HOLDING EQUALS PRECEDENT
The direct holding of the Supreme Court in Minor set a binding precedent. Those pretending that the Supreme Court’s direct construction and definition (in Minor) of the natural-born citizen clause is dicta are mistaken. They need to review the first two points of the syllabus, which state:
1. The word “citizen ” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.
2. In that sense, women, if 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.” (Emphasis added.)
Check the words “if born of citizen parents” again. They are stated at the very top of the syllabus and more than once in the Opinion of the Court. This is a direct holding of the case. It is clearly precedent. For it not to be precedent, the Court could not have held that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen. But since that determination was part of the holding, the grounds by which they made that determination are precedent, not dicta.
Here are the actual cases cited:
12 U.S. 253 (1814)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12/253/
A case about cargo on a ship in the War of 1812.
SHANKS v. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242 (1830)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=28&invol=242
Descendants of a U.S. born citizen ruled able to inherit, never mind which islands the British invaded.
DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393
A pre-civil war slavery case. OVERTURNED.
MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
A case where a woman wanted to vote and was denied. OVERTURNED.
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=169&invol=649
Held that virtually everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen.
ALL of the crap quoted in a post above is nothing but meaningless dicta. Passing comments by a court (including the USSC) have no bearing on the actual RULING of the court. ONLY THE RULING MATTERS.
Dicta doesn’t mean squat, legally, but it’s great fun for those who don’t know what they’re talking about to extract a meaningless sentence or two from an opinion to support their delusions.
Like I said, NO court has ever ruled that anyone born in the U.S. isn’t a U.S. citizen and NO court ever will. Doesn’t matter where the parents were born. Period.
BTW, your “direct holding of the Supreme Court in Minor set a binding precedent” quote is absolute and total garbage. Who wrote that junk? I notice that you provided no source.
The court actually held this:
“Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, 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.”
Get it? The holding says absolutely NOTHING about citizenship, doesn’t even mention it. The court meandered on about citizens at length, mostly pointing out the obvious and finally dismissing it all. Citizenship had no bearing on the holding. Didn’t mention it in its holding because it had nothing to do with the holding. It was all meaningless dicta.
Not to mention that the ruling was overturned by both the USSC and the 19th Amendment.
But, hey, don’t let out-of-date and off-point nonsense stop you from making a fool of yourself.