Leo Donofrio
Look Who Cited To Justia For Supreme Court Holding.
Folks, you have the evidence you need to protect the Constitution. And the stakes are as high as they come. It’s really up to you out on Main Street. If you are lazy with this, the Constitution may never recover. Mark my words. A full investigation needs to take place.
The Congress was complicit in not vetting the candidates. But Justia has given them an out of epic proportions in that Justia’s bogus cases changed the national dialogue. If Congress was fooled by Justia (and perhaps this plays into that CRS memo on eligibility which is being looked into more carefully now), they have another chance to make it right.
Tim Stanley CEO Justia.com made $37 million creating databases from our national body of case law. Then his company took criminal liberties with that body of law, sabotaged the living hell out of it, and probably changed national history in the process too. You want to talk about the 1% vs the 99?
Tim Stanley is now in the very scary position of holding the evidence capable of putting Obama’s administration in true jeopardy. If Stanley was asked, forced or paid to sabotage the cases and/or to maintain them that way after Obama became President, then high crimes were committed. Therefore, Quo Warranto is not the only possible option on the table any longer.
Impeachment is now in play.
.......................................................................................
JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION.
JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION.
Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship – Obama Not Eligible.
Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship – Obama Not Eligible.
The citizenship issue decided in Minor v. Happersett has been documented as precedent by multiple sources of legal scholarship.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 88 U.S. 162
Minor v. Happersett Argued: February 9, 1875 --- Decided: March 29, 1875
Syllabus
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
88 U.S. 162
Minor v. Happersett
Argued: February 9, 1875 --- Decided: March 29, 1875
ERROR to the Supreme Court of Missouri; the case being thus:
The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in its first section, thus ordains; [n1]
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws."
And the constitution of the State of Missouri [n2] thus ordains:
"Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote."
Under a statute of the State all persons wishing to vote at any election, must previously have been registered in the manner pointed out by the statute, this being a condition precedent to the exercise of the elective franchise.
In this state of things, on the 15th of October, 1872 (one of the days fixed by law for the registration of voters), Mrs. Virginia Minor, a native born, free, white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri, over the age of twenty-one years, wishing to vote for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, and for a representative in Congress, and for other officers, at the general election held in November, 1872, applied to one Happersett, the registrar of voters, to register her as a lawful voter, which he refused to do, assigning for cause that she was not a "male citizen of the United States," but a woman. She thereupon sued him in one of the inferior State courts of Missouri, for wilfully refusing to place her name upon the list of registered voters, by which refusal she was deprived of her right to vote.
The registrar demurred, and the court in which the suit was brought sustained the demurrer, and gave judgment in his favor; a judgment which the Supreme Court affirmed. Mrs. Minor now brought the case here on error.
1. The word "citizen" is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.
2. In that sense, women, of 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 to the Constitution as since.
3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had.
4. At the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the States; nor was it at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
5. Neither the Constitution nor the fourteenth amendment made all citizens voters.
6. A provision in a State constitution which confines the right of voting to "male citizens of the United States," is no violation of the Federal Constitution. In such a State women have no right to vote.
Lawyer Leo Donofrio
Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship – Obama Not Eligible.
The Supreme Court issued two holdings in Minor; one on citizenship and the other on voting rights. That the citizenship issue is precedent, and not dictum, has never been questioned in our national history until now, just as the very words of the Constitution are being scrubbed.
My research indicates unequivocally that for over a century before the appearance of Obama, Minor was recognized and cited as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Friday, November 4, 2011
Aruba Tommy was Jessie Jackson's Travel "Assistent"
Aruba Tommy was Jessie Jackson's Travel "Assistent" and now he is spilling the beans on jessie jackson.
Gay ex-employee alleges sexual harassment, bias by Rev. Jackson and staff.
A former employee of civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. has filed a discrimination complaint with Chicago's Commission on Human Rights, alleging that he was harassed by colleagues and by Jackson himself, and was terminated from his job at Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition based on his sexual orientation.
The complaint was filed against Jackson and Rainbow PUSH in early 2010 by Tommy R. Bennett, 55, an openly gay Chicago man who is known for past appearances on The Tom Joyner Morning Show where fans know him as "Aruba Tommy."
In the complaint, Bennett describes what he calls "demeaning and demoralizing tasks" that he was asked to perform as part of his duties for PUSH -- everything from escorting women to and from Jackson's hotel room and cleaning up after sexual intercourse, to fetching erectile dysfunction pills for Jackson and, in one instance, being asked to apply ointment to a rash on Jackson's inner thigh. He was asked to do these things, he says, because of his gender and his sexual orientation.
"They asked me to travel with the Reverend for just a couple of weeks, and that turned into a year," Bennett said in an interview with theGrio. "I would never apply for a job to pack his clothes, clean up the hotel room after he met different folks there, buy his underclothes. [But] I tried my best because I loved serving the community, and before my feelings, I put the community first.
(You won't hear about jessie jackson's gay travel boy on the national news but you do hear talk about allegations about Herman Cain.)
Gay ex-employee alleges sexual harassment, bias by Rev. Jackson and staff.
A former employee of civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. has filed a discrimination complaint with Chicago's Commission on Human Rights, alleging that he was harassed by colleagues and by Jackson himself, and was terminated from his job at Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition based on his sexual orientation.
The complaint was filed against Jackson and Rainbow PUSH in early 2010 by Tommy R. Bennett, 55, an openly gay Chicago man who is known for past appearances on The Tom Joyner Morning Show where fans know him as "Aruba Tommy."
In the complaint, Bennett describes what he calls "demeaning and demoralizing tasks" that he was asked to perform as part of his duties for PUSH -- everything from escorting women to and from Jackson's hotel room and cleaning up after sexual intercourse, to fetching erectile dysfunction pills for Jackson and, in one instance, being asked to apply ointment to a rash on Jackson's inner thigh. He was asked to do these things, he says, because of his gender and his sexual orientation.
"They asked me to travel with the Reverend for just a couple of weeks, and that turned into a year," Bennett said in an interview with theGrio. "I would never apply for a job to pack his clothes, clean up the hotel room after he met different folks there, buy his underclothes. [But] I tried my best because I loved serving the community, and before my feelings, I put the community first.
(You won't hear about jessie jackson's gay travel boy on the national news but you do hear talk about allegations about Herman Cain.)
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Crockett Keller, Texas Gun Safety Instructor, Refuses To Teach Liberals And Muslims
Crockett Keller, Texas Gun Safety Instructor, Refuses To Teach Liberals And Muslims
For Crockett Keller, the customer is always right -- or at least right-leaning.
For Crockett Keller, the customer is always right -- or at least right-leaning.Cro
That's because the Texas firearm safety instructor refuses to teach liberals.
In a radio advertisement that could cost him his ability to teach concealed handgun safety classes, Keller made it clear that an Oct. 26 course at Keller's Riverside Store in Mason wouldn't be open to people who voted for President Obama and Muslims.
"If you are a socialist liberal and/or voted for the current campaigner-in-chief, please do not take this class," Keller says in the advertisement, which is described as "controversial" on his own website. "You have already proven that you cannot make a knowledgeable and prudent decision as required under the law."
"Also, if you are a non-Christian Arab or Muslim, I will not teach you the class. Once again, with no shame; I am Crockett Keller ... thank you and God bless America," the radio spot concludes.
Keller's restrictions could infringe on the rights of Texans seeking to acquire concealed weapons permits, but the 65-year-old told KVUE that he is just trying to protect his rights as a teacher.
"I call it exercising my right to choose who I instruct in how to use a dangerous weapon," Keller said, according to the news station.
"The fact is if you are a devout Muslim then you cannot be a true American," Keller reportedly added. "Why should I arm these people to kill me, that's suicide."
The Texas Hill Country businessman told The Houston Chronicle he has received many calls from neighbors who are supportive of his stance.
For Crockett Keller, the customer is always right -- or at least right-leaning.
For Crockett Keller, the customer is always right -- or at least right-leaning.Cro
That's because the Texas firearm safety instructor refuses to teach liberals.
In a radio advertisement that could cost him his ability to teach concealed handgun safety classes, Keller made it clear that an Oct. 26 course at Keller's Riverside Store in Mason wouldn't be open to people who voted for President Obama and Muslims.
"If you are a socialist liberal and/or voted for the current campaigner-in-chief, please do not take this class," Keller says in the advertisement, which is described as "controversial" on his own website. "You have already proven that you cannot make a knowledgeable and prudent decision as required under the law."
"Also, if you are a non-Christian Arab or Muslim, I will not teach you the class. Once again, with no shame; I am Crockett Keller ... thank you and God bless America," the radio spot concludes.
Keller's restrictions could infringe on the rights of Texans seeking to acquire concealed weapons permits, but the 65-year-old told KVUE that he is just trying to protect his rights as a teacher.
"I call it exercising my right to choose who I instruct in how to use a dangerous weapon," Keller said, according to the news station.
"The fact is if you are a devout Muslim then you cannot be a true American," Keller reportedly added. "Why should I arm these people to kill me, that's suicide."
The Texas Hill Country businessman told The Houston Chronicle he has received many calls from neighbors who are supportive of his stance.
FAILED LIBERAL IDEAS
FAILED LIBERAL IDEAS
FAILED LIBERAL IDEAS (The Heritage Foundation List)
Liberal ideas are a lot of things: dangerous, wasteful, unconstitutional, even socialist at times.
MOST LIBERAL IDEAS HAVE FAILED . . . miserably!
Liberals love to call themselves compassionate. So why do their ideas so often end up with catastrophic results on the people they're intended to help?
They call themselves progressive. Truth is, though, their ideas are recycled schemes that continue to blow trillions of dollars on bloated, failed programs that take the country backward.
They talk about personal liberty like they invented it. But everything they do butts into every corner of your personal life.
In short, many liberal ideas are recycled failures that backfire and can't get simple concepts straight.
1. The War on Poverty
In their compassion for the poor, liberals earmarked $50 billion in 1964 to provide medical care, housing, cash transfers, and food subsidies to ease the plight of the disadvantaged.
Hatched by social engineers who cooked up President Lyndon Johnson’s "Great Society," the War on Poverty spawned a welfare mentality that has trapped the poor in a web of dependency, spent $16 trillion—without making a dent in the poverty rate—and will burn through another $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years.
2. The U.S. Department of Education
President Obama proposed a new education reform package called "Race to the Top," which includes increased federal funding to states whose public schools improve student performance.
The U.S. Department of Education has spent trillions of tax dollars growing a bloated, top-down bureaucracy, but American public education still lags behind other countries. Now, President Obama wants to bribe states with billions more if they give in to additional federal interference in their schools: "If states show that they’re serious about reform," says President Obama, "we’ll show them the money."
If these ideas are so good, why do liberals have to pay people to use them?
3. The U.S. Department of Energy
Created in the 1970s as one of President Jimmy Carter's bright ideas, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has seen its mission evolve from basic research and development to spending billions to commercialize technologies that aren’t yet viable—and might never be.
Despite funding numerous projects that never get off the ground, the U.S. Department of Energy has seen its budget grow by more than $11 billion in the last 10 years—a 76% increase! Because our nation is looking for spending to cut, the DOE might be the place to start. Instead of focusing on opening new sources of energy, the DOE pushes politically correct pet projects that are expensed to the American people.
4. The Community Reinvestment Act
Liberals created the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to encourage private lenders to meet the needs of borrowers in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.
The CRA spawned sub-prime mortgage lending, which boomed starting in the mid-1990s under President Bill Clinton. When the bubble burst, millions of sub-prime borrowers—the low-income people the CRA was created to help—found themselves owing more than their homes were worth. This set off the foreclosure cascade, tipped the economy into a prolonged recession, and plunged many families into poverty after they lost the homes they couldn’t afford but that Washington induced them to buy.
5. 'Comprehensive' Immigration Reform
Senate liberals' latest immigration proposal offers multiple "paths to citizenship" for foreign nationals who are in America illegally.
They’re touting their Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2011 as the complete and real solution to America’s immigration problems. Hoping Americans will ignore history, though, liberals’ current manipulation is as catastrophically irresponsible as the amnesty law Congress adopted in 1986, which more than quadrupled the population of people here illegally.
If $16 trillion hasn’t made a dent in the poverty rate, isn’t it kind of ridiculous to think another $10.3 trillion will solve the problem?
And if President Obama’s $800 billion stimulus didn’t create jobs, isn’t it ridiculous to think another $450 billion “jobs plan” will do the trick?
Of course it is.
President Obama and his liberal cohorts in Congress, however, don’t see a problem with recycling failed liberal ideas from the past and spending the country into oblivion to enact them.
FAILED LIBERAL IDEAS (The Heritage Foundation List)
Liberal ideas are a lot of things: dangerous, wasteful, unconstitutional, even socialist at times.
MOST LIBERAL IDEAS HAVE FAILED . . . miserably!
Liberals love to call themselves compassionate. So why do their ideas so often end up with catastrophic results on the people they're intended to help?
They call themselves progressive. Truth is, though, their ideas are recycled schemes that continue to blow trillions of dollars on bloated, failed programs that take the country backward.
They talk about personal liberty like they invented it. But everything they do butts into every corner of your personal life.
In short, many liberal ideas are recycled failures that backfire and can't get simple concepts straight.
1. The War on Poverty
In their compassion for the poor, liberals earmarked $50 billion in 1964 to provide medical care, housing, cash transfers, and food subsidies to ease the plight of the disadvantaged.
Hatched by social engineers who cooked up President Lyndon Johnson’s "Great Society," the War on Poverty spawned a welfare mentality that has trapped the poor in a web of dependency, spent $16 trillion—without making a dent in the poverty rate—and will burn through another $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years.
2. The U.S. Department of Education
President Obama proposed a new education reform package called "Race to the Top," which includes increased federal funding to states whose public schools improve student performance.
The U.S. Department of Education has spent trillions of tax dollars growing a bloated, top-down bureaucracy, but American public education still lags behind other countries. Now, President Obama wants to bribe states with billions more if they give in to additional federal interference in their schools: "If states show that they’re serious about reform," says President Obama, "we’ll show them the money."
If these ideas are so good, why do liberals have to pay people to use them?
3. The U.S. Department of Energy
Created in the 1970s as one of President Jimmy Carter's bright ideas, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has seen its mission evolve from basic research and development to spending billions to commercialize technologies that aren’t yet viable—and might never be.
Despite funding numerous projects that never get off the ground, the U.S. Department of Energy has seen its budget grow by more than $11 billion in the last 10 years—a 76% increase! Because our nation is looking for spending to cut, the DOE might be the place to start. Instead of focusing on opening new sources of energy, the DOE pushes politically correct pet projects that are expensed to the American people.
4. The Community Reinvestment Act
Liberals created the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to encourage private lenders to meet the needs of borrowers in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.
The CRA spawned sub-prime mortgage lending, which boomed starting in the mid-1990s under President Bill Clinton. When the bubble burst, millions of sub-prime borrowers—the low-income people the CRA was created to help—found themselves owing more than their homes were worth. This set off the foreclosure cascade, tipped the economy into a prolonged recession, and plunged many families into poverty after they lost the homes they couldn’t afford but that Washington induced them to buy.
5. 'Comprehensive' Immigration Reform
Senate liberals' latest immigration proposal offers multiple "paths to citizenship" for foreign nationals who are in America illegally.
They’re touting their Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2011 as the complete and real solution to America’s immigration problems. Hoping Americans will ignore history, though, liberals’ current manipulation is as catastrophically irresponsible as the amnesty law Congress adopted in 1986, which more than quadrupled the population of people here illegally.
If $16 trillion hasn’t made a dent in the poverty rate, isn’t it kind of ridiculous to think another $10.3 trillion will solve the problem?
And if President Obama’s $800 billion stimulus didn’t create jobs, isn’t it ridiculous to think another $450 billion “jobs plan” will do the trick?
Of course it is.
President Obama and his liberal cohorts in Congress, however, don’t see a problem with recycling failed liberal ideas from the past and spending the country into oblivion to enact them.
Dr. Ron Polland Video Evidence That Factcheck.org Forged Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate
Dr. Ron Polland Video Evidence That Factcheck.org Forged Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate
The White House Claims They Ordered Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate From Hawaii Department Of Health In 2008, Yet, Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate Is Date Stamped 2007.
Busted: White House Now Claims They Ordered Short-Form COLB From Hawaii Department Of Health In 2008 Yet COLB Is Date Stamped 2007
The Obama lies keep mounting The White House Claims They Ordered Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate From Hawaii Department Of Health In 2008, Yet, Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate Is Date Stamped 2007
(Obama continues the deception about his short form birth certificate. This is more proof obama is a HOAX/FRAUD. Obama is the foreign enemy within.) Story Reports
The White House Claims They Ordered Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate From Hawaii Department Of Health In 2008, Yet, Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate Is Date Stamped 2007.
Busted: White House Now Claims They Ordered Short-Form COLB From Hawaii Department Of Health In 2008 Yet COLB Is Date Stamped 2007
The Obama lies keep mounting The White House Claims They Ordered Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate From Hawaii Department Of Health In 2008, Yet, Obama's Short-Form Birth Certificate Is Date Stamped 2007
(Obama continues the deception about his short form birth certificate. This is more proof obama is a HOAX/FRAUD. Obama is the foreign enemy within.) Story Reports
Monday, October 31, 2011
SC Sheriff Urges Citizens To Arm Themselves
SC Sheriff Urges Citizens To Arm Themselves. Sheriff Chuck Wright Doesn’t Hold Back.
SPARTANBURG COUNTY, S.C. -- The Spartanburg County, S.C., Sheriff is known for speaking his mind, and at a news conference on Monday, he didn't hold back his anger and frustration after a woman was attacked in a park over the weekend.
Investigators said 46-year-old Walter Lance grabbed a woman who was walking her dog in Milliken Park on Sunday afternoon. They said Lance choked the woman, made her take off her clothing and tried to rape her.
Lance is in custody and was denied bond on Monday.
Sheriff Chuck Wright opened his news conference by saying, "Our form of justice is not making it."
He said, "Carry a concealed weapon. That'll fix it."
Wright said Lance had been charged numerous times with crimes again women, and other crimes such as resisting arrest and escape. Wright said Lance had been on probation for a federal gun charge.
He referred to Lance repeatedly as an "animal," and expressed his disgust about Lance's long record and the attack.
Wright said Lance has had more than 20 charges dating back to 1983.
Wright said Lance has been in jail more often than he has, and he runs the jail, and he said he gets out easier. He punctuated by saying, "And I'm aggravated."
He said he doesn't believe every person needs to be kept in jail, but he said, "I don't think this animal deserves to be out in our society, walking alongside our women."
Wright said,"Liberals call me and tell me the chain-gang form of justice isn't working. Well, let me inform you, your form of justice isn't working either."
He said Lance should not have had the right or opportunity to "violate a good, upstanding woman."
"This is a horrific crime," Wright said. "Her life was threatened so many times."
He said Lance "doesn't fight police or men folk -- he just goes after women." He said Lance is not married because, "No woman can stay married to him because he beats them down too much."
Wright said, "It's too bad someone with a concealed weapons permit didn't walk by. That would fix it." He said people are tired of doing the right thing and criminals getting away with their actions.
He said several times, "I want you to get a concealed weapons permit."
Wright said, "I'm tired of looking at victims saying, 'There's life after this' … I'm tired of saying, 'We're sorry, we can't keep them in jail.'"
Wright said in his view, gun control is, "How fast can you can get the barrel of your gun back on the target?"
Wright said the attack is not the fault of Millken Park. He said, "It's a nice place for families."
He said officers patrol the area all the time and respond to various calls there. He said, "Don't blame anyone for having an animal on their property … We can't get it all."
He encouraged women to walk in groups, and he ended by saying again, "I want you to get a concealed weapons permit. Don't get Mace. Get a firearm."
And then he said, "I think I better stop before I get sanctioned."
Watch Sheriff Chuck Wright News Conference Liberal Gun Control Idiots Get A Kick In The Butt
........................................................................................
Additional Info:
The most effective handgun round on the market - regardless of caliber - is the Federal .357 Magnum 125 grain jacketed hollowpoint (357B). This load has more stopping power than any other handgun bullet (and this includes more powerful rounds like the .41 and .44 Magnums). I advise all experienced revolver men to carry the legendary Federal 357B in a .357 revolver, or the equally good Remington full-power 125 grain semi-jacketed hollowpoint (R357M1).
There is one caveat, however. The 357B and other full-power .357 Magnums have a lot of blast and kick. If you are not comfortable with the buck and roar of full-house .357 Magnums, I would strongly suggest that you use a lower-recoil round. Controllability is important, and you will be able to fire lower-recoil rounds more rapidly and accurately. All of these .357 loads have excellent stopping power, so don't worry that you are giving up too much.
SPARTANBURG COUNTY, S.C. -- The Spartanburg County, S.C., Sheriff is known for speaking his mind, and at a news conference on Monday, he didn't hold back his anger and frustration after a woman was attacked in a park over the weekend.
Investigators said 46-year-old Walter Lance grabbed a woman who was walking her dog in Milliken Park on Sunday afternoon. They said Lance choked the woman, made her take off her clothing and tried to rape her.
Lance is in custody and was denied bond on Monday.
Sheriff Chuck Wright opened his news conference by saying, "Our form of justice is not making it."
He said, "Carry a concealed weapon. That'll fix it."
Wright said Lance had been charged numerous times with crimes again women, and other crimes such as resisting arrest and escape. Wright said Lance had been on probation for a federal gun charge.
He referred to Lance repeatedly as an "animal," and expressed his disgust about Lance's long record and the attack.
Wright said Lance has had more than 20 charges dating back to 1983.
Wright said Lance has been in jail more often than he has, and he runs the jail, and he said he gets out easier. He punctuated by saying, "And I'm aggravated."
He said he doesn't believe every person needs to be kept in jail, but he said, "I don't think this animal deserves to be out in our society, walking alongside our women."
Wright said,"Liberals call me and tell me the chain-gang form of justice isn't working. Well, let me inform you, your form of justice isn't working either."
He said Lance should not have had the right or opportunity to "violate a good, upstanding woman."
"This is a horrific crime," Wright said. "Her life was threatened so many times."
He said Lance "doesn't fight police or men folk -- he just goes after women." He said Lance is not married because, "No woman can stay married to him because he beats them down too much."
Wright said, "It's too bad someone with a concealed weapons permit didn't walk by. That would fix it." He said people are tired of doing the right thing and criminals getting away with their actions.
He said several times, "I want you to get a concealed weapons permit."
Wright said, "I'm tired of looking at victims saying, 'There's life after this' … I'm tired of saying, 'We're sorry, we can't keep them in jail.'"
Wright said in his view, gun control is, "How fast can you can get the barrel of your gun back on the target?"
Wright said the attack is not the fault of Millken Park. He said, "It's a nice place for families."
He said officers patrol the area all the time and respond to various calls there. He said, "Don't blame anyone for having an animal on their property … We can't get it all."
He encouraged women to walk in groups, and he ended by saying again, "I want you to get a concealed weapons permit. Don't get Mace. Get a firearm."
And then he said, "I think I better stop before I get sanctioned."
Watch Sheriff Chuck Wright News Conference Liberal Gun Control Idiots Get A Kick In The Butt
........................................................................................
Additional Info:
The most effective handgun round on the market - regardless of caliber - is the Federal .357 Magnum 125 grain jacketed hollowpoint (357B). This load has more stopping power than any other handgun bullet (and this includes more powerful rounds like the .41 and .44 Magnums). I advise all experienced revolver men to carry the legendary Federal 357B in a .357 revolver, or the equally good Remington full-power 125 grain semi-jacketed hollowpoint (R357M1).
There is one caveat, however. The 357B and other full-power .357 Magnums have a lot of blast and kick. If you are not comfortable with the buck and roar of full-house .357 Magnums, I would strongly suggest that you use a lower-recoil round. Controllability is important, and you will be able to fire lower-recoil rounds more rapidly and accurately. All of these .357 loads have excellent stopping power, so don't worry that you are giving up too much.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
The Supreme Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship: Obama Not Eligible.
Lawyer Leo Donofrio Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship – Obama Not Eligible.
Minor v. Happersett
The citizenship issue decided in Minor v. Happersett has been documented as precedent by multiple sources of legal scholarship.
The Supreme Court issued two holdings in Minor; one on citizenship and the other on voting rights.
That the citizenship issue is precedent, and not dictum, has never been questioned in our national history until now, just as the very words of the Constitution are being scrubbed. My research indicates unequivocally that for over a century before the appearance of Obama, Minor was recognized and cited as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship.
REDERICK VAN DYNE, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR US DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Legal scholar and Government attorney who specialized in citizenship law.)
REDERICK VAN DYNE will provide unquestionable clarity on the issue of why Minor v. Happersett is precedent on citizenship as well as voting rights.
Frederick Van Dyne who, while holding the office of Assistant Solicitor for the US Department of State, published analysis that the citizenship decision in Minor v. Happersett was precedent.
Van Dyne argued that persons born of foreign parents on US soil were “native-born citizens” of the US prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the 14th Amendment. But Van Dyne, while discussing the holding in the New York case of Lynch v. Clark (not binding on the Federal Courts), failed to endorse that case’s opinion that all native-born citizens of foreign parentage were natural-born citizens. In his famous treatise, “Citizenship of the United States” (Lawyers Co-Operative Publishing Co., 1904), Van Dyne only went so far as to state that such persons were “native-born citizens”.
Where the US Supreme Court in Minor differs from Obama eligibility propaganda is that the former regards being “native-born” as just one element necessary to meeting the natural-born citizen standard of POTUS eligibility, whereas the latter incorrectly argue that it is the only element. As you will see below, Van Dyne directly recognized that the US Supreme Court’s decision in Minor was precedent on citizenship, and that the holding therein defined natural-born citizens as those born in the US of citizen parents.
In the following passage, Van Dyne argues that previous American cases recognized that persons born on US soil were US citizens regardless of the citizenship of the parents. However, Van Dyne also points out that a statement by the Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House Cases appears to contradict this theory. But Van Dyne’s analysis stresses that the contradictory statement in the Slaughter-House Cases is dictum.
He then refers to the “decision” in Minor v. Happersett on citizenship in order to counter the “dictum” from the Slaughter-House Cases. Van Dyne clearly recognized the Minor Court’s decision on citizenship as precedent which outweighs the dictum of the Slaughter-House Cases. In doing so, Van Dyne quotes the Minor Court’s definition of a natural-born citizen as one born in the US to citizen parents:
3. Children born in United States of alien parentage.-The Federal courts have almost uniformly held that birth in the United States, of itself, confers citizenship. In two cases the courts have used language which has been relied upon in support of a contrary view. These will now be considered.
In delivering the opinion of the court in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 73, 21 L. ed. 408, Mr. Justice Miller said: "The phrase, 'subject to the jurisdiction,' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States."
This has been cited in support of the contention that the children born in this country to aliens are not citizens of the United States. It is to be observed, however, that this is only a dictum. The question was not involved in the decision of the case before the court. The classing together of foreign ministers and consuls, when it was at the time well-settled law that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character, are not entitled, by the law of nations, to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors, shows that the statement was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for a precise definition of the phrase. And the fact that neither Mr. Justice Miller, nor any of the justices who took part in the decision above referred to, understood the court to be committed to the view that children born in the United States of alien parents were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, is shown by the unanimous opinion of the court in the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L. ed. 627, decided but two years later, when all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench.
The court said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection [in relation to citizenship], reciprocal obligations. ... 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-bor n 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."
The decision in this case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the elective franchise not l>eing essential to citizenship.
Very rarely, whilst doing research, does one come upon historical evidence that so perfectly establishes the point in question. Examine the last paragraph again:
“The decision in this case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.” (Emphasis added.)
The “decision” in Minor is twofold:
1) woman are equal citizens to men;
2) voting is not a right of citizenship.
The first point is still good law. This may seem obvious now, but in 1875 it wasn’t. Virginia Minor did not accept that citizenship without voting rights was equal citizenship. She argued that women were being treated as “halfway citizens” and she directly petitioned the Court for a determination which stated that women were equal citizens to men.
The Court in Minor, referring directly to Article 2 Section 1, and specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment, held that women, if born in the US to citizen parents, were citizens and that their citizenship was equal to men. The Court further stated that this “class” of persons were “natives, or natural-born citizens.”.
PART I.CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH. Citizenship of the United States
By Frederick Van Dyne, United States
The Court also held that while women were equal citizens to men, the Constitution did not provide a right to vote to anyone, male or female. This part of the holding was later erased by the 19th Amendment, but the citizenship determination remains as good law today. Therefore, the Court’s decision in Minor operates against Obama being eligible, since his father was never a US citizen.
Van Dyne examines the Slaughter-House dictum carefully since it is a statement made by the highest court in the nation which contrasts his view that all persons born on US soil are native-born citizens. In classifying the Slaughter-House statement as dictum, Van Dyne notes that determining the citizenship of persons born on US soil to alien parents was not an issue before the court in that case. He then points to the “decision” on citizenship from Minor to contrast the Slaughter-House dictum, and in doing so Van Dyne makes clear that Virginia Minor’s citizenship was an issue directly before the Court in Minor.
Note the following crucial passage from Justice Waite’s opinion again, paying particular attention to the punchline:
“[T]he Constitution…provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President’…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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.” (Emphasis added.)
Current propaganda attempting to sanitize Obama in light of the Supreme Court’s precedent in Minor mis-directs that Minor’s citizenship was not an issue directly before the Court. But in the passage above, the Court’s unanimous opinion clearly states that “the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.” So, squarely before the Court was the issue of whether women were equal citizens.
Read More About Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship – Obama Not Eligible. At Leo Donofrio's Blog
Minor v. Happersett
The citizenship issue decided in Minor v. Happersett has been documented as precedent by multiple sources of legal scholarship.
The Supreme Court issued two holdings in Minor; one on citizenship and the other on voting rights.
That the citizenship issue is precedent, and not dictum, has never been questioned in our national history until now, just as the very words of the Constitution are being scrubbed. My research indicates unequivocally that for over a century before the appearance of Obama, Minor was recognized and cited as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship.
REDERICK VAN DYNE, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR US DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Legal scholar and Government attorney who specialized in citizenship law.)
REDERICK VAN DYNE will provide unquestionable clarity on the issue of why Minor v. Happersett is precedent on citizenship as well as voting rights.
Frederick Van Dyne who, while holding the office of Assistant Solicitor for the US Department of State, published analysis that the citizenship decision in Minor v. Happersett was precedent.
Van Dyne argued that persons born of foreign parents on US soil were “native-born citizens” of the US prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the 14th Amendment. But Van Dyne, while discussing the holding in the New York case of Lynch v. Clark (not binding on the Federal Courts), failed to endorse that case’s opinion that all native-born citizens of foreign parentage were natural-born citizens. In his famous treatise, “Citizenship of the United States” (Lawyers Co-Operative Publishing Co., 1904), Van Dyne only went so far as to state that such persons were “native-born citizens”.
Where the US Supreme Court in Minor differs from Obama eligibility propaganda is that the former regards being “native-born” as just one element necessary to meeting the natural-born citizen standard of POTUS eligibility, whereas the latter incorrectly argue that it is the only element. As you will see below, Van Dyne directly recognized that the US Supreme Court’s decision in Minor was precedent on citizenship, and that the holding therein defined natural-born citizens as those born in the US of citizen parents.
In the following passage, Van Dyne argues that previous American cases recognized that persons born on US soil were US citizens regardless of the citizenship of the parents. However, Van Dyne also points out that a statement by the Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House Cases appears to contradict this theory. But Van Dyne’s analysis stresses that the contradictory statement in the Slaughter-House Cases is dictum.
He then refers to the “decision” in Minor v. Happersett on citizenship in order to counter the “dictum” from the Slaughter-House Cases. Van Dyne clearly recognized the Minor Court’s decision on citizenship as precedent which outweighs the dictum of the Slaughter-House Cases. In doing so, Van Dyne quotes the Minor Court’s definition of a natural-born citizen as one born in the US to citizen parents:
3. Children born in United States of alien parentage.-The Federal courts have almost uniformly held that birth in the United States, of itself, confers citizenship. In two cases the courts have used language which has been relied upon in support of a contrary view. These will now be considered.
In delivering the opinion of the court in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 73, 21 L. ed. 408, Mr. Justice Miller said: "The phrase, 'subject to the jurisdiction,' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States."
This has been cited in support of the contention that the children born in this country to aliens are not citizens of the United States. It is to be observed, however, that this is only a dictum. The question was not involved in the decision of the case before the court. The classing together of foreign ministers and consuls, when it was at the time well-settled law that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character, are not entitled, by the law of nations, to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors, shows that the statement was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for a precise definition of the phrase. And the fact that neither Mr. Justice Miller, nor any of the justices who took part in the decision above referred to, understood the court to be committed to the view that children born in the United States of alien parents were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, is shown by the unanimous opinion of the court in the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L. ed. 627, decided but two years later, when all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench.
The court said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection [in relation to citizenship], reciprocal obligations. ... 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-bor n 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."
The decision in this case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the elective franchise not l>eing essential to citizenship.
Very rarely, whilst doing research, does one come upon historical evidence that so perfectly establishes the point in question. Examine the last paragraph again:
“The decision in this case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.” (Emphasis added.)
The “decision” in Minor is twofold:
1) woman are equal citizens to men;
2) voting is not a right of citizenship.
The first point is still good law. This may seem obvious now, but in 1875 it wasn’t. Virginia Minor did not accept that citizenship without voting rights was equal citizenship. She argued that women were being treated as “halfway citizens” and she directly petitioned the Court for a determination which stated that women were equal citizens to men.
The Court in Minor, referring directly to Article 2 Section 1, and specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment, held that women, if born in the US to citizen parents, were citizens and that their citizenship was equal to men. The Court further stated that this “class” of persons were “natives, or natural-born citizens.”.
PART I.CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH. Citizenship of the United States
By Frederick Van Dyne, United States
The Court also held that while women were equal citizens to men, the Constitution did not provide a right to vote to anyone, male or female. This part of the holding was later erased by the 19th Amendment, but the citizenship determination remains as good law today. Therefore, the Court’s decision in Minor operates against Obama being eligible, since his father was never a US citizen.
Van Dyne examines the Slaughter-House dictum carefully since it is a statement made by the highest court in the nation which contrasts his view that all persons born on US soil are native-born citizens. In classifying the Slaughter-House statement as dictum, Van Dyne notes that determining the citizenship of persons born on US soil to alien parents was not an issue before the court in that case. He then points to the “decision” on citizenship from Minor to contrast the Slaughter-House dictum, and in doing so Van Dyne makes clear that Virginia Minor’s citizenship was an issue directly before the Court in Minor.
Note the following crucial passage from Justice Waite’s opinion again, paying particular attention to the punchline:
“[T]he Constitution…provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President’…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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.” (Emphasis added.)
Current propaganda attempting to sanitize Obama in light of the Supreme Court’s precedent in Minor mis-directs that Minor’s citizenship was not an issue directly before the Court. But in the passage above, the Court’s unanimous opinion clearly states that “the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.” So, squarely before the Court was the issue of whether women were equal citizens.
Read More About Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Court’s Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship – Obama Not Eligible. At Leo Donofrio's Blog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
