Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 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…..” Minor was a case, brought by a woman seeking voting rights, prior to passing the 19th amendment and during women’s suffrage movement. Just as Dred Scott was related to suffrage movement of slaves and was a catalyst for such movement, Minor was related to women’s suffrage movement.

The whole case of the other 2 attorneys: Obama’s father was not a citizen, therefore Obama is not a natural born citizen. For that reason they can’t issue any subpoenas, as there is nothing they can ask. In both cases they state, that they assume that Obama was born in the US. they only question, whether a person born in the US to one citizen parent and one foreigner parent can be considered natural born.

It is interesting that in one of his orders,  judge Malihi admonished the parties not to embelish the statements, he told the parties that all quotes will be checked. I never saw a judge giving such a stern warning to the parties, as it is presumed that the parties provide the court with correct statements, don’t embelish and it is presumed that the statements are checked. I can’t say for sure, but it is likely  Judge Malihi made such a stern warning, to show, that the meaning of natiral born should not be embelished.

All three attorneys know full well, that Obama’s attorney will bring forward another case, Wong Kim Ark

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html

“A child born in the United States, of parent[s] of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil[e] 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.”

Opinion of the CourtIn a 6–2 decision^[75] issued on March 28, 1898,^[76] the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had indeed acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that “the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth.”^[77] The opinion of the Court was written by Justice Horace Grayand was joined by Justices David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras Jr., Edward Douglass White, and Rufus W. Peckham.^[78]

Upholding the concept of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth),^[79] the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause needed to be interpreted in light of English common law,^[80] which had included as subjects virtually all native-born children, excluding only those who were born to foreign rulers or diplomats, born on foreign public ships, or born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory.^[81][82][83] The court’s majority held that the subject to the jurisdiction phrase in the Citizenship Clause excluded from U.S. citizenship only those persons covered by one of these three exceptions (plus a fourth—namely, that Indian tribes “not taxed” were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction^[84][85]). The majority concluded that none of these four exceptions to U.S. jurisdiction applied to Wong; in particular, they observed that “during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China”.^[54] As a result, the Court ruled that Wong was a U.S. citizen from birth, via the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him.^[86] An act of Congress, they held, does not trump the Constitution; such a law “cannot control [the Constitution’s] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions.”^[87][88]

In its analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment and the nature of national jurisdiction, the Court in Wong Kim Ark made reference to an 1812 case, The Schooner Exchange v. M’Faddon—reiterating the words of Chief Justice John Marshall, who said that “The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself.”^[89][90][91]Marshall B. Woodworth wrote in 1898 that “the error the dissent apparently falls into is that it does not recognize that the United States, as a sovereign power, has the right to adopt any rule of citizenship it may see fit”.^[92]

 Dissent

Chief Justice Melville Fuller was joined by Justice John Harlan in a dissent which, in the words of one analyst, was “elaborately drawn and, for the most part, may be said to be predicated upon the recognition of the international law doctrine”.^[93] Fuller argued that the history of U.S. citizenship law had broken with English common law tradition after independence—citing as an example the embracing in the U.S. of the right of expatriation (giving up of one’s native citizenship) and the rejection of the contrary British doctrine of perpetual allegiance.^[94][95] The minority argued that the principle of jus sanguinis (that is, the concept of a child inheriting his or her father’s citizenship by descent regardless of birthplace) had been more pervasive in U.S. legal history since independence.^[96] Based on an assessment of U.S. and Chinese treaty and naturalization law, the Chief Justice stated that “the children of Chinese born in this country do not, ipso facto, become citizens of the United States unless the fourteenth amendment overrides both treaty and statute.”^[97][98]

Pointing to the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, an act of Congress which declared to be citizens “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed”, and which was enacted into law only two months before the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress, the minority argued that “it is not open to reasonable doubt that the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words ‘and not subject to any foreign power'”.^[99][100] In the view of the minority, excessive reliance on jus soli (birthplace) as the principal determiner of citizenship would lead to an untenable state of affairs in which “the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.” ^[1]

The dissenters acknowledged that other children of foreigners—including former slaves—had, through the years, acquired U.S. citizenship through birth on U.S. soil. But they still saw a difference between those people and U.S.-born individuals of Chinese ancestry, because of strong cultural traditions discouraging Chinese immigrants from assimilating into mainstream American society,^[101] Chinese laws of the time which made renouncing allegiance to the Chinese emperor a capital crime,^[102] and the provisions of the Chinese Exclusion Act making Chinese immigrants already in the United States ineligible for citizenship.^[103] The question for the court’s minority was “not whether [Wong Kim Ark] was born in the U.S. or subject to the jurisdiction thereof … but whether his or her parents have the ability, under U.S. or foreign law, statutory or treaty-based, to become citizens of the U.S. themselves”.^[104]

^{While all three attorneys representing plaintiffs, including myself, believe that the intent of the framers  of the Constitution and the correct interpretation is jus solis+ jus sanguinis, meaning natural born is one born in the country to citizen parents, we know, that the holding in Wong Kim Ark is different. If judge Malihi rules along the lines of Wong Kim Ark, Hattfield’s and Irion’s cases are over, as there is nothing else there. My case also brings evidence of lack of any valid identification papers, the fact, that the state of HI is stonewalling and refusing to provide for examination the alleged original long form birth certificate, particularly in light of the fact, that the alleged copy was shown to be a forgery. I, also,  bring forward an issue of lack of a valid SSN and the fact, that Obama used different last names.}

^{Here is a bigger question: why do people, claiming to be on our side, are hiding behind assumed names and are supporting only attorneys, who bring  very limited cases, which can be quickly defeated, and are attacking and viciously defaming  the only attorney, who brings forward a stronger case with  the most explosive evidence, which not only will keep Obama off the ballot, but will send him and his accomplices to prison? What is their motivation?}