edge919 wrote: “There’s no vast difference.”
Well, not in your comment after you snip them both.
edge919 wrote: “Fuller was quoting from the syllabus in Minor.”
MMaschin noted that Fuller was stating the holding in Minor, and on that he was correct. Clearly he used the syllabus, which states the holding. That’s not in question. Where you get debunked is that neither the syllabus nor what MMaschin cited where the Court described the holding includes the dicta about “natural born”.
edge919 wrote: “Fuller is also the guy who dissented in Wong Kim Ark”.
Where Fuller wrote that he “cannot concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case”, arguing in part:
“I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural-born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
Why is that reason to dissent? According to your theory, edge919, the majority opinion implies nothing about the eligibility issue, yet Fuller argues against the majority on those grounds. Is it perhaps possible that the Chief Justice understood the implications better than you do?
edge919 wrote: “[Fuller] cited Vattel in defining natural-born citizen.”
True. Fuller wrote:
“Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
In that same Dissent he also wrote:
“In my judgment, the children of our citizens born abroad were always natural-born citizens from the standpoint of this Government.”
Fuller’s own judgement *disagrees* with what he cited to Vattel. Fuller’s dissent and the Court’s majority opinion both disagreed with Vattel, though in different directions. What’s more instructive is that the opinions are not written at the third-grade level. Citation, even quotation, does not imply agreement.
Interpreting precedents and tracking which control is a challenging task. I’ve seen no one posting here who is really competent at it, including myself. Fortunately our legislature has the worlds best library with an excellent research staff. Jack Maskell actually has the expertise that so many birthers pretend.
Snip???? What the hell are you talking about? What do you imagine was snipped??
MMaschin noted that Fuller was stating the holding in Minor, and on that he was correct. Clearly he used the syllabus, which states the holding. That’s not in question.
You Obots need to get your stories straight. I've been told by at least one that the syllabus ISN'T the holding. In your confusion about what it is, you're evading the inconvenient fact. Virginia Minor's (and women as a class) were held to be citizens by virtue of citizen parents in rejection of the 14th amendment citizen clause. It acknowledges a class of citizenship that is separate and unique from the 14th amendment. Compounded with the statement in Wong Kim Ark that the 14th amendment doesn't define natural-born citizens, while quoting Minor's definition of NBC, forms a trifecta that negates Obama from being eligible.
Where you get debunked is that neither the syllabus nor what MMaschin cited where the Court described the holding includes the dicta about “natural born”.
It doesn't have to. A) It disproves the Obot claims that citizenship is NOT part of the holding. B) This part of the holding comes from the part of the decision that exclusively characterizes people fitting this criteria as natural-born citizens. C) The holding, criteria and verbiage are ALL confirmed in the Wong Kim Ark decision. D) The same logic defeats the Obot presumption that Wong Kim Ark defined NBC according to common-law and/or the 14th amendment - the term NBC is NOT in the syllabus. For your argument to have much weight, then you have to admit that your other belief is wrong. It's wrong anyway based specifically on the dicta in WKA, but this new line of argument, like most other Obot arguments is flawed.
Where Fuller wrote that he “cannot concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case”, arguing in part:
Why is that reason to dissent?
Fuller is responding to part of the appeal from the lower court, which was based on a citation where the child of a Chinese citizen was characterized as a "natural-born citizen." The majority opinion does not does not repeat nor create this characterization. I've challenged Obots to find any passage that does, which they've failed to find. They can't because it's not there. Resorting to a misunderstood citation from the dissent does NOT create the missing passage.
In that same Dissent he also wrote:
“In my judgment, the children of our citizens born abroad were always natural-born citizens from the standpoint of this Government.”
Fuller’s own judgement *disagrees* with what he cited to Vattel. Fuller’s dissent and the Court’s majority opinion both disagreed with Vattel, though in different directions.
No actually, they don't. You're not reading very closely. Fuller's point about persons born abroad is based on "the standpoint of this Government", not on disagreement with Vattel. This jibes with the Minor decision, which cited the Naturalization Act of 1790 that said persons born abroad of citizen parents are considered as NBCs. That characterization IS from the "standpoint of this Government." And technically, Vattel says citizenship follows the condition of the father regardless of the place of birth. In that sense, the NA of 1790 follows Vattel. That doesn't make the children born in the country of aliens into natural-born citizens and it doesn't negate that the Minor definition of NBC matches Vattel's. Nothing in the majority opinion in WKA negates Minor's definition of NBC that matches Vattel's.
What’s more instructive is that the opinions are not written at the third-grade level.
This explains why you have such a hard time understanding what it says.
Citation, even quotation, does not imply agreement.
Except when both the citation and quotation agree. Fuller's quotation of Vattel matches the citation of the holding in Minor. This is an inescapable fact and point of law. Gray respected that definition and resorted to a different term for 14th amendment citizenship.
Interpreting precedents and tracking which control is a challenging task.
That's okay. I'm here to help. We'll take as much time as you need to understand it and get it right.
Jack Maskell actually has the expertise that so many birthers pretend.
It's too bad he doesn't show it in the CRS memo. I pointed out several errors earlier in this thread of things he simply fabricated. Why do you think he lied??