Wow. Very dishonest statement. The court stated that:
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as CITIZENS children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. “ Read that passage very carefully, and you will see that the US Supreme Court clearly defined “natural-born citizen” by two independent remarks:
1. “…all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.” First, the Court states that these persons are “citizens”. But then it makes a second statement about this class -
2. “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” This class of citizens are part of a class defined as “natural-born citizens”. They are citizens, natural-born. This distinguishes them from all other citizens. If this were not the case, it would have been sufficient for the Court to stop at the first statement concerning their citizenship.
But the Court didn’t stop there. Because the Court was avoiding the 14th Amendment, the Court went to the second step and defined this class to be different from all other citizens. This class did not require the 14th Amendment to be US citizens.
Whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens” was not a question before the Minor Court because Mrs. Minor was natural-born, whereas Wong Kim Ark was not. The determination of his citizenship required the 14th Amendment, whereas Mrs. Minor’s did not.
Dictum:
In United States legal terminology, a dictum (plural dicta) is a statement of opinion or belief considered authoritative though not binding, because of the authority of the person making it.
There are multiple subtypes of dicta, although due to their overlapping nature, legal practitioners in the U.S. colloquially use dicta to refer to any statement by a court that extends beyond the issue before the court. Dicta in this sense are not binding under the principle of stare decisis, but tend to have a strong persuasive effect, either by being in an authoritative decision, stated by an authoritative judge, or both. These subtypes include:
dictum proprium: A personal or individual dictum that is given by the judge who delivers an opinion but that is not necessarily concurred in by the whole court and is not essential to the disposition.
gratis dictum: an assertion that a person makes without being obligated to do so, or also a court's discussion of points or questions not raised by the record or its suggestion of rules not applicable in the case at bar.
judicial dictum: an opinion by a court on a question that is directly involved, briefed, and argued by counsel, and even passed on by the court, but that is not essential to the decision.
obiter dictum in Latin means "something said in passing" and is a comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but it is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential (although it may be considered persuasive).
simplex dictum: an unproved or dogmatic statement.
In English law, a dictum is any statement made as part of a judgment of a court. Thus the term includes dicta merely in passing (referred to as obiter dicta) that are not a necessary part of the reason for the court's decision (referred to as the ratio decidendi). English lawyers do not, as a rule, categorise dicta more finely than into those that are obiter and those that are not.
Whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens” was not a question before the Minor Court because Mrs. Minor was natural-born, whereas Wong Kim Ark was not. The determination of his citizenship required the 14th Amendment, whereas Mrs. Minor’s did not.
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
The dictum stated in Minor v Happersett regarding citizenship is and never was a binding opinion for the very fact you cut and pasted from the website - Whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens” was not a question before the Minor Court. Furthermore, Minor v Happersett was never overturned because the 19th Amendment made the ruling irrelevant in all regards.
The ramblings of Leo Donofrio; the sometimes lawyer, sometimes rock musician, sometimes professional poker player and fulltime web blogger is not impressive as to his understanding of Constitutional Law and that’s why the SCOTUS declined to hear his case – it had no legal merit as he presented it.
If the authors of the US Constitution and 14th Amendment intended there to be three classes of US citizenship instead of two, they would have stated so.