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??
I think what we need to also point out is that Obamas father had sovereignty over his child. We all need to recognize that his custody required legal consent from a foreign citizen in a foreign country.
When he returned from Indonesia, we believe his Father was required to be present to consent to his new custodial arrangements in the USA.
I do wonder if Obama Sr. testified in US courts, and if such testimony he declared his sons Kenyan citizenship.
I wonder if this could be obtained by an FOIA request.
edge919 wrote: “Snip???? What the hell are you talking about? What do you imagine was snipped??”
The texts which showed the vast difference, obviously. I know you don’t like that your own citations refute you, but understand, snipping the text just means it won’t appear in your comment. It’s still there in Ex parte Lockwood,
“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; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizens of the United States was no violation of the federal constitution.” Ex parte Lockwood , 154 U.S. 116 (1894)
MMaschin emphasized that in Ex parte Lockwood the Court was stating the *holding* in Minor. I looked up Ex parte Lockwood, and quoted the entire paragraph on Minor to show that the meaning of “natural born” was *not* in what the Court stated as the holding.
edge919 wrote: “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.”
So just quote where Fuller says so. I quoted Fuller introducing his dissent with, “I cannot concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case”. That means this court, the Supreme Court, not the lower court.