>Part 1 From New Jersey Attorney Leo Donofrio’s website today, June 30, 2011 (see https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/the-express-lane-to-natural-born-clarity):
THE EXPRESS LANE TO NATURAL BORN CLARITY.
The US Supreme Court definition of an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as stated in Minor v Happersett is strictly limited to those persons born in the United States to parents who were citizens. Below, I will make this crystal clear with stealth to reduce the complexities of the issue into a refined exposition and mantra the average citizen will easily comprehend.
NATURAL BORN CLARITY
The Supreme Court in Minor specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment as to the issue of whether Virginia Minor was a US citizen. Instead, the Court looked no further than the natural-born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1. The Court held that Minor was a member of the “class” of persons who were natural-born citizens. They defined this class as those born in the US to “parents” (plural) who were citizens. (For more detailed analysis of this issue, see my two previous reports, here and here.)
The Court also noted that the “citizenship” of those born to non-citizen parents was subject to doubt. Since Virginia Minor was in the class of natural-born citizens, that doubt didn’t need to be resolved. The Court exercised judicial restraint and thereby avoided construction of the 14th Amendment as to the citizenship issue.
Such avoidance and restraint were called for. In order for the Court to act, there must be a genuine controversy with regard to the laws in question. Since there was no controversy before the Court involving a 14th Amendment citizenship issue, the Court decided the issue on other grounds, specifically Article 2 Section 1.
Now we turn to US v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, the US Supreme Court held that (some) persons born in the United States of alien parents were “citizens”. In doing so, the Court stated that it was specifically construing only the 14th Amendment. And here lies the rub of clarity:
If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, the Supreme Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.)
That statement is a perfectly true mantra. Read it again… and again, until it sinks in. Then share the mantra. There is no antidote for it. There is never an antidote for truth.
THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLA– USE HAS NOT BEEN AMENDED OR REPEALED.
Minor and Wong Kim Ark were both decided years after the 14th Amendment had been adopted. Minor avoided construing the 14th Amendment, while Wong Kim Ark required it. Since Wong Kim Ark was not a natural-born citizen under Article 2 Section 1, the Supreme Court looked to the 14th Amendment to grant him citizenship.
The 14th Amendment did not repeal or amend Article 2 Section 1 (but it did repeal part of Article 1 Section 2). Furthermore, while other parts of Article 2 Section 1 have been amended (by the 12th and 25th Amendments), the natural-born citizen clause has never been amended.
The official US Constitution is hosted at archive.gov where it highlights those sections of the Constitution which have been repealed or modified. The archive.gov site states:
“The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription
Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution in its original form. Items that are hyperlinked have since been amended or superseded.”
Go to the link provided for the official Constitution and you will see that the natural-born citizen clause is not hyperlinked because it has not been amended or superseded.
Neither the Court in Minor nor Wong Kim Ark alleged that the 14th Amendment superseded Article 2 Section 1. If the 14th Amendment had superseded the natural-born citizen clause, the Court in Minor would have been required to construe the 14th Amendment.
