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?
edge919 wrote: “And I responded to this, which you’ve punted in favor of a phantom “snip” complaint.”
The text refutes you, so you left it out, which in net-talk is called “snipping”. Nothing hard to understand.
edge919 wrote: “This is a nonsense assumption. There’s nothing in the majority opinion that says this.”
So that would be no, you can’t quote Fuller saying he was responding to the lower court. Perhaps the Chief Justice understood the implications of the majority opinion better than you do.
But what difference does that make? The District Court issued a writ of habeas corpus based on WKA's being a citizen. Since neither of his parents were citizens, the only thing that would make him a citizen was that he was born in the United States. If the government's appeal expressed concern that WKA was eligible for the presidency, that means they recognized that that was the implication of the District Court's decision. So it doesn't matter whether Fuller was addressing that decision or the Supreme Court's decision. Either way, he saw that upholding the District Court's decision meant WKA was eligible.