I have a very in depth analytical blog coming soon concerning the underlying history of the US Supreme Court’s precedent defining a natural born citizen as one born in the US to parents who were citizens via the case of Minor v. Happersett. That case had two issues, citizenship and voting rights. The citizenship issue was determined by the SCOTUS directly construing the “natural born Citizen” clause from Article 2, Section 1. This is the only US Supreme Court case to have directly construed the clause. As such, it remains as good law and precedent which means Obama occupies the White House in direct contradiction to standing US law.
My next blog will settle this issue conclusively. For now, I would like to reach back to a speech (bottom of pg. 409-410) made by Virginia Minor – a staunch woman’s suffrage activist – at a St. Louis convention in 1869:
“In 1856, the question came before the Attorney General, Mr. Cushing, as to whether Indians were citizens of the United States, and as such, were entitled to the privilege of preempting our public lands. He gave it as his opinion that they were not citizens, but domestic subjects, and therefore not entitled to the benefit of the act.”
According to US Attorney General Cushing, a “subject” is not a “citizen”. Therefore, “natural born Citizen” cannot mean the same thing as “natural born Subject”. Attorney General Cushing determined that domestic subjects were not entitled to the same rights as US citizens because “subjects” are not “citizens”. And a “natural born subject” has never meant the same thing as “natural born Citizen”. Never. That’s a complete fraud.
Not that this argument matters in the face of the precedent set by the SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett, but since the Obama eligibility advocates have tried to utilize this as a convenient soundbite, Attorney General Cushing’s statement of federal policy is quite useful in quashing another of propaganda’s favorite arguments.
Leo Donofrio, Esq.
No comments:
Post a Comment