More like the 14th Amendment.
... just trying to be nice and offer you an Exit Door, Non-Seq.
No need to. I'm just sitting back and watching you foam at the mouth. Most amusing.
You better watch yourself! He found “Blackstone” and is going to give us all heck over it. I would try to teach him things more often, but whenever I take the time to prepare some sort of legal explanation for him, he just responds by posting pictures of monkeys. It gets tiring.
Four paragraph legal explanation-—monkey picture
Twelve paragraph detailed language from case -—monkey picture
etc.
parsy, who is hooting and shaking branches
| > Justice Gray turned to Blackstone to ascertain the meaning > of “Natural Born Subject,” did he not? >> More like the 14th Amendment. Okay, back to Wong Kim Ark v US:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167. In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said: There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. So now you’re saying the 14th Amendment was ratified when the Constitution was ratified in 1789? You’re making no sense now, Non-Seq. |