[To the Vattle Birther]:You still don’t get it. The SCOTUS in Minor did not seek to formulate a definition of citizenship, whether NBC or otherwise; it did not “find” or “hold” an NBC has 2 citizen parents; nor did its ruling depend on such definition. (Remember, we had citizens BEFORE the 14th Amendment, even without any Constitutional definition as to what “citizen” means.) Rather, the Minor court merely sought to ascertain from empirical evidence, in the absence of any Constitutional definition, whether people in Ms. Minor’s circumstances historically were considered to be citizens. Because if she was considered a citizen (of whatever kind) before the 14th Amendment then, the word citizen in that amendment applied to her and, as a result, she is entitled to the “privileges and immunities” of her fellow citizens.
Know what’s funny? No 14th Amendment jurisprudence in the past 100+ years, coming from recognized expert legal theorists; has adopted [L's] viewpoint as to what that citizenship clause means, or what Minor means. I am not saying, [L] must be wrong because he is the only one reaching this conclusion. However, having done a couple of searches to see who is promoting what I am describing as this baseless interpretation throughout the blogosphere; it appears to me, they are zealously clinging to this tripe because such beliefs have spawned a cottage industry that depends on accepting the false premise, the court has ruled, without 2 citizen parents, one cannot be said to be natural born. And that, therefore, Obama cannot be said to be natural born. And this false theory appeals to those people who hate Obama so much they have lost all reason to discern fact from fiction, and patriots from charlatans, however well intentioned they may be.
Which is pretty obvious to me from the case. BUT answer my questions. How do YOU find things in the case, that the judges themselves don't say is there.
Plus, the syllabus does not use the term natural born citizen, so under the Edge919 rules of how to read law stuff, this means maybe she is now a 4th kind of imaginary citizen. Right??? Because the syllabus just says citizens. (These are YOUR rules on how to read stuff, not mine.)
Sooo, answer the questions I asked. How come all these significant things YOU say the Minor judges did, IS NOT in their syllabus or in their decision???
Why isn't there a No.7 that says "The 14th Amendment citizenship stuff does NOT apply to people born here of two citizen parents. Why isn't there a No. 8 that says, NBC means people born here of citizen parents, and nobody else if one or both of their parents are foreigners. These are legitimate questions.
I am not "shooting the messenger", first because you have admitted you are NOT just the messenger but also the writer of this message (theory) and I don't think it is asking too much for the writer/messenger to give intelligent rational answers why come his theories don't seem to be shared by the judges he is quoting.
The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters.
IOW, they didn't need to define citizenship at all for the "direct question." The direct question would apply to all citizens whether natural-born, naturalized or through statutory/judicial authority. The fact that they DID define natural-born citizenship is because Minor presented an argument based on being a 14th amendment citizen as was expressed for women as a class. If women were going to have a right to vote, it wasn't an inherent part of citizenship that SUDDENLY materialized by virtue of the 14th amendment.
Plus, the syllabus does not use the term natural born citizen, so under the Edge919 rules of how to read law stuff, this means maybe she is now a 4th kind of imaginary citizen.
The syllabus isn't legally binding nor does it serve as precedent. What YOU can't explain away is that it clearly cites citizen parents as a criteria in direct exception to the 14th amdendment, which simply coincides with the decision where NBC is used.
How do YOU find things in the case, that the judges themselves don't say is there.
What judges?? I read the case and presented the direct quotes. You can read it yourself. The things I quoted ARE there.
How come all these significant things YOU say the Minor judges did, IS NOT in their syllabus or in their decision??? Why isn't there a No.7 that says "The 14th Amendment citizenship stuff does NOT apply to people born here of two citizen parents. Why isn't there a No. 8 that says, NBC means people born here of citizen parents, and nobody else if one or both of their parents are foreigners. These are legitimate questions.
1. "A syllabus of an opinion, or a summary under Rules 6(C) and 10(C) of these rules by a court other than the Supreme Court, is not the controlling statement of the points of law decided, but is merely a research and indexing aid."
2. The things about the 14th amendment not applying to persons born in the country of citizen parents IS there. It says they have been considered citizen as much SINCE the adoption of the 14th amendment as before. IOW, nothing changed in regards to the status of NBCs SINCE the adoption of the 14th amendment. This means NBCs are excluded. It explains why Gray said they were excluded many years later. The text in the decision makes the specific point by saying the 14th amendment was not needed for the citizenship of such women. The syllabus doesn't mention children of foreigners because THIS decision didn't include them as NBCs. It does say the citizenship of people born in the country without reference to citizenship is doubted. That doubt is addressed in Elk v. Wilkins and in WKA, the latter of which resolved doubts by applying the permanent residence and domicil criteria to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment. If children of foreigners were INSTEAD born to citizens, they would fit the NBC definition in Minor and the syllabus would be pertinent to those persons. Hope this helps. I've answered your questions and solved your misconceptions.