Skip to content

Minor vs Happersett


A case often referred to in the “Birther” movement. One very interesting piece is here:

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 [n6] 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,” [n7] 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 [p168] 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.

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. [n9]

It then continues in reference to foreign birth of citizen born parents, persons wanting citizenship and the disposition of their dependents if they died before completion of their citizenship application, on and on.

Ovomit’s claimed father was Kenyan, and never intended to become an American citizen. It was adopted by an Indonesian, and therefore lost it’s American citizenship if it had ever possessed it at all in the first place.

Every single piece of legal history regarding citizenship at all has pointed to this MGMMPOS never having been eligible at all. Everything they have tried to twist to make it seem eligible is, on closer reading, still not enabling the term “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution (art 2.1.5) to be applied to this thing. Pay attention to who has spoken of it’s ineligibility in Congress, and there have been some. There are those who have called it traitor, those who have backed the “birther” movement. There are also those who have blocked those attempts at removal for said ineligibility.

I have said that there are those who could keep this nation organized and running during a short term shutdown by the military, abiding by their OATH.

It is in continual violation of OUR Constitution. It is attempting, at every turn, to destroy our nation. Our military has had some leaders with intent, and they have been removed from their positions. If you personally know any of them, send them this. I, for one, 20 years retired from 20 years of service, will stand with you. I will march with you in protest and indication of intent, and I will fight next to you to take this nation back to it’s intent.

  1. poetopoet permalink
    12/29/2013 11:58

    Finally a clear thought out of the DNC, Warning their lemmings of the impending trial and trail of crimes by their H O M O plan by Obama/Soetoro, officially.

    Obama’s transparency is now appearing as discolored and corrupt as he is, for his composite presidency, much like his composite girlfriend and his six-pack of lies turned into multiple cases and a boatload of composite falsehoods.

    Just like his composite Muslum-Brotherhood he bows to and belongs too, that he supports with Billions of We the People’s tax $$$$ dollars he borrows from China, unbelievable; but life is stranger than Obama’s fictional account of life and the facts, another bloody period.

    “THE DAILY CALLER by Patrick Howley (posted) 7:11 PM 12/28/2013

    The Democratic National Committee (DNC) sent out a paranoid email Saturday evening urging supporters to vote for Democrats so that Republicans can’t impeach President Obama.

    The email, subject line “Impeachment,” was sent to Obama for America supporters, imploring them to contribute to the DNC’s 2014 efforts. “What do these people all have in common?,” the email asked, featuring quotes from Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Rep. Kerry Bentivolio of Michigan, and Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas discussing the possibility of impeaching Obama for one of his numerous instances of presidential misconduct.

    The DNC email discussed the “I-Word” and said that “Republicans are actually excited about the idea.”

    “Show these Republicans that they are way, way off-base, and give President Obama a Congress that has his back,” according to the DNC email, noting that Democrats need to win 17 GOP House seats to reclaim a majority.

    The DNC, which recently expanded its political tactics to include boycotting independent news outlets, previously supported the last president to be impeached: Bill Clinton.

    Obama’s staff changed key talking points on the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack; his Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups during the 2012 election cycle; and Obama personally lied to the American people when he told them that they could keep their existing doctors and health insurance plans under Obamacare.

    Obama’s expansion of executive branch authority is “setting the stage for something very dangerous in the future” according to Republican Rep. Justin Amash.”

  2. poetopoet permalink
    12/29/2013 12:09

    “In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. [n9]”

    This 1855 quote does not use or can use the U. S. Constitution’s word “natural” they may be citizens but not “natural born citizens” as specified by the constitution and therefore never can be a U. S. President period!

  3. 12/29/2013 13:15


  4. 12/29/2013 13:16

    Fuck them to death with a telephone pole.

  5. poetopoet permalink
    12/29/2013 13:39

    One Ring-a-Dingee, Two Ring-a-Dingee, Three Ring-a-Dingee; Answer this is the NSA, how can we help you?

    This a Robo Call, please around and take it, its long distance from emblake6. LOL

  6. 12/29/2013 14:20


  7. poetopoet permalink
    12/29/2013 15:12

    Before I forget again, I know I can be rued and crude, thanks for putting up with me, I think we both can get to a boiling point at times, Happy New Year my friend.

    Do you think the NSA turned around or looked over their shoulders before it was to late for that woody?

  8. 12/29/2013 16:31

    Again, 😆 We all have our moments, poet. We all do.

  9. upaces88 permalink
    12/30/2013 00:30

    I musta missed somethin’ and I read it 3 times. How were you rude, Poet?
    I consider it “colorful”, but not rude LOL

  10. 12/30/2013 06:39

    Nor did I. He was speaking of another comment, I think.

  11. poetopoet permalink
    12/30/2013 07:29

    “Before I forget again, I know I can be rued and crude, thanks for putting up with me,”

    This quote of mine is and was for past and present verbal atrocities I have committed, which there are many recorded over the years.

    I have a deep seated hatred and pity for some, then again I regret next to nothing because of my own ignorance to ignorance and it shows.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: