A couple of rules to follow, when citing legal precedents.
1. Don't try to make a case say something that it clearly does not.
2. If you are dishonest enough to violate Rule # 1, don't be so dull witted as to include in your excerpt a line, For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts, that explicitly contradicts the point you are trying to make.
So, Minor holds that a person born in a country, to two parents who are citizens of that country, is a natural born citizen. Was that ever, I mean ever, in doubt? Minor also raises the issue of whether a person born in a country, to two parents who are not both citizens of that country, is a natural born citizen, and concedes that there is a division of authority on that point, but holds For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
So, far from resolving thus issue, Minor merely states that it is an issue. Something we all already knew.
IANAL (which means I am not a lawyer) but I don’t think this law case says what the Vattle Birthers think it does. Because:
1: It sure doesn’t say that NBCs(which means Natural Born Citizens) are ONLY the people born to two citizens;
2: It says that at COMMON LAW, some courts hold that even children of foreigners born inside a country are natural born citizens;
3: It says that question, however, is not even applicable to this case so there is no need to even talk about kids born to two foreigners.
Sooo, how does a case that says all that get to be a precedent case on Obama??? I don’t even see where this court says it is definitely still a issue.
Which looks to me like the Arkansas case is right that was in the Internet Article that NBC (which means Natural Born Citizen) had to be defined by a court.
1. Don't try to make a case say something that it clearly does not.
2. If you are dishonest enough to violate Rule # 1, don't be so dull witted as to include in your excerpt a line, For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts, that explicitly contradicts the point you are trying to make.
...Minor also raises the issue of whether a person born in a country, to two parents who are not both citizens of that country, is a natural born citizen, and concedes that there is a division of authority on that point, but holds For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Well dull witted Bot join the club. It was that "some authorities" who claimed that people were citizens (born within jurisdiction ) and who were not born to citizen parents - was the open question.
As Donofrio states here again:
"The Minor case has been severely misconstrued in the Arkeny opinion issued by the Indiana Court of Appeals. That court quoted Minor’s natural-born citizen language, then stated:
“Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”
False. The Minor Court did not leave that question open. Nowhere in the Minor opinion does it state that the class of persons who are natural-born citizens is an open question. The Arkeny Court has it backwards.
The Supreme Court in Minor stated that the “citizenship” of persons who were not natural born citizens was an open question."
Again, it was the "citizenship" was the open question. That is if they were even citizens of the country let alone natural born citizens.
The Ankeny court was just as 'dull witted' and stupid and/or 'dishonest' as all the stupid OBots who drank their grape Kool-aid.
ping for later. maybe.
"Minor also raises the issue of whether a person born in a country, to two parents who are not both citizens of that country, is a natural born citizen"
Since birthers such as Donofrio don't buy the argument that "citizen" and "nbc" are interchangeable terminology, I think the response, noting that MvH doesn't actually say "nbc" at this point, would be to simply accuse you of not being able to read plain English. There's no contradiction because MvH is here addressing the other category of citizenship.
That's nonsense, of course, but I think a lot of birthers aren't going to take your point.