Powered by TypePad

« Somebody Call 9-9-9! It's Gimmick-Time For Rick Perry | Main | Romney Is Back (In The Fog) »

October 25, 2011



did I do that?


Dot, my claim was that the term was understood as described in Minor and that is the strongest evidence for the founders using Vattel's meaning rather than Blackstone. Also that in Minor they used the term as an lable for the [only] group for whom citizenship has never been in doubt.


* as a label *


--- where "never" refers to the natural history of nations, not just the US.


(just as suffrage was the only issue before the Minor Court).

Lockwood is flat out wrong?


"did I do that?"

If you did it was one of the better places to do it.


Close call.


DoT, it is important to me to know why Lockwood would not matter. I am not trying to dice up the language of Minor at this moment although I do believe that language did frighten some people.

Reprint from Donofrio:

"The Mystery of In Re Lockwood 154 U.S. 116 (1894).

A crucial US Supreme Court decision which has miraculously been absent from the national dialogue on Presidential eligibility is Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894), an essential case which confirms Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship:

“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since;” (Emphasis added.)

Lockwood directly cites Minor as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship, yet I can find no hits in Google searches which discuss this case in relation to Obama’s eligibility. Furthermore, If you visit Cornell’s page for Lockwood, the opinion is cut off right after “Minor v”. It never gets to Happersett and what comes after. The Cornell page is filled with gibberish from some other case.

The Lockwood opinion is also mangled at the Wiki Source page which doesn’t mention Minor at all. And as of Oct. 18, 2011, the version on Lexis has “Minor” mis-spelled as “Miner” in the body of the Lockwood opinion hosted there.

What about “In Re Lockwood” at Justia? The current URL for the full Lockwood case at Justia returns no snapshots at the Waybackmachine. This is unusual in that “In Re Lockwood” is the only case which has no Wayback Machine history for Justia’s publication of a case. However, when you search at the Wayback Machine using the Justia URL linking to their preview of Lockwood (Justia always has one URL for the preview and one for the full case), 7 hits are returned.

It appears Justia originally published the case as “Ex Parte Lockwood” back in August 2007, and both the preview and the “Full Text” referred to Minor at that time.

Then, in May 2008, Justia suddenly changed the name of the case from “Ex Parte Lockwood” to “In Re Lockwood” which is how it is published by Justia today. Both titles are technically correct since the official US Supreme Court reporter states the name of the case exactly as, “Ex parte: In Re BELVA A. LOCKWOOD.”

Regardless, as you will see below, the timing of Justia’s renaming the case on its server is very suspicious. While the August 2007 preview of the case at Justia mentions Minor, the revised May 2008 revision of the preview for Lockwood strips Minor therefrom. Furthermore, Justia’s publication of the case as “In Re Lockwood” is the only instance where no snapshot history exists in the Wayback Machine for the full case URL. We can see that the preview was scrubbed of Minor and that Justia changed their caption of the case from “Ex Parte Lockwood” to “In Re Lockwood” by May 2008, but we can’t see a snapshot of the full case going back to that time, so I do not count Lockwood in with the 25 cases which are proved to have been sabotaged.

Regardless, Lockwood is the holy grail of cases which stand in support of Minor on the definition of federal citizenship because the Supreme Court stated the words, “this court held” in relation to Minor’s definition of federal citizenship. And Lockwood is the only case which appears to have been tampered with at sites other than Justia."

Someone thought Lockwood was very important. Links and screenshots are at Donofrio's site

This is supposed to outrage the avocats.

Knock wood on Lockwood.
The big bad wolf is blowing
The brick cite house down.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet

whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

Maybe what I learned about reading cases from 1965 until now was all wrong, but I don't see anything in that quote which says "anchor babies are out". Can you guys who think it does say that explain how you get there?

Danube of Thought

The "permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business" language does indeed limit the scope of the holding in Wong, just as the statement of the issue presented in Minor lilits its holding

As I have tried to make clear, neither the holding in Minor nor that of Wong would compel a decision one way or another if the matter of presidential eligibility were to be presented to some future court. (Wong may not tell us about anchor babies--although the dissent thought it did--but I would certainly expect Rubio to rely heavily on it).

Boris, once it is agreed that the question involves the Framers' understanding of the common law, the case is over, 9-0. One can find any number of views about the common-law meaning of the term, but no one will ever know which of those meanings was intended to apply to Article 2. Presented with competing arguments on that question, it is an utter certainty that the Supreme Court would leave the question to be decided by the elected branches and by the people.

I have asked you both to imagine the Supreme Court holding--on the basis of a particular, disputed interpretaion of 18th Century English common law-- that the people of the United States cannot decide by popular vote whether Mario Rubio should be elected Vice President. Do you really think that would happen? And that they would cite Minor v. Happenstett as controlling their decision?

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet

Oh carp. Now I'm in this NBC mess with both feet.

JM Hanes

Interventions are not possible either, JimR. You really have to want to quit.


Got me on that one Jim. Anchor babies are citizens if their parents have a permanent domicil and are carrying on business here.

I have been consistent on that. I just wrote my earlier comment in haste.


What I should have said was that fence hopping, jobless, and homeless parents cannot create birthright American citizens.

Danube of Thought

Nothing in Wong says anchor babies are out. Only one particular kind of anchor babies--those whose parents were domiciled and doing business here--were at issue, and the Court held that they are in (just as the Minor Court included the person before it, but excluded no one).

TK, I have no idea who may or may not have tampered with Lockwood on a website. I know that it really has no bearing on the issue we are discussing, and that if it is ever presented to a court it won't be presented on the basis f what does or does not show up on Justia or any other website. Relying on such a source in a court filing would be malpractice.

Danube of Thought

Sorry, JMH (and everyone). I just kinda felt that the student loan discussion gave me an implied license to run wild.


I would hope the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was familiar with the common law at the time.

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen. (John Jay, Letter to George Washington,2 July 1787)

John Jay was a founder to boot. Why would he tell Washington to exclude foreigners with a term that was well know to the founders to be riddled with doubts?

You would think a Chief Justice would be less ambiguous.

Or possibly he picked a very specific term.

Danube of Thought

Jay's letter tells us nothing more than Article 2 does: the president must be a natural born citizen.

Is that your fastball?


I have never suggested using Justia in a Court. I have pointed out that the media used Justia as a faux legal authority to dismiss Minor. If Lockwood, along with 25 more cases that cite Minor, was not tampered with, Minor would have not been reduced so quickly into insignificance.

Just like Deb did today, when erroneous reporting on Mitt occurred. She went to other sources and produced a different version of events. As bloggers replace the MFM they rely on a factual internet.

Bloggers had their hands tied in 2008.


It tells us to not admit foreigners.

The US Dept of State is clear that dual citizens are as much foreigners as they are citizens. In 1787 did Jay pick a term that allowed a British-American, who was only American by birthright, to be President?

The Declaration of Independence and subsequent war made the first Presidents American only. Why the benevolence on the oppressive Brits?


"Is that your fastball?"

Is that your swing?


Danube of Thought

Minor and Lockwood have no bearing at all on the legal issue we're discussing (Lockwood being simply another suffrage case, ruling out no one from the natural-born category).

"Bloggers had their hands tied in 2008."

Only if they relied on unreliable sources. Orly Taitz, Leo Donofrio et al. presumably had no such impediment. How'd they make out? As the Duke said, life's tough, but it's a lot tougher if you're stupid.

JM Hanes


Fortunately, you don't actually need a license or permission to run wild here! I do it in posts that just go on and on on any subject that happens to interest me, all the time. I'm really just hangin' around rattlin' cages, because I'm pretty much housebound for another week or so.


I'm so sorry for you, jmh. I've just come off a couple of weeks like that, and it's so nice to be mobile again.

Jane, I don't see how Holder has authority to change the terms of a federal statute (FOIA).

Niters all. My eyes are crossing.

Danube of Thought

"It tells us to not admit foreigners."

Well..not exactly: we seem to have admitted one hell of a lot of them in the ensuimg centuries, to our great credit and benefit.

Andt it doesn't tell us whether Marco Rubio is a foreigner.

Strawman Cometh

Only if they relied on unreliable sources.,/i>
Like Justia?

Strawman Cometh


Strawman Cometh

ok now

JM Hanes

Oh man, this is rich.

Obama can't be bothered to get Congressional approval for commencing actual U.S. hostilities with Libya, and then scuttles further involvement in Iraq by demanding that the Iraqi Parliament, not just Iraqi leadership, authorize any extended deployment -- including a public promise of immunity for US troops.


JMH: Where's the College Loan Team's fighting spirit? You gonna just leave us stuck here looping through Natural Born Ground Hog Day?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha hah hahahah!

Danube of Thought

"Llke Justia?"

I have no idea who they sre, but on the basis of TK's representations I am happy to conclude so.

'nite all.


If Rubio's parents were exiles, they made their allegiance known. The Dept of State can help Rubio with his dual citizen questions. Enough of that.

You know "admit foreigners" was re POTUS. Funny.

Here are more revelations:

" Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (1944)

Nov. 13, 2006 – Minor and Slaughter-House Cases citations are correct but not hyper-linked.

March 11, 2008 – Minor and Slaughter-House Cases citations are correct and hyper-linked.

July 24, 2008 – Minor and Slaughter-House Cases citations are tampered.

Collage of the above.

The Slaughter-House Cases citations were tampered along with Minor in Snowden v. Hughes, and this is very important. Tim Stanley’s claim that this was all an innocent code error is further strained considering that 8 of the 9 justices from Minor v. Happersett decided the Slaughter-House Cases where the Court stated:

“The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

Stanley is peddling a response to JustiaGate which requires one to accept that all 25 cases were accidentally altered to remove the words “Minor v. Happersett” and the official citations to Minor, while various portions of relevant text pertaining to the eligibility issue were also removed from other cases along with the Slaughter-House Cases name and it’s official citation… along with further references to citizenship precedents such as Osborn v. Bank of United States and Scott v. Sandford (removed from US v. Wong Kim Ark) which features the following definition of natural-born citizen:

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

Sound familiar? It’s the same definition of natural-born citizen as in Minor v. Happersett. That’s some incredibly goofy code you got there Timmy. Your code sure seems well-educated in the POTUS eligibility cases, bro. "


Donofrio was trusting in 2008. You call that stupid. Maybe you are right.

Is there a name for people who ignore or deny what Donofrio is uncovering in 2011?


Strawman, Lockwood was mangled by most sites, including Lexis.

Good night.

JM Hanes

Appreciate the sympathy, Clarice. It's actually not so bad, now that I don't need major drugs and paraphernalia to move from room to room! I'm just not certified for slamming on the brakes or negotiating deadfall in stream beds yet. The latter oh-happy-new-day is really what the operation was all about.

Sweet dreams to you.

JM Hanes

Sometimes I even monopolize a whole thread talking to myself, but in case I'm not the only one who has been missing his LATimes blog, here's Andrew Malcolm in his new digs over at Investor's Business Daily.


--"Only if they relied on unreliable sources.,

Like Justia?

I have no idea who they sre, but on the basis of TK's representations I am happy to conclude so.--"

Some people skip reliability in favor of convenience, even when they don't have to.

"Here's Hutchinson v. Proxmire: http://supreme.justia.com/us/443/111/

Posted by: clarice | September 29, 2007 at 12:09 PM"

Hmmm, tricked by an insignificant site. Don't worry, so was I.


The State Bar of California, a government site, recommends Justia in their members area.


First hit.


Another site seems to have Justia on their resource list. 3 times.


Justice.gov? Sounds official.


Certainly no court would link to them.


Typical California, no other court would.be so foolish.


Oh no!

JM Hanes

Dick does L.A.:

Idle Engines

I'm sure there's not an engine idling in the lot of them, aren't you?

I know there's a JOM worthy caption in the next photo somewhere, but darned if I could proffer anything that remotely measures up to the standard set by our resident wits:

Little Big Man

JM Hanes

Link to the source of photos above. The first one is the escort required to shuttle Obama to a fundraiser, btw.

JM Hanes

I really, really, really resent having to pay a single dime toward Obama's re-election tours. Apparently, one measly "non-political" drop-in is enough to get Obama off the hook for half of what his unending trips are costing. If you were to total up the tax payers' share of all these "intercontinental" visitations, he's probably already hit the fabled billion dollar mark in campaign expenditures.

On the other hand, it's probably all borrowed money anyway, so what should I care, right?

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Things are getting pretty nasty in Oakland according to Zombie. Apparently, the clashes with police are escalating and still going on tonight.

Rioting in downtown Oakland as Occupiers clash with police (Videos)

Sara (Pal2Pal)

I'm with you on paying for his tours. Also, did you happen to see the story earlier where Obama is sending copies of all his books to libraries and embassies around the world. What's next, 100' high images of him painted on the sides of buildings.

JM Hanes

Aha! Sara is here and Team Night Watch now controls the field.

JM Hanes

100' of President Puppy! Or 200' if TypePad decides to post my previous effort.

President Puppy

Sara (Pal2Pal)

JMH: I must have missed it, why have you been housebound?

JM Hanes

Sara: I had a knee operation last week to tidy up from a year old injury which was definitely not getting better. So far, so good, as it doesn't seem like the surgery has made it any worse....

JM Hanes


After watching some of the Occupy Oakland videos, it sounds like OWS may be morphing into the WTF movement. No matter what anybody might think about the protests back in the '60s, this all looks so unserious in comparison -- although I think the PD was pretty heavy handed PR wise.

It will be interesting to see what the sympathy polling and the pols start to look like. Will Krugman abandon his army? I suspect we may not hear more about a progressive counterweight to the Tea Parties, but who knows? Did you see that video Message to Oakland PD? Could a' used some Klingons.

Jack is Back!

Saw this in a recent email. TK can use it as a sign-off:

""Fathom the Hypocrisy of a Government

that requires every citizen to prove

they are insured.. but not everyone

must prove they are a citizen.""

Jack is Back!

Those wacky, wacky Ahians.


" the whole thing smells like day-old fish left out in the hot sun."

The lawsuit in JIB's 06:29 post stinks (IMO)
and needs a whole lot more attention. I think Jane mentioned it yesterday.


Think of the carbon footprint of that motorcade, yes I get the 'no furriner' vibe from this line of thinking,


If they didn't have doublestandards:



Obamacare Death Panels imput may come from Google.

"The path to achieving this is to use treatment outcomes and other health data as instruments of rationing and denial of care through the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research — created by President Obama — and based on European rationing boards."



Let the fun begin:

Riots erupt in Oakland, Atlanta clears out Occupiers

Basically, this is "Red on Red"... Dem party big city machines vs. lefties... its the 1960s all over again!


"One can find any number of views about the common-law meaning of the term, but no one will ever know which of those meanings was intended to apply to Article 2."

Another explanation is that alternate views gained ground after the 14th and before that the historical version laid out in Minor held sway. Children born here to slaves were not citizens nor those born to American Indians. Seems to me some people are motivated in this age to retroactively "clean up" the unPCness of our history while others wallow in feigned outrage at how rotten America was and is.


". its the 1960s all over again!"

Except William Ayers and his anti American supporters have had many more years to subvert the minds of generations of American youth.

The comments to this entry are closed.