Wrong. I already brought up the quote earlier and gave you a challenge based on the content of that quote - a challenge you have still failed to address. That's not how you back yourself up ... unless you meant that you back yourself up into a corner. I can't argue against that. Plus, when something is INDISPUTABLE, maybe the Minor judges did not think it necessary to quote a case:
You're not helping yourself. All this does is admit that the quote didn't back you up at all.
It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States.
This is a conditional statement and the Supreme Court has never agreed with this nor have they cited this. When referencing Lynch, Gray said it elaborately argued for citizenship of a person born in the "dominion" of foreign parents and that it was one of the cases that went "farthest" in declaring specific statutes to be declaratory of common law. Gray certainly didn't cite this statement NOR did he ever suggested that the Lynch decision was a basis for natural-born citizenship.
Because I noticed, in this case that you think is the answer to everything, the Minor judges did not quote any cases on anything
Thank you. That's the point of the challenge I gave you. Gray said that Minor resorted to common law to define the citizen provision of the 14th amendment, but as you have observed, the Minor judges did NOT quote any cases and did NOT quote any common law. They did give a definition of NBC that was a verbatim match from the Law of Nations and that same definition was quoted in WKA. Do you understand that??? Gray quoted Minor on NBC; he did NOT quote Lynch on NBC. Which case is the actual legal precedent on NBC??? (This isn't a hard answer to come up with. Hint: It's not the one that starts with L.)
First, The LYNCH judges DID apply common law and you are misrepresenting what was said. You are leaving off the context again, that the LYNCH judge asked "do we apply common law, or is there some national public law that applies." He went through both IN DETAIL, and picked common law. Which point you are trying to hide and misrepresent to the people here. No surprise.
On Minor Happersett, here is how you practice Edge919 Pretend law:
1. Ignore the 1898 case that has all those troubling quotes and stuff in it.
2. Instead, take a 1874 women's voting rights case and try to turn it into a citizenship case (Minor)
3. Even when citizenship is NOT disputed in the case.
4. Then, pretend when the Minor judges say they are NOT going to resolve any doubts about kids of foreigners being NBC.
5. That it means they decided kid of foreigners are NOT NBC.
6.Then, when the Minor judges talk about "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,"
7.Pretend they are NOT talking about "common law" because they didn't quote any cases.
8.Then pretend the Minor judges ARE talking about Vattel and natural law.
9. Even though they DO NOT quote Vattel or even mention "natural law."
10. All so that you can distract people away from the 1898 case with the troubling law in it.
Which to sum it up, is how you get the "Edge919 Way To Practice Pretend Law On The Internet" , namely,:
Ignore what the judges SAY in the case, and make up stuff based on what the judges DIDN'T SAY, and you can make a case say whatever you want it to!!!
Now, aren't you ASHAMED of yourself???