Replies

Excuse me, I am so sorry, I mixed up case names... there are SO MANY running through my head right now.

In Re lockwood shows that Minor was a HOLDING (It created Law). From Donofrio's analysis:

"A crucial US Supreme Court decision which has miraculously been absent from the national dialogue on Presidential eligibility is Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894), an essential case which confirms Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship:

"“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since;”"

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/justia-com-surgically-removed-minor-v-happersett-from-25-supreme-court-opinions-in-run-up-to-08-election/

It is the Luria case I was thinking of, my apologies El Sordo. Here is the relevant text from Luria:

"“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.”"

Note the italic text, the 165 is a page number, and used like this is totally legit as a citation. However, if someone were going to search for Minor using the case number, the search would be for the official citation which is 88 US 162, the 162 being the page the case starts on. Notice that the other official citation "21 Wall.162" was removed in it's entirety, as that would have been easily searchable.

Here is what Justia changed it to:

"“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827.”"

Now when you couple these two citations, the first confirming that Monor created law specific to citizenship, and the second in relation to the Presidency... yeah. Now tell me how that gets explained by a " .* " tag? No flippin way.

Like I said, we simply disagree.

I read that part of Minor as: Children born in a country of parents who were its citizens are natural born citizens.

Other read it as: Natural born citizens are children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.

From where I sit it's a difference of: These belong in this class vs. This class consists of these.

As for the accusations of “scrubbing”, I see no reason to think someone would have thought this would be useful when there are numerous other on-line legal libraries as well as hard copies in public libraries around the nation. To suspect foul play because of an error on the Internet strains the bounds of credulity for me.