I have been debunking Leo Donofrio like crazy lately. Minor v. Happersett is NOT precedent for defining natural born citizenship, and because of that, there was no reason to “scrub” the case. If you look at the cases that cite or quote MvH none of them are doing it to define nbc.
This latest case that Donofrio has found was a 1894 case, that was about privileges and immunities stuff in the 14th Amendment. NOT natural born citizenship. All this Justiagate stuff is just a wild goose chase to draw attention away from what the MvH case said about NOT resolving the doubts about kids of foreigners born here.
Just because a case is quoted by another court does not mean much outside of the point on which it was quoted. If it did, slavery would still be legal because of cases which quoted the Dred Scott one. Not to mention the fact that Justia is just ONE of several online law thingies and there are law BOOKS too.
To the contrary, you pretty clearly display a woeful disregard for the entire legal language with such a pedantic commentary.
Good to hear that you have been “debunking Donofrio” Squeeky. Were anyone to take you seriously they might actually read Minor v. Happersett, which is a fine example of clarity, and become confident of the truth themselves. But beware, as Donofrio warned, that Minor becomes clearer and clearer with each reading. That is where a good professor can accellerate the understanding of a case, or a theorem, or a schema. Perhaps you will help others to confirm the truth, in spite of your apparent attempt at misdirection? With practice you might think applying to be a consultant to Anita Dunn's organization. We have had a number at Free Republic, who were paid to disrupt - or so they said.
Minor is a remarkable document, not murky like Wong Kim Ark, which may inspire the reader to read cases by other justices. In Wong Kim one wonders why he went here and there. It seems very likely that Horace Gray knew how close his reasoning was treading to his appoint-er Chester Arthur's ineligibility. Minor left no opening, explaining that the definition he affirmed, like every definition in the Constitution, came from our common-law at the time of the framers. He put the term “citizen” in front of its class, “natives” or “natural-born citizens” because a citizen before the 14th Amendmendment was what he needed. He explained that there are only two classes of citizens, natural born, and naturalized, because no naturalized citizen was defined before the 14th Amendment. Without Elizabeth Minor having been a natural born citizen, he had no citizen about whose rights, sufferage nor anything else, the Consitution had jurisdiction. The definitions of citizens before the 14th varied from state-to-state, were not "Uniform" - "about which there was doubt" - and thus could not be addressed by the Supreme Court.
I will admit that there is one comment in Minor, dictum, which is puzzling, but which Squeeky is not likely to be able to clarify, so I'll save it for rxsid’s research forum. For anyone interested in a textbook case of how precedence is established, read Minor. Of course, now that we know that Justia is not trustworthy, and Cornell is corrupted, it isn't clear, unless you have recourse to a law library, where to find a copy with all its citations intact. Minor itself may not have been edited. Google would always point first to justia.com, and probably still does. Yale did have some on-line archives, but beware that Tim Stanley, Carl Malamud, and their fellow travelers at a number of law schools apparently believe the the end justifies the means, and they feel justified when they rewrite our law - because!
There were doubts about the citizenship of kids of foreigners because they don't meet the definition of natural-born citizens. The class of citizens that are natural-born have no doubts to resolve.