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

To: edge919
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???

558 posted on 10/19/2011 3:26:07 PM PDT by Squeeky ("Truth is so rare that it is delightful to tell it. " Emily Dickinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies ]


To: Squeeky

ezsqueegy, you can’t complain about so-called “quote mining” when that’s the only thing you have to support your error. The U.S. v Rhodes quote is from a District Court ruling that was summarizing Shanks v. Dupont, which was based on whether persons were loyal to the crown or to the states. This decision doesn’t help you in the slightest. It acknowledges that you can be born on U.S. soil and NOT be a U.S. citizen. If this was such compelling legal precedence, a) why did Gray not use it to declare WKA to be a natural-born citizen and b) why did he continue writing a decision for 42 more pages and c) why did he settle INSTEAD on the Minor definition of NBC 17 pages later in the decision?? That three strikes. You’re out. It’s time to cut your losses and finally admit you’re wrong and that I’m right, as I have proven: all children born in the country to citizen parents. These are the natives or natural born citizens ... In WKA, Justice Gray admitted that the 14th amendment EXCLUDES NBCs, and he affirmed that Virginia Minor was a citizen by virtue of the NBC definition that he cited DIRECTLY from Minor. Those are the words and that IS the context. Read it. Learn it. Understand it. Accept it.


564 posted on 10/19/2011 8:24:50 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | 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