It seems to me an untenable position to say that Minor v. Happersett “clearly established who was a ‘natural born citizen’” when the case itself states “for the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts” (”these doubts” referring to citizenship of those born in the United States of alien parents). It would be United States v. Wong Kim Ark that would definitively answer this question in 1898.
What the case was about
Mrs. Virginia Minor was a native-born American citizen from Missouri who had the audacity to try to register to vote. The registrar, one Happersett, refused because Minor was not “male”. Minor sued in local court and the Missouri State Supreme Court, but she lost. She appealed to the United States Supreme Court claiming that she was a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment and was entitled to vote. The Supreme Court agreed that she was a natural born citizen of the United States, but that didn’t make her eligible to vote.
So incidentally to the main question in the case, the Supreme Court did discuss citizenship………………………..
RUSH: Folks, this is a little Inside Baseball, but it’s important because he who controls the language ends up winning the debate, and it might seem like a small thing, but I have learned and I have been given to understand that the “establishment Republicans” hate the term. They don’t like being called “establishment Republicans,” and they are trying to change the term to “establishment conservatives” and in the process co-opt the definition of “conservative” and conservatism. It’s not something that you’ll notice if you watch cable news or even read. You have to be able to see the stitches on the fastball, you have to be able to read between the lines, and you have to know some stuff going on behind the scenes (and, of course, I am in a position to know these kinds of things).
So don’t doubt me on this. The establishment Republicans are the establishment Republicans. The Republican leadership is the Republican establishment, meaning the elites. They hate it and they are in the process of trying to redefine who conservatives are and what it is — and if they succeed, the conservatism that you and I hold dear will no longer be the definition of conservatism. If they succeed, the current thinking of the Republican establishment will be what is called modern day conservatism. Don’t doubt me on this. It sounds like a small thing, but in a daily ebb and flow you’ll not even see any news about this, but it’s in important because it’s crucial who controls the language, who controls the way words are defined.
You and I know that the establishment Republicans don’t like conservatives. They didn’t like Reagan. They were embarrassed of Reagan. They were embarrassed of us. They didn’t like the Moral Majority, they didn’t like the Christian right, they don’t like the pro-lifers. They don’t like the social conservatives at all. They’re embarrassed by us, in many ways, with their other buddies, the establishment Democrats — which combined gives us the Washington establishment, and they very much prefer to be members of that club than ours. But they know that it doesn’t help them to be called “establishment Republicans.” So they’re trying to take the term “conservative” and co-opt it and define it as they behave, write, speak, and even vote on matters of politics………………………………
It’s becoming clear that Obama‘s chances for re-election are becoming nearly impossible given his track record. Most Americans agree he has done incredible damage to our country…..now the question is what kind of evil could he do on the way out of the door? How many criminals could he pardon? Do we need to change that perk? Given that the President has unlimited power with executive orders and recess appointments during his term in office. Should that be changed? Frankly, does the executive office have too much power, given the abuses of power we have witnessed?