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.
Not at all.
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.
This is an interesting delusion. In order to "snip" something, I would have to quote it first. I responded to your post, but I didn't quote it in that post, so there was nothing to snip. You don't seem to understand how this works. Whatever you seem to think was "snipped" was never quoted.
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.
And I responded to this, which you've punted in favor of a phantom "snip" complaint.
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.
This is a nonsense assumption. There's nothing in the majority opinion that says this. For your point to make sense, then ALL of the elements in this quote must appear in the majority opinion. They don't.
“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.”
A) The majority says nothing about geographical tracts, much less all citizens being born within it as being natural-born citizens.
B) The majority mentions Mongolian, it doesn't mention Malay.
C) The majority nowhere mentions anything about presidential eligibility except in citing the phrase natural-born citizen and the language around it from Art II Sect I. It posits NOTHING about who may or may not be eligible.
D) The majority doesn't use the term "royal parentage."
As for where this issue came from, I've already explained. It was posited in the government's appeal.
Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patiots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?