WhatFinger


Minor v Happersett, U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, Citizen, Natural born Citizen

A Birther Recants



The Constitutional requirement for President is "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be ELIGIBLE to the Office of President;..." Note the Constitutional distinction of "natural born Citizen" and "Citizen." The paramount question is "why would the founders make this distinction if it was not meaningfully important"?
In the case, Minor v. Happersett (1874), Minor, a woman, wanted to register to vote in the federal Presidential election and was denied registration because of her gender. Deliberating this case, the Supreme Court recognized that the Constitutional framers did not define 'natural born Citizen' but that they did know its meaning and that it was different from 'Citizen' as stated in our Constitution. It was the framers who made this distinction, and the Court rendered unanimously the definition that children born of PARENTS (note the plural) who are citizens are natural born citizens ELIGIBLE for the Presidency. The first seven Presidents were 'Citizens' of the United States and not 'natural born Citizens', yet they qualified for the office (Washington through Jackson); because they were citizens "AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF [THE] CONSTITUTION!" These Presidents had lived through the Revolutionary War, they were patriots, loved our country at the exclusion of Great Britain, and held allegiance to our country as patriots. The founders recognized that a 'natural born Citizen', being born to 'Citizen' PARENTS (plural) would have the same regard and love of country as these founders; at least that was their hope, prayer and intention.

Support Canada Free Press


The founders recognized that congress may define at any time who can become a citizen and how they become a citizen; one only need to begin reading the naturalization acts passed by congress, and include the 14th Amendment. These enactments define citizenship and naturalization of citizens but never define the eligibility requirement for President of the United States. Though constitutionally distinct and separate there are those who argue that Mr. Obama is both a citizen and natural-born citizen, and thus eligible for the office of President because this fits their prejudices. The Constitutional citizenship clause does not apply to Obama, is it did to George Washington, because he was not alive and "a citizen of the United States" at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (1785). Obama is subject to the "No Person except a natural born Citizen" clause and fails here because his father, at the time of his birth was a British Subject; thus excluding him from ever meeting the natural-born Citizen QUALIFICATION for President. Remember, the Supreme Court in 1874 unanimously defined children born of PARENTS (note the plural) who are citizens are 'natural born Citizens'; and it is these children who are ELIGIBLE to hold the office of President of the United States. The case of U.S. v Wong Kim Ark is also used to defend the citizen/natural-born citizen prejudice. Wong was the son of Chinese subjects and born in California. At 17, in 1890, he left to visit China. Upon his return he passed through the collector of customs and was permitted to land as 'a native-born citizen of the United States.' Wong again left to visit China in 1894, and returning to his homeland (U.S.) "applied to the collector of customs to be permitted to land; and that such application was denied upon the sole ground that said Wong Kim Ark was not a citizen of the United States." In the Wong case (1898) the court addressed the issue of Wong's citizenship. The United States Supreme court rendered a divided decision on the case where the majority found that Wong was a citizen. The court DOES NOT address if Wong is a 'natural-born Citizen' QUALIFIED to be President of the United States; they left intact the Minor (1874) definition. Unlike popular culture, in law there is precedent setting from Stare Decisis (to stand by that which is decided earlier). This is a hierarchy of law in that when a judgment is given by the court it is considered superior to future judgments and should be adhered to. Should Stare Decisis be ignored because the outcome does not fit our prejudices? Minor v Happersett (1874) defined children born of PARENTS who are 'Citizens' are a 'natural born Citizen' eligible to hold the office of President, compared to the Wong case of 1898 which addressed Wong's citizenship, not his qualifications to be President. In each case the court addressed two different issues and the Wong case did not strike down nor re-define Presidential eligibility. Thank you for reading. REFERENCES "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization", United States Congress (March 26, 1790). ; Harvard, available at pds.lib.harvard.edu, (last visited 26 October 2011) ; Indiana University, available at indiana.edu, (last visited 26 October 2011) "An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject", United States Congress (January 29, 1795).; Indiana University, available at indiana.edu, (last visited 26 October 2011) British Nationality Act, 1772; Anno Regni decimo tertio G E O R G I I III. 1772 (13 Geo. 3) C A P. XXI.; available at uniset.ca, (last visited 26 October 2011) United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5. 1787 United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 6. 1787 United States Constitution, Amendment XII, U. S. Constitution, ratified July 27, 1804 United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, ratified July 9, 1868 MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162; 21 Wall. 162 OCTOBER, 1874, Term; available at law2.umkc.edu, (last visited 25 October 2011); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L.Ed. 627 (1875) Refer to paragraphs 17-19. U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), (JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting.); Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute; Available at law.cornell.edu, (last visited 7 November 2011) Oath of Office Congress: TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart B > CHAPTER 33 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 3331; available at law.cornell.edu, (last visited 26 October 2011) Oath of naturalization for citizenship; available at uscis.gov, (last visited 26 October 2011) Oath of Office for President, US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, adopted 1787 Richard Skidmore is a professor at Pierce College in Woodland Hills, Ca. He may be contacted at rskidmor49@excite.com.


View Comments

Richard Skidmore -- Bio and Archives

Sponsored