No, and I seriously doubt they were “scrubbed”. Minor is irrelevant to the meaning of NBC, since it specifically decided NOT to explore the debate over the term.
The idea that someone gained something by justica having problems is silly. Or has it escaped the birthers that, with Minor now posted in full and glorious detail, there still is not a single state in the Union, a single member of Congress, or a single court that believes Obama’s Kenyan daddy makes him ineligible?
Just a bunch of birthers posting false claims about Minor, and living on in their fantasy world. I wish they’d put effort into defeating Obama at the ballot box...
Stop harshing the mello.
That, and as I believe someone pointed out in one of the other threads on this topic, there are numerous examples of other cases/citations that are incorrect/missing from Justia. The fact is, there is a reason that Lexis and Westlaw can charge as much as they do for legal research tools - building and maintaining accurate databases of caselaw (particularly old caselaw, before our current era of consistent, standardized citations) is difficult and labor-intensive. It is not surprising that a free service such as Justia would be flawed.
That, and as I believe someone pointed out in one of the other threads on this topic, there are numerous examples of other cases/citations that are incorrect/missing from Justia. The fact is, there is a reason that Lexis and Westlaw can charge as much as they do for legal research tools - building and maintaining accurate databases of caselaw (particularly old caselaw, before our current era of consistent, standardized citations) is difficult and labor-intensive. It is not surprising that a free service such as Justia would be flawed.
That statement demonstrates your inability to read and comprehend the Minor decision. In this regard, we can say the folks at Justia.com did better at it than you.
As I explained elsewhere to a troll a few months ago, the court declared the NBC debate was unnecessary since the definition of NBC was not in doubt.
The court looked at two features of parental citizenship. The first: “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.”
The second dealt with parental non-citizenship. “As to this (second) class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
What possible rationale can be used to argue that the founders, who had just concluded a bloody struggle with England, would allow those of non-citizen parents to hold the highest office in the nation?
Do you really want people to defeat Obama at the ballot box?
Frankly, what it looks like is bad html coding, especially since the case number, 88 U.S. 165, is in the screenshots as a hotlink. I don't suppose anyone has bothered to study all of Justia to see if there are similar mistakes in other cases or not, have they?
“I wish they’d put effort into defeating Obama at the ballot box...” - MR
Sure you do. Doesn’t everyone that wants a someone or group to do something they view as positive go around calling them names and trying to point out how misguided they are?
ummmm, never-mind
if that is the case, please explain why the founders included the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ in the Constitution instead of just ‘citizen’. why make the distinction? why was the office of the president singled out for this requirement?
and please, try to explain it without resorting to name calling. we’re no longer in junior high.
Are you brain damaged?