There's no part of any of it, including Minor, that isn't a dead horse. So the answer can only be that they are fixated on spouting anything that sounds bad about Obama. And they do. All the birthers, as far as I can tell, ALSO subscribe to all the OTHER non-birther lies and exaggerations about Obama, like the Michelle expenditures, the Ayers crap, the drugs/gay allegations, the money to Palestine, the foreign apologies, the teleprompters, the Health Care Act is tyranny, etc., etc., ad infinitum.[/quote]


Well, I can't argue against that! LOL But that is no different than what every president gets. There is always some group somewhere that is vehemently against who ever is sitting in the chair. So that's nothing new.

1. Minor v. Happersett was not a citizenship case. It was a suffrage case. Virginia Minor's citizenship was never an issue before the court as it was not only fully conceded in the first sentence of the decision, but was never argued or even briefed at any level as the case wound its way to SCOTUS. Furthermore, it ended up being completely irrelevant to the finding of the case; being a citizen did not matter as she had no right to vote either way.

2. The case never defines natural born citizenship in the first place. Pay very close attention to this, because it is fundamental. The court says that children born in the US of citizen parents are natural born citizens. But it does not say that natural born citizens are people born in the US of citizen parents. The latter would be a definition, but the former is merely applying a label. To argue otherwise (as Birthers do) is a formal fallacy of logic called "denying the antecedent."

3. The decision explicitly refuses to make any determination regarding the citizenship status of children of aliens born on US soil. Now Birthers will usually argue that this refers only to their status as citizens, and not natural born citizens. This is patently absurd for by deferring decision on citizenship at all, one is necessarily deferring decision on all possible variations of citizenship to include natural born.

4. Much has been made of the fact that the favored Birther phrase from this decision is simple obiter dictum. There can be no serious argument that it is not, since (as observed above) Virginia Minor's citizenship was not an issue before the court.

5. Minor v. Happersett has never once been cited as precedent regarding the definition of natural born citizen by any subsequent court. that distinction belongs, of course, to US v. Wong Kim Ark which has been cited specifically for that purpose is Ankeny v. Daniels and just last month in Tisdale v. Obama.

Your questions?

Hey "mate," you brought it up:



As for why they keep bringing it up, why don't you ask them?

Point taken. I would assume that if I were banned for life (OFGS) from filing in a State, it would be nearly the same.

Yes, it is that they believe they are right. And they will continue to until Obama is no longer in office.

FIFY

removed

I'm done with it.

You are not picking nits. You are inventing nits that do not exist.

The court turned down Minor's claim because suffrage was never a privilege or immunity of citizenship in the first place. If Minor was not a citizen, she did not have the right to vote, true. But if Minor was a citizen, she still did not have the right to vote. Citizenship was completely irrelevant to whether or not she had the right to vote.


Nothing could be further from the truth. They neither defined it, nor magically converted their dicta regarding it into a holding.



A complete and actually quite clueless reading of the decision. The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with the case. The only reason the 14th Amendment was relevant was because it was the source of the "privileges or immunities" clause under which Minor claimed a Constitution right to suffrage. The "privileges or immunities" clause is relevant to any citizen, regardless of their class. It is as valid of naturalized citizens as of natural born.


At this point, I am confident you have received one. Do you not agree?

Re: Barnett and Taitz (the topic of this thread).


Barnett is a client of Taitz. (A current client, even: Barnett just had her name put on a published case out of the 9th Circuit, in which Taitz represented Barnett.)

Aren't there rules about how a lawyer is supposed to interact with a client?

And if a client feels her or his lawyer has acted improperly, isn't there's an agency dedicated to hearing those complaints?

Is Barnett aware of all this?

Didnt Pammy just write a "first hand account" of Orly's exploits in Indiana? Seems she liked her then even though Orly was already dissing the superpac.

So Tonto finally came to the realization that the Lone Ranger is out of silver bullets.

See ya, Kimosabe!

Has Orly responded to this yet?

What do you mean "we"? ... paleface!

After reading the entire open letter, it appears that they have had a lawyer contact Orly with demands. I have almost no doubt that Orly is looking at a lawsuit. And unlike her accusations against Lisa Liberi, what Orly has been writing is pure libel unless she can prove her accusations.

Let me ask my Dr. Freud Therapy Ball (magic eight ball; yes, I actually have 2 Dr. Freud Therapy balls) what he thinks:

"Dr. Freud, will Orly be sued by Pambly?"

Dr. Freud: "Go to your happy place."

We all know that birfer wars are one of the things that make me happiest! Game on!

Attachment:

Freud Therapy Ball.jpg

If I remember correctly, the "first hand account" was actually from Kessler or possibly the other Indiana non-client. Pammy did publish it, though, including its praise of the job Orly did.

The efforts to "keep the stupid birth certificate in the news" have the same intent as the false claims regarding Minor v. Happersett, to assert doubt regarding President Obama's eligibility to hold the office to which he was elected.

What do these "birther" assertions have in common?

"He was born in Kenya!" "Dual citizens can't be natural born US citizens!" "He was born in Canada!" "He's still a British Subject!" "Americans couldn't travel to Pakistan in 1981!" "His grandmother says he was born in Kenya!" "His birth certificate is a forgery!" "He is an Indonesian citizen!" "Natural born citizens must have 2 citizen parents!" "Wong Kim Ark wasn't a natural born citizen!"

They are all lies.