[Seizethecarp]

From the comments to Leo:

jimmy Says: June 24, 2011 at 6:30 PM

I’m trying to link this to my FB page, but FB keeps removing it. Am I allowed to link this ?

ed. It looks like we may have really struck a chord now… I am receiving multiple messages that Facebook is banning links here. This is huge if true. – Leo

[Seizethecarp]

ping...

[Mr Rogers]

Only an idiot would believe a case involving a woman’s right to vote under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is a binding statement of the meaning of NBC - particularly since the time it is mentioned, the court says there is doubt about the meaning:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

Note - there are doubts about the meaning of NBC, and the court doesn’t try to resolve those doubt.

WKA did.

Minor:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

WKA:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

[bunkerhill7]

cf Massachusetts legislature in:

http://books.google.com/books?id=_lArAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA172&dq=vermont++gazette&hl=en#v=onepage&q=citizen&f=false

[p.89, History of Vermont: natural, civil, and statistical, in three ..., Parts 1-3 By Zadock Thompson]

re: ``.. who was not a natural born citizen...``

[BuckeyeTexan]

SFL

[phockthis]

sfl

[rxsid]

Leo continues to show the distinction, even though it appears difficult for some to accept:

rialcniseloc Says:
June 27, 2011 at 6:56 AM

If I read this right, it appears that the argument that the Minor statement is dicta not precedent, would be based on the fact that this case was about womens right to vote not the issue of citizenship and a defintion of dicta is defined as opinions not necessarily related to the ruling of the actual case and in this case it was about voting, not whether she was a citizen.

Does the dicta argument have any leg to stand on? Seems like a loophole.

ed. Read my article again… the dicta contention has no leg to stand on. Before the Court could get to voting rights, they had to establish that she was a US citizen. In doing so (which the first two points of the syllabus does focus on), they made precedent. The case is famously known for holding that she (and all women) are equal citizens to men. – Leo"

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/#comment-18549