Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Georgia Girl 2
The judge in Minor vs Happerset case did not rule that. The comments regarding nBC made by the judge were In dicta and were not part of the decision.
139 posted on 03/09/2013 9:11:07 AM PST by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz is my adoptive Senator, Rand Paul for President in 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies ]


To: Perdogg
The judge in Minor vs Happerset case did not rule that. The comments regarding nBC made by the judge were In dicta and were not part of the decision.

One can presume, that even in Dicta a Supreme Court Judge would know what the f*** he is talking about. In his contemplation of the 14th amendment, Chief Justice Waite said:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.

Given that the 14th amendment says precisely "in words", who shall be a citizen...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

It is obvious that Chief Justice Waite did not accept the 14th amendment as defining a "natural born citizen."

Whether dicta or not, a Supreme court judge cannot possibly be mistaken on this point. It requires one to believe they were too stupid to notice the 14th amendment.

445 posted on 03/09/2013 1:38:21 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson