[edge919]

The statement about Minor is describing her situation. It is not a holding that the only definition of an NBC is jus soli and Jus sanguinis.

Read the statement again. It includes BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria. Why did Gray included jus sanguinis when, as YOU adamantly pointed out, it was NEVER described as her situation in the actual Minor decision?? What's his reasoning?? Think, chick, think.

[devattel]

My apologies for being on such a long sabbatical.

I believe I may be able to assist in the question on legitimacy with regards to Natural Born Citizenship and case law.

It is clear within the ruling within Minor vs. Happerset that the phrase "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." was stated.

There are four observations which cannot be ignored within this context:

• The Supreme Court recognized "some authorities" to include other classes of citizens to be Natural Born Ones
• The Supreme Court understood these authorities to be outside of the realm of SCOTUS
• The Supreme Court cited de Vattel's Law of Nations when defining the Natural Born Citizenship definition
• The Supreme Court stated these "corner case" definitions not fitting this decision in past tense, meaning they were discussing prior definitions

Even if the Supreme Court had "doubts" about their decision after deliberation, the fact still remains:

SCOTUS has defined what constitutes a Natural Born Citizen. Any other court will have to prove this definition to be wrong, or incomplete. Obama and his attorneys will have to prove to the courts their client meets this definition. The burden is now on the defendants to prove Obama is a Natural Born Citizen as we know based on this case that he does not fit the SCOTUS definition.

[RummyChick]

The excerpt is stating what the facts were for Minor. Even if the holding was that Minor was an NBC - WHICH WAS NOT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT-therefore NOT THE HOLDING- it is not precedent because her parents were not aliens.

Good Lord, if you would actually bother to read everything to do with Ark you would start to understand that Chester Arthur’s situation might have been looming in the background.

They contorted positions to find Ark a citizen because if Ark was not a citizen -neither was Chester Arthur.

Also, there is a long discussion in the lower court case about DICTA. You should read it. You might start to get a clue about DICTA.

Now as for the lower court and the brief. Read Fuller’s dissent.

The appellant said the ruling was that Ark was a natural born citizen. DID YOU MISS THAT?

It also said this:

“Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patiots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth? “

Why bring this up in an APPELLENT BRIEF????

Read Fuller’s dissent with that understanding. He is saying the case is allowing Ark to run for President and he disagrees with the ruling.