Kind of don't understand what he is talking about. No citation of Minor was to support the notion that "natural born" required two citizen parents. In fact, many citations to Minor were to support the notion that one should look to the English common law to interpret the Constitution. Sad these clowns don't understand that when Minor said that "natural born" should be defined by the common law it meant the English common law of Coke and Blackstone.

"The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States.....In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167. In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said: "There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes." "There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history." 124 U.S. 478." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 654, (1898).

"One other fact must be borne in mind, and that is that in interpreting the Constitution we must have recourse to the common law. As said by Mr. Justice Matthews in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478: "The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history." And by Mr. Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 654: "In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274." South Carolina v. United States, 199 US 437, 450 (1905)

"That," said Mr. Justice Bradley, in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274, referring to the common law, "is the system from which our judicial ideas and legal definitions are derived. The language of the Constitution and of many acts of Congress could not be understood without reference to the common law." Again in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478, is this declaration by Mr. Justice Matthews: "The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history." In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 654, Mr. Justice Gray used this language: "In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465." See also Kepner v. United States, post, 100; 1 Kent, Com. 336. Blackstone's Commentaries are accepted as the most satisfactory exposition of the common law of England. At the time of the adoption of the Federal Constitution it had been published about twenty years, and it has been said that more copies of the work had been sold in this country than in England, so that undoubtedly the framers of the Constitution were familiar with it." Schick v. United States, 195 US 65, 69 (1904)

"It is undoubtedly true that the early settlers brought to this country the common law of England, and that that common law throws light on the meaning and scope of the Constitution of the United States, and is also in many States expressly recognized as of controlling force in the absence of express statute. As said by Mr. 95*95 Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 654: "In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent, Com., 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274." Kansas v. Colorado, 206 US 46, 95 (1907)

Now WND is following suit!

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=358645

I guess Justia knows now.



I guess they won't sue Leo and/or danae / Dianna Cotter? Not worth their time?

Though if you do a google search for: justia minor happersett.

It's spreading.

And, some of the statements are, I think, bad.

I tried it — the first two were from justia.com, as was the last one on the 2nd page, everything in between was birthers, birthers, birthers...

Hey Justia holds itself to the HIGHEST JOURNALISTIC standards just like WND does, so scrubbing or changing things without notice is ok.

Donofrio says the fix is in!:

I'm really glad we've moved on from demanding criminal investigations of the president to demanding criminal investigations of free web sites with anti-bot scripts.

Hey DonOAFrio, I hear the Stone Roses are getting back together. Maybe you can go back to having paranoid, delusional fantasies about them instead of whatever the hell you think you're doing with Justia.

A blogger writes the inevitable criticism of Donofrio: Justia did NOT expunge references to key natural-born case, they just changed citations to modern format.

Donofrio not happy:

...so "evidence not yet published" demonstrates Justia actually changed the text of these cases.

Another poster at WND wrote this:

Linky, please, for an old man who can't navigate WND.

Sorry.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=358645

Thanks. Looks like a lively discussion. There are sure a lot of crazy people hanging out at WND.

I immediately thought of Shaq vs Kobe when reading that

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e52fbd ... t-happened

Probably NSFW

I'm afraid I'm not even going to be able to recognize the young, athletic, nimble Sterngard should I ever be so fortunate as to meet him (and his magic car doors) in the flesh (and the steel)!

Donofrio and his new critic, Alec Rawls, are having quite the back-and-forth. Too much to quote, but for those interested, read Donofrio's comments, or the update of Rawls's blog.

(A quick skim of Rawls' blog indicates he's quite conservative and totally nuts, but not a birther.)

Leo makes the news at, of all places, CNET:

CNET: Was legal site rewrite a liberal plot? Not quite.

If anybody sees reactions by Leo or danae, please post de links. Thanks.

WorldNetDaily already has a response. Most of it is cut-and-pasted from their previous article.

This guy is hardly a liberal. I don't like what he has to say about anything. But, here's what he tweeted about the big 'Justia Scandal'.





About birtherism in general, well he thinks it's just swell. He's not a birther, but he thinks Perry's act of birfing was pure genius.

(pretend that there are quotation marks around all these in blue. Thanks.

@dmataconis Given the plurality nature of the primaries, Perry doesn't hurt himself by a comedic wink and nod to birthers

@dmataconis There's this massive anti-birther meme among people like me and you. It ain't out there in the field where voters are.

@dmataconis Look at this and tell me if you still think a jokey, plausibly deniable birther allegiance is a bad idea: is.gd/8TWLKw


@dmataconis And keep in mind that 33% is a guaranteed win in every early state.

@dmataconis You aren't on the ground in SC. I have not met a single person who renounced birtherism as a result of the birth certificate.

@dmataconis Do you really think a birther joke or two in October of 2011 will be an albatross in November 2012?

@dmataconis People's attention spans these days are shorter than Michael Moore's dick. Perry's birther jokiness is a stroke of pure genius.

@dmataconis If you say "Perry is a birther" to a swing voter, they will have no idea what you're talking about 9 times out of 10.

And it is. RT @thehill: HillTube: Perry says 'it's fun' to keep alive question of Obama birth certificate





idunno how he has time to practice law. he tweets a lot. A SC local political star at like 30 years old. Too brash though.

http://twitter.com/#!/ToddKincannon/

comedic wink and nod? When he tossed in the grades, he went all in. Now he's even a bigger joke.

Both Donofrio and Rawls weigh in on the CNET article.

And Rawls has concluded that Donofrio was correct all along, but that he didn't market himself well.

Stumbled across something old, but insightful:

Donofrio's Application to the Supreme Court

You know what I don't see cited anywhere in that Application?

Minor v. Happersett.

Funny how he fails to mention the supposedly most important case ever on natural-born citizenship. In fact, a search of Leo's blog shows that Minor's first mention there wasn't until June 2009.

In fact, if you don't feel like skimming the PDF, here is Leo's ENTIRE legal argument about Obama's natural born citizenship in that Application:



That's it. No caselaw, no common law, no Vattel. Just Leo declaring that Obama is not eligible. Which goes to bolster a position I've long held: that Birthers first adopted the belief that NBCs needed two citizen parents, and only THEN went in search of authority they could claim as support.

Interesting.

And it was little more than a month later that Ken Dunbar was preaching from the Constitutional book isle of his Walmart that the United States had seceded her sovereignty to "British Law".