“(1) Being an unspecified number or quantity; (2) Being a portion or an unspecified number or quantity of a whole or group; (3) Being a considerable number or quantity; (4)Being part and perhaps all of a class; (5) An indefinite or unspecified number or portion.”
So, let's start simple. Some people voted for Obama, just like some people voted for Bush in 2004. Neither were a minority. Now for the advanced stuff. Let's suppose that 100% of the population believes that being born here with two citizen parents makes one a NBC. Let's suppose that 80% also believe simply being born here is good enough. That's some. But the relevant minority/minority numerical comparison is not 100% to 80% (which adds up to more than 100%). It's 80% to 20%, which is by no means a minority.
Math and linguistics aside, you seriously aim to restore sanity to the entire country based on a 135 year-old case that didn't in any way determine who is a NBC, but rather upheld limiting the suffrage to male voters only? I doubt very many women will rally behind that as the definitive standard bearer of anything (which it certainly isn't for NBC determination).
Finally, all else aside, you have a decision from as long ago as 2009 that is directly relevant. The Indiana Court Of Appeals blew one of these stupid suits out of the water with the following:
“The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “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...
The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth...
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Again, no credible legal authority doubts this conclusion. It is pretty self-evident. I imagine Judge Waite would probably even agree these days if we could reanimate him after one-hundred-and-twenty years in the grave. But by all means, cling to that “some” he used in an idle dissertation as the be all and end all of the universe.
“(1) Being an unspecified number or quantity; (2) Being a portion or an unspecified number or quantity of a whole or group; (3) Being a considerable number or quantity; (4)Being part and perhaps all of a class; (5) An indefinite or unspecified number or portion.”
Well, ALL things being equal I'd say ALL trumps SOME.
For instance, ALL numbers would trump SOME numbers; just as ALL authorities agree would trump SOME authorities agree.
Perhaps the word 'minority' did not convey my meaning as precisely as it should have, so please allow me to amend it:
More precise, I think, would be to say that the born in the country to citizen parents view of NBC is the MAJOR position; whereas born in the country with a foreign national father is the MINER position.
I believe The Indiana Court Of Appeals decision leaned heavily on the 'Natural Born Subject' from English common law.
This is a very interesting subject that I look forward to participating in but, unfortunately, with your permission, I will have to put this discussion off until another time, as I am tired and ready to hit the sack.
Thank you for your reply!
STE=Q