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

To: SatinDoll
It’s a holding, you fool, not dicta!

What is your FRIGGIN' problem ???

A holding is the legal principle to be drawn from the opinion of the court.

The opinion of the Court, in Ark was:

"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

The Court RESTRICTED itself to the determination of the SINGLE question, as noted at the beginning of the opinion:

"The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution ..."

THEREFORE, THAT is the holding.

Dicta are opinions of a judge which do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. They are expressions of the court's opinion which go beyond the facts before the court and [therefore] are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent.

The following is [partial] dicta from the Ark decision:

"The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."

From the holding [above] - was the dicta [above] necessary to the decision ???

ABSOLUTELY NOT ...

The holding was SOLELY on the basis of the 14th Amendment and the dicta was ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY in reaching the decision.

36 posted on 11/16/2011 11:23:20 PM PST by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: Lmo56

What you cite doesn’t support your assumptions. WKA affirmed and upheld the Minor definition of NBC. It was prevented from declaring Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen and had to use different legal justification to call him a citizen under the 14th amendment. This was predicated upon the parents having permanent residence and domicl (something NEITHER of Obama’s parents had).

As far as the dicta is concerned, you’re ignoring in the last paragraph that it says “For the reasons above stated” ... the WKA gave dozens of pages of REASONS for calling WKA a citizen, but it purposely did not and could not call WKA a natural-born citizen. The only way this court could arrive at its conclusion was by showing that children of aliens could be considered citizens through a common-law definition, but it also had to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment which this court said EXCLUDED natural-born citizens. That exclusion was based on upholding the finding in Minor.


37 posted on 11/17/2011 12:04:54 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: Lmo56

I repeat - Wong Kin Ark decision has nothing to do with natural born citizen.


39 posted on 11/17/2011 12:11:14 AM PST by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS U.S.A. PRESIDENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | 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