The Brewer – Obama Confrontation

At what point will Republicans realize that the whole ‘I like to elect people who are just as uneducated and stupid as I am’ thing isn’t working so well?

scotlyn,

The conservative publisher of this post is lying. This conservative liar even contradicts his original assertion lower in that page by reporting a trial is taking place, though no ruling has been yet been published by the judge.

Given dishonesty is a defining attribute of contemporaneous American conservatism, I suggest always assuming their provocative claims are simply not true.

We have did what is right for Arizona….FAIL!

LightningRose:

Of course the irony is that it was Obama who put Jan Brewer into the AZ governors office through one of his many ill-advised appointments.

Arguably ill-avised, good counter-arguments exist it was a good appointment. In addition Gov. Brewer won her party’s primary in 2010 and was elected governor in Nov-2010 by beating Democratic challenger Terry Goddard 55% to 42%. So if we’re going to seek blame for her currently being governor, the most culpable would be Arizona voters.

Never mind. I found it. They are referring to Minor v Happersett which says:

“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

So, the court very specifically said it wasn’t going to address the status of a child born to non citizens.

Re Donalbain @ #9 & #10

Mr. Bain beat me to it. The case was, as Mr. Bain cited, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

I am not a lawyer but I agree with Mr. Bain that this decision is in no way, shape, form, or regard a precedent for determining citizenship. The decision basically was over the right of women to vote and in any case, the negative decision on that issue was made null and void by the adoption of the 19th amendment.

The precedent is: U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), which, as I understand it, says that the 14th amendment confers birthright citizenship on anyone born in the US. Therefore, under this precedent, President Obama would be eligible, even if neither of his parents were citizens as he was born in Hawaii, which the plaintiffs in this case are apparently not disputing.

169 U.S. 649

UNITED STATES

v.

WONG KIM ARK.

No. 132.

March 28, 1898

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=169&invol=649

slc1,

Of course the 19th Amendment now better defends women’s right to vote, but that has nothing to do with my points. Rulings and opinions do not disappear in their entirety simply because one aspect of such a ruling is supplanted. So your point is irrelevant to mine points, which is instead based on other aspects of Minor.

And even to your point, the 19th Amendment is redundant to the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause regarding women’s right to vote. I.e., that women’s right to vote is in fact fundamental, which is exactly what John Roberts conceded to Sen. Kennedy as I noted in my prior post, contra your point.

Re Michael Heath @ #14

And even to your point, the 19th Amendment is redundant to the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause regarding women’s right to vote. I.e., that women’s right to vote is in fact fundamental, which is exactly what John Roberts conceded to Sen. Kennedy as I noted in my prior post, contra your point.

And Heath misses my point that no case has been brought to give the Supreme Court the opportunity to reverse Minor is because the 19th amendment renders it null and void, and thus reversal is redundant. The fact that Heath, and, apparently, Justice Roberts disagree with the court’s decision that the 14th amendment, doesn’t confer the right to vote to women is totally irrelevant.

Of course, this discussion between Heath and myself is irrelevant as to whether Minor is a precedent for restricting birthright citizenship to individuals with both parents being citizens at the time of birth. I assume that Heath agrees with Mr. Bain and myself that it is most certainly not.

slc1:

Heath misses my point

No I didn’t, your points are entirely irrelevant to my posts as I noted earlier. You seem fixated on the the general ruling of Minor as it relates to the present day, which ahem – we all already knew. It’s like your arguing with me about whether we have day and night as I if I didn’t know that. While also seeming to be oblivious to the fact rulings also create additional holding precedents which can apply to future cases, even if the core port of the case is overturned.

So from your first post on this topic you’ve been off on a wild goose chase, I realized it then and pointed it out, for which I have no interest in following. It these peripheral matters which I’m focused on, not on the fact women can now vote, which we kinda all already knew and have for awhile.

Peripheral matters as explained earlier were whether the idea that rights not acknowledged at or prior to 1868 are not protected by the 14th Amendment. Minor argues they’re aren’t, I wonder if there are subsequent rulings which overturn Minor. My point on Kennedy-Roberts was not my sole premise on this point – sheesz, I specifically asked if this aspect of Minor was overturned. The 19th Amendment, again, is irrelevant to that question. My question coupled to how the majority in Minor determined what rights make-up the ‘privileges or immunities’ clause that was the original defending clause for our inalienable rights is still open – has that approach been overturned?

Re Michael Heath @ #18

Here I would agree with Heath that it would not surprise me if the conservatives cited Minor as a reason for overturning the 9th Circuit decision relative to the right to same sex marriage.

I suspect that Minor has not been specifically overturned; however, the question is, has there been a right acknowledged in a decision subsequent to 1868 that was not acknowledged prior to 1868. It would appear that the 1954 anti-segregation decision and Roe v. Wade might constitute such decisions.

Another question is whether the lawyers petitioning the court to overturn the same sex marriage decision are citing Minor. Perhaps someone familiar with the pleadings knows the answer to that one.

Jan Brewer would make an ideal candidate for any political party. She’s so dumb that the party officials will be able to make her do whatever they desire. The last they want is a Governor who actually governs.