When you’ve been citing cases, have you been citing the actual decision, or the dicta of the case?
“There are multiple subtypes of dicta, although due to their overlapping nature, legal practitioners in the U.S. colloquially use dicta to refer to any statement by a court that extends beyond the issue before the court. Dicta in this sense are not binding under the principle of stare decisis, but tend to have a strong persuasive effect, either by being in an authoritative decision, stated by an authoritative judge, or both. These subtypes include:
* dictum proprium: A personal or individual dictum that is given by the judge who delivers an opinion but that is not necessarily concurred in by the whole court and is not essential to the disposition.
* gratis dictum: an assertion that a person makes without being obligated to do so, or also a court’s discussion of points or questions not raised by the record or its suggestion of rules not applicable in the case at bar.
* judicial dictum: an opinion by a court on a question that is directly involved, briefed, and argued by counsel, and even passed on by the court, but that is not essential to the decision.
* obiter dictum in Latin means “something said in passing” and is a comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but it is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential (although it may be considered persuasive).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictum
The Lynch case involved judicial dictum: an opinion by a court on a question that is directly involved, briefed, and argued by counsel, and even passed on by the court, but that is not essential to the decision. The essential for the decision was citizen, but the court arrived at that decision by recognizing she met the qualifications of a NBC. And that issue - NBC - was argued by counsel before the court, and a critical part of the final decision.
The only court cases directly involving a Presidential candidate’s eligibility have been Obama’s. Only one was heard on the merits, and they determined Obama was eligible. The Supreme Court has refused to hear any of the birther cases submitted to them.
In the dicta, which BOTH of us have cited, numerous cases have dealt with the issue of who is a NBC. In Lynch’s case, the interpretation of who is a NBC was the deciding factor in declaring her a citizen. And the US Supreme Court followed the example of the Lynch dicta in arguing that WKA met the qualifications for a NBC and thus was a citizen.
The dictum in these cases has proven so influential that both democrat and republican opponents of Obama refused to raise the issue in court during the election. It was so influential that no state denied him a place on the ballot, and no Congressman of either party objected to his taking office. To date, no state has passed any objection to someone with non-citizen parents running for President. And none will. The dicta you wish to read selectively has established itself so securely that the US Supreme Court, offered a serious chance to issue a formal ruling in Dec 2008, refused to take the case.
In Lynch, the judge showed that the meaning of NBS carried over universally to NBC. He showed the states that ratified the Constitution had already endorsed the idea that NBS = NBC. His reasoning was so powerful that it has been followed by the courts for 160+ years.
Against his arguments, you claim that the word “indigenes” in Vattel inspired the Founders to write “natural born citizen”, because they didn’t know how to write “indigenous”. THAT claim is so breath-taking stupid that no one has ever argued it in court.
NBC was NOT a phrase invented for the first time in the US Constitution. It was already being used by the states as a substitute in their laws for NBS. So did the delegates from the states continue in national law what they had already done in state law, or did they see the word “indigenes” and think, “Wow! That means NBC...even though it is also an English word, and still in common use as the descriptive indigenous.
And every court that looks at it will always conclude the Judge in Lynch was right, and you are wrong. Why? Because Lynch made sense, and you do not.
Check my profile.
I'm on record for a LONG time stating that the SCOTUS cases I cite, mention born in soverign territory to citizen parentS in the dicta.
You, on the other hand, tried to pass off the dicta of a state court case as having found someone born in N.Y. to foreign parents as being NBC...
"Lynch was found to be a natural born citizen.
...
1,251 posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:31:35 PM by Mr Rogers"
When in fact, they did no such thing. The ruling of the court was that she was a "citizen."
You blatently lied.
You don't do yourself a favor regurgitating the crap from OBOT sites like Dr. Conspiracy's