[BladeBryan]

bluecat6 wrote: “Minor v. Happersett is settled law. Regardless of what is in a dictionary.”

Uh, you might look up the 19’th Amendment. Kind of un-settled Minor v. Happersett. What’s more, not even in the dicta did the opinion hold anyone *not* to be a natural-born citizen, which is what you need.

bluecat6 wrote: “Dictionary vs. formal legal ruling by the highest court on the land?”

You guys are a hoot. I explain, “The editors of /Black’s/ actually have the expertise that the Vattel-birthers pretend, to understand what precedents control and what they mean”, and you quickly demo just that pretending.

[bluecat6]

The critical text from M v. H ruling is not dicta. Another outright lie - it is part of the ruling.

The 19th never invalidated M v. H. M v. H is solid. Hence why the 19th was needed. The 19th altered Minor’s status and ability to vote but did not, in any way, overturn or invalidate M v. H. M v. H has NOT been overturned, invalidated or overruled.

Now it is said we need a ruling to say what was is NOT a natural born citizen. Maybe you should take a class in set theory for that answer.

BTW, where is that RN form?

[DiogenesLamp]

Also, why no comment on this?

(Ex Parte Reynolds. Circuit court for Arkansas: 5 Dillon 394-404. 1879)

"In the case of Ludlam v Ludlam 31, barb.,486. the court says: The Universal Maxim of the common law being Partus sequitur Patrem, it is sufficient for the application of this doctrine that the father should be a subject lawfully and without a breach of his allegiance... No matter what may be the condition of the mother."

The very word "Patriot" is derived from "Father." The Latin word for "Country" means "land of my father." The word "Paternity" means "of the father." Just how clueless do you have to be to not comprehend the connection with legitimacy to the father?

You spoke of language earlier, take a cue and learn something from the language.