Happersett, 1875 


JL (or whoever wrote the blog that JL is reading either doesn't understand how precedent works or is purposefully deceitful.  Off hand comments made by the justices in am opinion do not necessarily make precedent, and in this case, the context doesn't even say what JL claims it does. 

In this case, the discussion of what makes a someone a citizen is intended to establish that women are, without a doubt, citizens. In the section cited by JL, the justices do not define what makes a citizen, but establish, above an beyond a doubt, that Minor is a citizen, and would have been so by any definition, before or after the 14th Amendment.  If anything, in context, this case would set the precedent that Obama is, in fact, a natural born citizen and eligible to be President based on the 14th Amendment.

Context:

"There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance." ...

"

Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

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. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea."

 

It is clear from actually reading the case that the definition laid out is an inclusive definition, not exclusive, and any attempt to say otherwise is dishonest.

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/16/2012 10:15 AM

Re: Minor vs Happersett, 1875 


Is that a bunch of lawyers chargin? It doesn't say that, because that is not the intent of the writer of the opinion.
Too many words and a lot of confusion brought on by lawyers, who do not want the true intent of the contents to be discovered, unless you hire a lawyer to tell you what the meaning of the words in a bill or opinion
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/16/2012 4:27 PM

Re: Minor vs Happersett, 1875 


First, I'm not sure what you are even trying to say.  It sounds like you are trying to say that what I wrote is not the decision, but but something a bunch of lawyers wrote that can't be true because you need a lawyer to know what's true?

Anyway, what I posted was quoted directly from the decision.  It's not lawyer talk, it is what the court actually decided.  And if you need a lawyer to interpret it, then where do you think you are getting your information and why do you think your interpretation is right?
Reply | Quote