You wrote: “Actually there is a difference. The reason wong is important is because it repeats what was in Minor v. Happersett, decided in 1875”
What is your opinion of this quote from the Wong Kim Ark decision:
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
Welcome to FR ... interesting topic you
jumped into on your FIRST day ... LOL.
Gorefan
Since Feb 25, 2010
http://www.freerepublic.com/~gorefan/
What drew you here ?
That’s why the founders insisted on “natural born citizen” instead. They didn’t want any British loyalists holding office.
Natural born citizens are born only of parents that are citizens, not subjects.
Is Gore going to have you tonight? (lucky Algore!)
GOREFAN? He signs up today, this is his sole comment. A new hire or what? Maybe an existing guy/alternate screen name.
N00b, if your chosen handle is accurate, your time at FR is going to be stressful. Gore is a loon, a scam artist, a gross liar, a shamu, a fraud..
You are aware there is a whole bunch more in Wong Kim Ark that just clobbers the Birthers aren’t you?
parsy, proud member of the superhero Sanity Squad!
Ok.... since a lesson in remedial law is clearly needed:
What is the difference between Dictum and Holding?
From Cornell Law, http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/dictum/
Dictum:
Dictum is a statement, comment, or observation in a judicial opinion that is unnecessary to the decision in the case.
Holding:
Unlike the holding (final determination) in a case, dictum is not binding on other courts deciding similar issues. However, sometimes dictum is so widely recognized by other courts that it is adopted into an opinion as though it were binding authority on a matter, and in such a case it is referred to as “considered dictum”. Although dictum may be cited in legal argument, it does not have the binding force of a precedent (previous court decisions or interpretations) since the remark was not part of the legal basis for the decision.
What you quoted is from the DICTUM of the case. Information and details that led to the majority opinion that finalized the case.
The quote that you chose, when taken BY ITSELF, out of context within the Dictum, can and does have a different meaning. When you read it IN CONTEXT with the entire dictum, and in the final HOLDING, it has a different meaning.
The justices here are giving information from which they BASED their decision, and in quoting it as you have, you have (perhaps deliberately or not) taken it OUT OF CONTEXT.
Our Laws have much in common with British common law, they have the same foundational basis. However, it is clear the founders took some parts of British common law, and left others to the British. The Law of Nations has much in common with both of our systems of law, therefore they share many similarities, and in many other respects they are quite different. You cannot accurately say that our laws descend from British Common Law. That is NOT an accurate statement.
We are not (were not) American Subjects, we are American Citizens, and different rules apply to us in our system than did to British Subjects did under theirs.