**click the pic to help Free Republic - thank you!**
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!
I’ll disagree on one issue, Spaulding. Wong Kim Ark becomes clearer and clearer with each reading too. Justice Gray respected the NBC definition from Minor and made sure to uphold that definition and create a separate definition based on different criteria in order to declare Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen. There are several places within the WKA decision where Gray distinguishes NBC from other types of citizenship.
You may also enjoy this page from the 1876 American Law Review article which showcases the Tremendous Importance attached to this groundbreaking case of Minor v. Happesett, which allegedly defined natural born citizenship:
You can pile 10,000 words on the case, but when the judges come right out and say, "For the purposes of this case it is NOT necessary to solve these doubts", that is a pretty good hint that this case is not going to be your friend.
The Statement in M-H really does get clearer with every reading. I have seen that quote taken out of context dozens of times, and always assumed it left open NBC to children of foreign citizens born here. But when I read the opinion in its full context, and understood the case, it was like a light bulb turned on. No way in hell is it allowing NBC to foreign citizens.