Replies

Of course there was. There were a lot of people who denied that black people born in the United States were citizens by birth (or at all).

It wasn't just black people who were denied birth citizenship; Wong Kim Ark wasn't black.

Heck the US Supreme Court had even commented that black people weren't citizens and couldn't BECOME citizens! All because of their RACE.

All this proves is that what you want to believe wasn't true before the 14th amendment. Remember, your Rawle quote said "EVERY PERSON born within the United States ..." Obviously that wasn't true and you've just admitted it.

As for Minor v. Happersett, that's been covered to the point of nausea. The case simply doesn't give any definition of natural born citizen.

Actually it does: all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens.

Even if it did, it wouldn't have been a precedent, because it wasn't on point for that case.

The Supreme Court disagreed. It cited Minor specifically in as precedent on presidential eligibility in Luria v. United States.

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165;

Speaking of which, the entire decision in Minor v. Happersett was completely overturned anyway by the NINETEENTH Amendment.

Nonsense. It certainly remedied women's inability to vote but it didn't affect the rest of the decision. Minor has been cited by the Court after the passage of the 19th amendment, even on the right of suffrage, such as in Rodruguez v. Popular Democratic Party in 1982:

However, this Court has often noted that the Constitution "does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one," Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 178 (1875)

Look, I know I can't convince you of anything. You're a birther.

Of course, now we get the typical "birther" copout. If this is so problematic for you, then why respond at all?

But I am telling you, and telling you true: You could hardly argue a more wrongheaded position if you were out there trying to convince people the earth is flat and not round.

Focus, dude. Nobody is making that argument nor anything close to it. Plus you completely dodged my earlier questions, which are of course, fatal to your arguments. If what you believed about Rawle is true, why does the Minor court unanimously rely on a citizenship definition that is based upon birth to citizen parents?? Why do they not simply accept Virginia Minor's argument of being a 14th amendment citizen at birth?? What would be the need for talking about being born to parents who were citizens??

It wasn't just black people who were denied birth citizenship; Wong Kim Ark wasn't black.

You're correct about that. But I think one thing you fail to note is that the treatment of Chinese people was inconsistent, and it was based on their race. Wong had previously been admitted to the United States by customs as a native-born American citizen, before they subsequently changed their policy and denied him entry.

Gee, did you ever notice how birthers, when they quote law, rely on some of the absolute worst Supreme Court decisions in history... those that were SUBSEQUENTLY COMPLETELY OVERTURNED BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT?

Let's see... at the moment you're relying on the infamous Dred Scott case, where Mr. Scott was declared by the Supreme Court to be nothing more than a piece of property, to be disposed of by his master however he willed. And that said that black people could NEVER become US citizens, simply because they were black.

Yeah, that's a great decision to based yours arguments on. Let's see. That was completely overturned by the 14th Amendment, wasn't it?

Oh yeah, and then there's... Minor v. Happersett. Women may be citizens, but that doesn't give 'em any right to vote. Yeah, women have no right to participate in the elective process, simply because they're women and not men.

What was that completely overturned by? Oh, yeah. The 19th Amendment.

Actually it does: all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens.

No, that's not a DEFINITION. It's a STATEMENT that if you were born in the United States of citizen parents, then you were UNDOUBTEDLY a citizen.

The Supreme Court disagreed. It cited Minor specifically in as precedent on presidential eligibility in Luria v. United States.

Yes, but as your quote shows, they cited it ONLY TO SAY THAT NATURALIZED CITIZENS CAN'T BE PRESIDENT.

The Supreme Court has NEVER cited Minor v. Happersett to give a "definition" of "natural born citizen," because it doesn't give any such DEFINITION.

In fact, the Supreme Court DID cite Minor v. Happersett on citizenship. A couple of times.

But the purpose of THOSE citations was to say:

1) that the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" "must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.", and

2) that the earlier Supreme Court was NOT committed to the view that children born here of alien parents weren't citizens.

So if you want to cite Minor v. Happersett, cite it for what the US Supreme Court actually DID cite the case for.

Of course, now we get the typical "birther" copout. If this is so problematic for you, then why respond at all?

Because I'm not going to just stand by and let birthers fill up FreeRepublic with Constitutional bullshit.

If what you believed about Rawle is true, why does the Minor court unanimously rely on a citizenship definition that is based upon birth to citizen parents??

I've already gone over this. The question is fallacious. We could go over it again, but it's a waste of time since you're completely married to the idea and there are no facts that could possibly change your mind. You're stuck on stupid.

Why do they not simply accept Virginia Minor's argument of being a 14th amendment citizen at birth?? What would be the need for talking about being born to parents who were citizens??

All they said was that Virginia Minor was absolutely, without the slightest doubt a citizen of the United States. In essence they said, "Maybe she would even be a native citizen of the United States if had been born here of alien parents. But she wasn't, so we don't even need to talk about that. We know beyond any possible doubt that Virginia Minor is a citizen."