Down the Memory Hole…
Leo Donofrio has made a discovery of truly Orwellian activity…
The US Supreme Court Center at Justia.com is the leading resource on the internet which publishes United States Supreme Court decisions. They have been caught red handed in an Orwellian attempt to revise US Supreme Court cases which mention Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the issue of citizenship, as opposed to the other issue decided in Minor, voting rights.
I have documented two incredible examples where Justia.com has been caught in the act of taking a hatchet job to US Supreme Court decisions by removing, not just the case name, “Minor v. Happersett”, but whole passages related to Chief Justice Waite’s statements on the citizenship issue which were cited favorably in BOYD V. NEBRASKA EX REL. THAYER, 143 U. S. 135 (1892), and POPE V. WILLIAMS, 193 U. S. 621 (1904).
July 8, 2011 at 5:17 pm
As I recall, Obama met, in camera, with 8 of the 9 SCOTUS justices (Alito was missing) in 2008, before the elections. No transcript is available. I’m betting it wasn’t a beer summit over lunch.
What did they talk about? Minor v. Happersett?
Conspiracy theory? We are talking about socialist politics here.
July 8, 2011 at 11:38 pm
Dude!!! Where were you at today???
July 9, 2011 at 8:33 pm
TooMuchTime,
Thank you for your comment.
The Obama-SCOTUS meeting was January 14, 2009, less than a week before the inauguration, and with two cases regarding Obama’s eligibility actively on the Supreme Court docket:
“Alito was missing”
Yes, indeed, he was. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/15/nation/na-obama-roberts15
I remember reading somewhere that while Alito had been present in the building hearing arguments that morning, he was physically ill and in a bathroom when it came time to meet with Obama. Perhaps Alito was the only one who both a) understood, and b) felt strongly enough about it, to not be able to withstand meeting with the usurper-elect.
We are not a “Democracy”. We are a “Republic”. It matters not that Obama received a majority of the electoral college votes because he is Constitutionally ineligible and unqualified to hold the office of President. A Republic respects the rule of Law, not the rule of the majority.
I doubt that the SCOTUS discussed Minor v. Happersett with Obama, but I suspect that Minor v. Happersett was on Alito’s mind. We don’t really know for sure, but that is what I think.
July 9, 2011 at 8:45 pm
waltzingmtilda,
Sorry I missed you. I was busy with family.
July 18, 2011 at 4:04 am
snooooooooore.
July 18, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Hi,
There is a “Rubio for President” thread going on at Michelle Malkin’s blog. I threw cold water on the idea by mentioning Rubio is ineligible, and have now been called a troll, a helper of the liberal Democrats, a know-it-all…., and Leo Donofrio, whom I referenced, has been called a wingnut.
And MM’s website is ostensibly “conservative”?
“We have found the enemy, and he is us”.
Seems appropriate, I was wondering if you might like to check out the Rubio for president discussion?
July 19, 2011 at 8:33 am
Thanks for the heads up, Bob.
I’ve joined the discussion:
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/07/17/marco-rubio-on-face-the-nation/comment-page-2/#comment-1140960
July 19, 2011 at 1:42 pm
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/07/17/marco-rubio-on-face-the-nation/comment-page-2/#comment-1141423
Natural born citizen is a subset of born citizen, which is a subset of citizen.
( ( (natural) born) citizen)
The Supreme Court in Minor set the precedent by echoing Vattel’s words and saying that that was the founder’s understanding of the Article II Section 1 term “natural born citizen”.
The Court in Minor acknowledged two different classes within the group “born citizens”.
The Court in Minor acknowledged that Minor was a “natural born citizen”.
The Court in Wong Kim Ark acknowledged that Wong Kim Ark was a “born citizen”, but never said he was a “natural born citizen”.
You presumably acknowledge the boundary between the group “born citizen” and “citizen”… You presumably acknowledge that “citizen” is a superset that includes both “born citizen” and “naturalized citizen”.
You fail to acknowledge the boundary between the group “natural born citizen” and “born citizen”… You fail to acknowledge that “born citizen” is a superset that includes both “natural born citizen” and “14th Amendment born citizen”.
If you are right and I am wrong, please show me where the Court called Wong Kim Ark a “natural born citizen”.
August 3, 2011 at 8:58 am
Clayton County Republican Party Resolution
Demanding Congressional Investigation into
Obama’s Social Security / Document Fraud
September 13, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Thanks, as I said I may not be able to post at Malkin’s blog again until she has another open registration due to my screw up…..I can’t sign in.
I did go there and read your excellent, easy to understand post.
If you go to the thread, “Fast and Furious update: More guns more Stonewall”. There is a discussion of Obama’s eligibility which I was also participating in until I logged out and could not get back in.
Some of the post there are unbelievable. Some posters are saying, for example, Rubio and Jindal are OK cause they don’t have any allegiance to any other country…as if the Constitution allows one to pick and choose. I am sure there are 34 year old people who would do a better job as president than some 35 year old people…but, so what…you can’t pick and choose.
This is the most frustrating thing I have encountered in my 68 years.
What is wrong with people that makes them refuse to see, or at least to acknowledge, what is going on??
BOB
September 14, 2011 at 8:00 am
Bob,
Thank you. For those who don’t follow Michelle Malkin’s blog, I guess I should repeat that comment here. If the comment below isn’t the one to which you’re referring, then please let me know. Thanks!
On September 13th, 2011 at 11:45 am, ITookTheRedPill said:
Of all of the people living in this country…
… a subset of those are here legally…
… a subset of those are citizens…
… a subset of those are born citizens…
… a subset of those are natural born citizens.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Minor vs. Happersett, directly construed the Article II Section 1 phrase “natural born citizen” as persons born in the United States to parents who were citizens.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark, directly construed the 14th Amendment and included those born on U.S. soil, to permanently-domiciled non-citizen parents, as born citizens, but it did not call them natural born citizens (in fact, it diferentiated between them and natural born citizens by saying that the first is every bit as much a CITIZEN as the second) and the Wong Kim Ark ruling did not alter the ruling in Minor.
A natural born citizen is a person born in the country to parents (plural) who are citizens.
Both Jindal and Rubio were born on U.S. soil to non-U.S.citizen parents.
Both Jindal and Rubio were born U.S. citizens, but they are not natural born citizens.
Neither is eligible to hold the office of President or Vice-President.
September 14, 2011 at 8:04 am
Barack Obama & E-Verify: Obama’s SSA Record DOES NOT VERIFY!
October 3, 2011 at 1:20 am
Is this another important discovery?
Check out this article.
The legal opinion used by the Senate to find that McCain was a natural born citizen excludes Obama, which explains why he refused to be investigated at that time, 2008:
I had never seen the actual opinion before.
Check out this new article at http://www.thepostemail.com by J.B. Williams.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/10/02/debate-over-not-natural-born-period/
Mr. Williams does good work!!
October 3, 2011 at 10:48 am
For the sixth time, the Supreme Court refuses an opportunity to hear a case regarding Obama’s (in)eligibility…
SCOTUS ORDER LIST: MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2011
CERTIORARI DENIED
10-1351 KEYES, ALAN, ET AL. V. BOWEN, DEBRA, ET AL.
———
For reference, here are the previous five:
Philip J. Berg, Petitioner v. Barack Obama, et al.
Leo C. Donofrio, Applicant v. Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State
Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants v. Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Charles Kerchner, Jr., et al., Petitioners v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.