Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: edge919
(Break from work) Here's what the decisions ACTUALLY said: "the court to be committed to the view ... "... all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment ..." The quote butcher strikes again! Here's what it ACTUALLY said:
That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court.
Break it down: Put it together: None of the justices were committed to the view that children born in the United States were excluded from the operation of the Fourteenth amendment. This is manifest from their unanimous judgement.

The rest, later.

341 posted on 09/14/2011 10:06:45 AM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies ]


To: sometime lurker

This is on one hand fascinating and on the other hand hilarious to see your mind at work here. You accuse me of being a so-called “quote butcher,” yet here you go “breaking down” the quote into parts in order to try to justify your convoluted misinterpretation. The reality is that the court voted UNANIMOUSLY in the Minor decision to reject the 14th amendment as the source of Virginia Minor’s citizenship on the basis that she was an NBC. The same justices that listed so-called standard exceptions in a split decision two years earlier were NOT SPLIT on the Minor decision. Do you understand that?? Thus, the court was INDEED committed to the view that children born in the country of citizen parents (i.e, NBCs) were EXCLUDED from the citizen clause of the 14th amendment. That neither Miller nor the other justices from the slaughterhouse case decision understood this two years prior, it doesn’t make the commitment of the UNANIMOUS decision any less unanimous. The fact that it WAS UNANIMOUS explains why Gray said the court was committed to this view. The context supports this.


345 posted on 09/14/2011 8:26:14 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson