Thanks, BP2, good post.
Check out #112.
BP2 is flat out wrong and this continued posting of Minor creating a law when it doesn’t is bad for the “birthers” .It makes them look like they are either ignorant when it comes to reading the law or intentionally misleading the public - either way...not a good thing when you are trying to persuade someone about the seriousness of the issue.
The court in Minor did NOT resolve that issue. It said there were doubts but that is all it said. It didn’t even say that THIS COURT has doubts.
It didn’t say there was a requirement to have two parents that were citizens. It didn’t address it because it wasn’t relevent to their case at hand that was about a woman not getting to vote...and they were determining if a woman was a citizen, etc.
It said essentially....if there were two parents that were citizens....then....
If..then....
NOT
ONLY IF
Understand the difference?
“For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.”