Did the 19th Amendment Create a Two-Parent Citizenship Requirement for natural born Citizens?

“THAT GIVES US A TWO-PARENT RULE”

by Sharon Rondeau

(Apr. 27, 2017) — In an interview on Wednesday evening concerning his Obama eligibility/forgery lawsuit, plaintiff Cody Robert Judy related a new development in which the U.S. Supreme Court has not docketed his request filed for a Writ of Mandamus with Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch some two weeks ago.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has docketed the courtesy copy of the request Judy sent as shown on the PACER.GOV docket sheet for the case.

Judy believes that by providing the courtesy copy of the Supreme Court filing, the lower court is now acting as a check on the higher court and providing greater transparency to the American public.

He added that it is unusual for a court to fail to notify a petitioner if there is an error or if more information is needed after two weeks have passed, leading Judy to believe that Gorsuch’s clerks have conducted research into the history of his case and may be deliberating it.

Judy speculated that the clerks might have discovered that he was previously denied in forma pauperis status by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, which prohibited him from going forward with the case in 2015.

First crafted in July 2014, Judy’s lawsuit alleged that Obama’s lack of constitutional eligibility to seek the presidency harmed his own presidential candidacy and violated the Sherman Anti-Trust and Clayton Acts.  He asked for financial damages from defendants Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro; the Democrat National Committee (DNC); and Organizing for Action (OFA), a political action committee dedicated to carrying out Obama’s national progressive agenda.

At the time of the denial of his in forma pauperis petition by Sotomayor, Judy told The Post & Email that he found it an injustice after having been granted it by the two lower courts from which the case had come. “This shows people just a Real disconnect with Justice that our Country is faced with that qualifies as criminal against the impoverished, disenfranchised, and downtrodden,” Judy wrote about the denial, which was posted without explanation.

In a resolution of protest, Judy wrote on his blog, in part:

Indictment of IMPEACHMENT for Bad Behavior on ALL CURRENT SERVING U.S. Supreme Court Justice(s) for WAR ON THE POOR ACTION prohibiting the Poor from seeking Justice in the U.S. Supreme Court

WHEREAS : It is the U.S. Federal Law that [Justice For All] shall not be Prohibited from any United States Citizen on account of forma pauperis standing or condition of Poverty

WHEREAS: The Petitioner in the Case was not sanctioned OR dismissed by U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES 39.8

WHEREAS: TWO LOWER Court’s of Law in the Federal District Court (Utah Division) and Federal Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals have undertaken Proceedings GRANTING Cody Robert Judy (CRJ) a 2008,’12, and 2016 Candidate for the Office of President Forma Pauperis Standing in the Calendar Year JULY 2014-15

WHEREAS: Federal Statute honors a GRANTED Forma Pauperis Standing for a Calendar YEAR

WHEREAS: TWO WITNESSES of the Judicial Branch have on the Federal Court Record GRANTED CRJ access to JUSTICE of their Court(s), but the U.S. Supreme Court has Denied Access to JUSTICE from it’s Bench in the same Calendar Year by a single Justice Sotomayor and upon [REVIEW] the FULL or entire U.S. SUPREME COURT BENCH, and has Denied ACCESS to [Justice] in the U.S. Supreme Court solely on the conditions of Poverty PUNITIVELY upon CRJ in CASE 14-9396 on account of his Poverty as the Docket indicates , a WAR ON THE POOR is Noticed and has been Noticeably declared by the U.S. Supreme Court Justices.

WHEREAS: ANY U.S. Citizen is considered Equal under the Supreme Law of the Land in and under the benevolence of The U.S. Constitution formed by the Union of the 50 individual State(s) forming the United States as the Body of We The People, a WAR ON THE POOR of one is considered a WAR ON THE POOR of all.

WHEREAS: U.S.C. ARTICLE III Sect.I provides Judicial Powers vested in the U.S. Supreme Court and in inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

WHEREAS: U.S.C ARTICLE III Sect. 1 states: The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during [good Behaviour] and Sect 2 states: Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States to all cases affecting [Citizens] thereof.

WHEREAS: Denial of ACCESS to any Federal Court established under the U.S. Constitution solely on the basis of Poverty can only be contrived as the WORST POSSIBLE CASE of JUSTICE in the United States of America under the banner and [Pledge of Allegiance] in JUSTICE For All constituting BAD BEHAVIOUR

After explaining what he believes to be the significance of the two courts’ respective actions, Judy turned to the topic of the 19th Amendment, which granted American women the right to vote, and what he believes is its intersection with the “natural born Citizen” requirement contained in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

Judy interprets the term of art to mean “Born in the United States to two citizen-parents.” At the time the Constitution was written, women were non-voting citizens. If foreign-born, women adopted the citizenship of their husbands.  Citizenship was therefore transferred to children through the father.

On February 10, 2007, the man known as “Barack Hussein Obama” announced he was launching his presidential campaign

Many scholars, constitutional attorneys and average citizens have debated the meaning of the “natural born Citizen” requirement vigorously since 2007, when Obama announced his presidential candidacy amidst unanswered questions as to whether or not a person with a father who was never a U.S. citizen meets the eligibility criterion.

Without studying the issue deeply, most Americans generally understand the term to mean “born in the U.S.”

Obama claims a birth on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, HI, but the long-form birth certificate image posted on the White House website exactly six years ago was declared a “computer-generated forgery” by a five-year law enforcement investigation, confirmed by two well-respected forensic analysts.

Judy expounded:

I think people have been fascinated with my last blog report because nobody has really done a story on the 19th Amendment having anything to do with the two-parent rule in “natural born Citizen.”  All the Obots have always gone past that and won’t recognize the Founding Fathers’ grandfather clause that says “…a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”  That scares them, because all of a sudden “natural born Citizen” means something different than “Citizen.”

With the 19th Amendment, there was not a single woman who was qualified, even if she had met all the other qualifications for president, meaning that she was 35 years old or older and 14 years a resident.  There was not a single woman prior to 1920 who could have run for president.  That’s the point right there.

If she couldn’t run for president, because in Minor v. Happersett, it was about the woman who was trying to discuss whether she had the right to vote.  They were trying to establish if she was a citizen or natural born Citizen or what she was.  The other point is that it definitely shows us all that just as representatives, senators and the president have different qualifications, there was a different type of citizen class prior to 1920.  The women might have been citizens, but they were citizens who couldn’t vote.  You might as well have counted the blacks and anyone else who couldn’t vote in that same category of “citizen.”

The really interesting factor is that it progresses the natural born Citizen to a point where in 1920, you actually needed two citizen parents and the soil birth.

Prior to 1920, you could not have had a woman running for president legally because she couldn’t vote.  So everything prior to 1920 was nothing.  You could have said, “Well, you just need your father,” because he was the only one who could vote anyway.

After 1920, there were two people voting from the same child, and if the father was important enough for someone to say, “Your father wasn’t a citizen of the United States at the time of your birth,” when the ladies came in and had to have the right to vote, then they had the same criteria as the men did.  So that gives us a two-parent rule, and it’s progressive from 1920 forward.  No article I’ve read from these constitutional scholars recognizes that argument.  It’s either gone past them or they haven’t thought about it.

18 Responses to "Did the 19th Amendment Create a Two-Parent Citizenship Requirement for natural born Citizens?"

  1. Sharon Rondeau   Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 8:14 PM

    Since this discussion is going back and forth, kindly continue it through another avenue. Thank you.

    Please see our Comment policy: http://www.thepostemail.com/about/

  2. Sanford West   Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 3:59 PM

    Judy, Judy, Judy

    I suspect it would help if you looked at the holding in Minor v. Happersett.

    “Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone, and that the constitutions and laws of the several states which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we – Affirm the judgment.”

    Do you see the part about the Constitution not conferring the right to vote to ANYONE.

    Male or female, natural born or naturalized could be denied the right to vote by the states’ constitutions depending on any number of factors. Your contention that women did not become citizens until the 19th Amendment is just wrong.

    BTW, if you look at the map in the link I provided you would see that in most of the states that allowed women to vote also allowed them to vote in national elections.

  3. Robert Laity   Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 12:31 PM

    There is nothing in the Constitution that says that a Female Natural Born Citizen who met the other criteria could not be President. One does not have to vote to be President. The NBC definition is “One born in the US to Parents who were both US citizens themselves” That’s established Supreme Court precedent in Minor v Happersett, which was unanimous. Virginia Happersett WAS indeed a female “Natural Born Citizen”. She was born in the US to parents who were both US Citizens themselves. The 19th Amendment may have strengthened that definition but is not necessary in order to prove that Chester Arthur, Obama,McCain,Rubio,Jindal,Cruz,Swarzenegger and George Romney were ALL ineligible to be President.

  4. Cody Judy   Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 11:31 AM

    All Great Comments and considerations @thinkwell enjoyed that.

    Wouldn’t you figure Obots reach into State Laws which differed prior the 19th Amendment especially for local and state elections.

    This might be one topic creating a drift from far left field farthest regions they have drifted in for from a one size fits all national Federal Form which we know from Obamacare they gravitate towards.

    All of a sudden States Rights matter? Oh my gosh!

    To say I’ve done that to them is actually a feather I’m not ashamed of to much.

    To me Minor v. Happersett was fascinating Court Courage. The Court had the courage to say Minor was a citizen but being such did not give her the right to vote, and ruling such did not violate the 14th Amendment.

    That COURT COURAGE put the pressure on Congress to pass the 19th Amendment which gave every female the same standing in society as a Voting Member in National Elections.

    Now, before we drift in to State’s Rights let’s not forget that the Office of President that we are applying the 19th Amendment to in it’s ramifications is narrowly focused in my case as a Federal National Office.

    I feel the type of courage the US Supreme Court courageously exhibited in Minor was not blurring the lines of the U.S. Constitution in a pollution or dilution because if they had the 19th Amendment would have never been passed.

    So, the complaints about the Constitution being old and rigid is actually performed by the Bench legislating from it.

    If an Amendment is needed or called for the Bench needs to have the Courage to say what is meant provoking thought as Minor v. Happersett did in then passage of the 19th Amendment.

    There is no doubt that within the constraints of National Elections that the 19th Amendment elevated women across the Country as [Voting] Citizens who now could also qualify and run for Office having the ability to Vote for themselves in Federal Offices defined in the Constitution.

    That some may have done so before hand is like saying some smoked pot before it was legal in Colorado. Big Deal! Now everyone can in Colorado.. Bigger Deal.

    The general consensus is different types of Citizenship exist and existed. Not all Citizens are [ natural born Citizens] in the same light as saying female voting rights were not always established and prior the 19th Amendment most women were citizens without that privilege.

    The [Natural Born Citizen] clause is a higher qualification then [Citizen] required for Reps and Senators.

    By diluting it without an Amendment there will be a continuation of the fight rather then a national resolve.

    That Justice Thomas laughed testifying under oath to Congress that they were avoiding it, is simply a witness they construe the duty of the Justices politically popular.

    That’s not funny.

  5. Gary Wilmott   Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 9:36 AM

    While the doctrine of coverture – the legal status of a married woman considered to be under the protection and authority of her husband – was greatly diminished in practice and by law in the mid and late 20th century the citizenship of the father was paramount. Although natural born citizenship obviously refers to being born to citizen parents PLURAL there is absolutely no way that the Founding Fathers would have envisioned nor tolerated the candidacy of anyone whose father – at a minimum – was not an American citizen (absent of course the application of the grandfather clause). Obama, Cruz, Jindal and Rubio all had fathers who were not American citizens at the time of their birth. The audacity of the aforementioned renegades to defy the Constitution and thumb their noses at the American people and campaign for POTUS is nothing short of treason and that also applies to those in the media and our government who either aided or ignored the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.

  6. Bob68   Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 9:08 AM

    In my last post I should have said, “Every elected president since George Washington, except Obama, was a natural born citizen by the original intent of the Constitution.” Of course it could also be argued that Obama was selected rather than elected as voter fraud was widespread in both of his wins and Hillary was kicked to the curb to make room for Barry.

  7. thinkwell   Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 7:05 AM

    If Ted Cruz had been born exactly the same as he was (in a foreign land to a foreign father), but just a mere few decades earlier (before the naturalization statutes were relaxed), he would not have been a citizen of the USA at all, let alone a natural born Citizen (i.e., he clearly is only a statutory born citizen at best).

    Those who supported Ted Cruz’s campaign must contend that being born anywhere in the world to just one American citizen parent is enough to make one a natural born Citizen and be eligible to become President. If these blind followers of Cruz were thinking clearly they would realize the horrible implications to our national sovereignty of such a belief.

    For example, imagine that a Chinese man naturalizes as a US citizen, then, without giving up his citizenship, returns to communist China where he starts a business selling his valuable US-citizen sperm to hundreds or thousands of communist Chinese women who wish to birth a natural born Citizen of the USA. These thousands of communist Chinese babies (who would be born overseas to just one US citizen parent) would be legally every bit as eligible to become president as native Canadian-born (and Cuban-American) Ted.

    How can anyone really believe that is what the founders had in mind? This is as bad as or worse than our perverted anchor-baby law. Obviously, their clear goal is to subvert the Constitution, destroy our sovereignty and turn us into just another globalist, elitist run state.

  8. Bob68   Friday, April 28, 2017 at 10:11 PM

    The World Book Encyclopedia, at least in 1958 before political correctness ran amuck, knew what natural born citizen meant and coincidentally, in this exact quote from the 1958 edition, it’s as if they also knew the ineligible Ted Cruz, among others, would be running for president, thankfully, he lost:

    Quote:
    The following it from page 6559, volume “P”, Copyright 1958:

    “Qualifications for the Presidency. The Constitution opens the opportunity for election to the presidency to all “natural-born citizens” of the United States, meaning citizens born in this Country. A person born of American parents in another Country, such as Canada or France, would not be eligible for election. The candidate must be at least 35 years old, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.”

    Political correctness collided with the logic of the Framers of the Constitution and the Constitution lost again. Too many of today’s kids if asked if their father was an American citizen would have to answer they don’t know who their father is. So, in today’s world if you can spell citizen it has been decided that is good enough, just run and no one can stop you, especially if you are a “person of color”. Obama provided plenty of empirical evidence of why the Framers wanted the president to be a natural born citizen and not just a “citizen” which Obama may or may not be.

    Every elected president since George Washington was either a natural born citizen by the original intent, or covered by the grandfather clause of Article II Section 1

    Age and Citizenship requirements – US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

    No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

  9. Louis Fitzsimmons   Friday, April 28, 2017 at 4:31 PM

    No state took Ted Cruz off the ballot. He received votes in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia from appearing on the ballot.
    “Questions have been raised as to whether Cruz meets the constitutional qualification that the President must be a natural born citizen as Cruz was born in Canada. Donald Trump, one of Cruz’s opponents in the Republican primary, repeatedly questioned whether Cruz met the qualifications of being a natural born citizen.

    Opinions, for the most part, concurred that Cruz is eligible to serve as President of the United States; most constitutional scholars surveyed by Politico believe that he is eligible, and “a small, but vocal group” has issued challenges that he is not. According to a memo from the Congressional Research Service, “The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that ‘natural born Citizen’ means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,’ including… those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.”

    Several lawsuits and ballot challenges asserting that Cruz is ineligible were filed. No lawsuit or challenge was successful, and in February 2016 the Illinois Board of Elections ruled in Cruz’s favor, stating, “The candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth.”–Wikipedia

  10. bob   Friday, April 28, 2017 at 2:26 PM

    GregNH– SCOTUS wrote, “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.” It was not necessary in this case because Virginia Minor was born in the United States to U.S. citizens.

  11. Stanford West   Friday, April 28, 2017 at 1:38 PM

    Women could vote before the 19th Amendment but not in every state. And in fact several women ran for President before tge 19th.

    https://www.google.com/amp/amp.history.com/news/the-state-where-women-voted-long-before-the-19th-amendment

  12. Bob   Friday, April 28, 2017 at 12:53 PM

    A citizen is a group of people that an Act of Congress has declared to be so … by ‘naturalization’. ….. A ‘natural born’ citizen is a group of people that are born in country, to citizen parents. …… A naturalized citizen has all the rights, privileges, and esteem that a ‘natural born’ citizen has — EXCEPT — for Constitutional provisions that only a ‘natural born’ citizen qualifies for (the Offices of the President and Vice President). This is know as the Exceptions clause. This is actually written into the Constitution. IF their were no such ‘exceptions’ … why did the Constitution leave it to the Congress to determine what other groups of people could become citizens … ‘except’ the ‘natural born’ citizen that needed NO Congressional legislation to declare them so? Congress did not legislate for them because they are defined in the Constitution; because they were citizens by the Laws of Nature/Natural Law … born in country, to citizen parents. Now, read all the Nationality and Immigration laws and their amendments … the qualifications for becoming a naturalized citizen has caged over time by our Congress. At one time unmarried women could not confer citizenship on their off-spring, etc. … But, a group of persons born in country, to citizen parents, has always been a ‘natural born’ citizen, and thus, has never changed. It’s specifically in the Constitution. ~~~ However, this may be a moot point, as we have not been ruled under the Constitution for generations now. We are a country not under the ‘rule of law’ .. but under the ‘rule of men’. Whoever has the power sets the ‘rules’.

  13. Rick A Hyatt   Friday, April 28, 2017 at 10:52 AM

    Oh, but what if a foreign and hostile Intelligence Agency has sought to exploit these loopholes to put one of their BRED, indoctrinated, Legended, falsely documented, and set to destroy the Presidency, Manchurian Candidates in? And that they have, in the person of Barry Soretoro. I know, because he is my half brother through different mothers, but we share the same biological father, HvA (East German CIA) Gen. Markus Wolf. Who had us adopted to hide the real parentage and non-citizenship stays on the real birth certificates. Which were hidden decades ago in the hands of then MOSSAD Agent Netanyahu, who has only recently given them to President Trump and forwarded to SCOTUS. Sotomeyer needs to recuse herself.There are more of us out there in places of political influence. I just happen to be loyal to the Flag.

  14. GregNH   Friday, April 28, 2017 at 10:43 AM

    bob said: “The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett expressly said that Virginia Minor was a natural-born citizen.”

    Can you point to that for us bob?

  15. Sharon Rondeau   Friday, April 28, 2017 at 10:36 AM

    I hadn’t heard that.

  16. marlene   Friday, April 28, 2017 at 10:29 AM

    Lyin’ Ted Cruz was taken off the presidential ballot because 3 states declared him an ineligible candidate. If the rest of the states of the Union followed our Constitution, we wouldn’t have so many globalists, both foreign and domestic, in our government – from the states themselves all the way up to the White House!

  17. bob   Friday, April 28, 2017 at 10:23 AM

    The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett expressly said that Virginia Minor was a natural-born citizen.

  18. GregNH   Friday, April 28, 2017 at 6:57 AM

    “No article I’ve read from these constitutional scholars recognizes that argument.”

    You would have to go on to say that your parents needed to be land owners, or you father needed to be, to be an NBC.

    There is no nor will there ever be a “positive” law to change the meaning of a “natural” law. There are no other qualifiers in the Constitution for Citizen other than “natural” born Citizen. To attach an additional qualification to the meaning of “natural” born Citizen would ignore the qualifier “natural” and simply define what is a Citizen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.