Replies

You're just making me laugh even more. I'm amazed at the whoppers you invent to avoid admitting you're wrong. Which is from the part in WKA about the 14th Amendment, which YOU say does NOT apply to kids born in the U.S. of two citizen parents.

This citation is from the part of WJA that said the 14th amendment EXCLUDED children born in the United States of citizens. I didn't ignore the first part of ANY paragraph. What I quoted IS the first part of the paragraph.

Which goes on to say they were NOT excluded as you claim ...

That doesn't go on to say they were NOT excluded. The exclusion is what the Minor decision meant when it said:

But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position.

When it says "this amendment" it's talking about the 14th amendment. "That position" means citizenship. By defining NBC, it's saying that persons born of citizen parents do not need the 14th amendment ... HENCE they are EXCLUDED. There's no way around this, squeezy. Pick up the pieces of your exploded head and admit you're wrong.

This is because if the Minor judges used common law, then you are going to lose again because of stuff like what the Lynch Judge said.

Sorry, this point fails, squeeegy. A) You have to show that Minor quoted Lynch, except that you've already admitted that Minor did NOT quote any cases. B) You still have not shown that Minor's definition of NBC — born to citizens in the country — is a product of common law. Meanwhile I have shown that it is NOT a product of common law.

Which think about it, even if Minor did say everything you have been busily misrepresenting they did say, that case was in 1874, and everybody knows a 1898 case would overrule it.

Minor was not overruled. The issue of voting rights was superceded, but the case has not been overruled. The 1898 case used the same definition of NBC that the 1874 case used. Nothing in the 1989 case said the 1874 definition was wrong. You cite WKA on the 14th amendment after it has already said NBCs were excluded. What you cited doesn't change that. You may continue your meltdown now.

Wow, you are sure nervy! YOU say that the 14th Amendment does not apply to people born inside the U.S. to two citizen parents, and then YOU want to laugh at me??? That is like a moon landing denier laughing at a astronaut.

Minor was NOT over-ruled by Wong Kim Ark, because Minor does NOT say what you try to say it does. Plus, you are still QUOTE MINING and taking stuff out of context, TYPICAL sophistry tricks. Here is what you pulled out of context,"But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position."

Which is like so DUH!!! Of course MOST people did not need the 14th Amendment to give them citizenship. Because they had this little thingy called COMMON LAW which did. Which was common sense to everybody, because it had always been the law here.

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

Pretty darn simple. I wonder what your motivation is for not getting it???