If it was so clearly the law, why any dissent at all? The fact that there was dissent implies that this view of the law is not so cut and dried as we have been led to believe.
I have pondered the consequences of what would have happened had the case gone the other way. A decision rendering all of the Scots deprived of land ownership in England would have appeared to them as a "second class citizen" status, and they would not have stood for it.
Relations between Scotland and England had long been tense, and this would have just stirred massive unrest in Scotland. I think it could have blown apart the tenuous Union of the Crowns.
I think nobody understood this better than James IV. He *HAD* to make that decision come out as it did, and in those days, the King could bring enormous pressure to bear on anyone who would gainsay him what he wanted.
Did these Judges decide this issue based on what was actually the law, or did they decide it based on political necessity?
With the very obvious need to the King to have Scotsmen seen as equals in England, it is incredible that two Judges saw fit to disagree.
Did these Judges decide this issue based on what was actually the law, or did they decide it based on political necessity?
Assigning reasons or motives does not change the opinion.
With the very obvious need to the King to have Scotsmen seen as equals in England, it is incredible that two Judges saw fit to disagree.
Two justices saw fit to dissent in Roe v. Wade. That makes zero difference to the state of the law. The majority speaks for the Court, and any dissenting justice speaks only for himself.
None of this makes any difference to citizenship determinations in the United States.