“(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
Now. Probably 99% agree that born here with two citizen parents by whatever means is a NBC. So 99% is a subset of a larger lowest common denominator set, but it's still a position with huge support. Now say we drop to 70% for those who agree that being born here alone is enough. That's still a major or mainstream position even though its a subset. At some point of course, that's not true. If you go to considering a naturalized citizen as NBC, I would guess you're down into the 1-10% support range, clearly a minority position.
Basically there's a whole spectrum of subsets, or cut sets if you want to look at them a different way. Multiple subsets can all be considered major or mainstream positions.
I do think the Indiana court relies heavily on English Common Law. I think any court will.