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

To: edge919

“He chose a definition for which there was no doubt and left it clear that other definitions are doubtful.”

Actually, he wrote, “there have been doubts...For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts”. He doesn’t state his thoughts on it either way, just notes that doubts exist. And he leaves it an open question.

“And then he rejects the 14th amendment as being needed to establish citizenship for those born under the no-doubt conditions of natural born citizenship.”

He was dealing with the question of citizenship for a woman born in the US of citizen parents. The question is if sex affects citizenship, and he denies it totally.

“Other proof of like character might be found, but certainly more cannot be necessary to establish the fact that sex has never been made one of the elements of citizenship in the United States. In this respect men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws precisely apply to both. The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.”

“This is why Justice Gray could not and DID NOT declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen.”

Saying sex had no impact on citizenship is not in any way answering the question of who is a NBC. The plaintiff undoubtedly met the qualifications for a NBC. Others with different circumstances might as well, but he didn’t need to determine that. As he said earlier, “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts”. He simply punted.

WKA could not punt. The question involved, not sex, but was a person born of alien parents born a citizen. And WKA replied yes, and used BOTH the NBC clause and the 14th to justify their decision. And while I disagree with their basis, my side lost and it is now established law.

“Except that BOTH Minor and WKA used the same no-doubt definition of natural born citizenship.”

No. WKA spent pages discussing WHY a person born of alien parents met the criteria for NBC. I know you don’t believe me, and we could shout “Yes they did!” vs “No they didn’t!” forever. Goodness knows, we have done so many times now. So I propose that at this point, we agree that we disagree and that neither is likely to convince the other. We’ve posted our arguments. Others can decide for themselves. I with you well, but I still disagree with your legal analysis. But the links are posted and anyone who wants can read them and decide.

WKA:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

Minor:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html


2,719 posted on 10/27/2010 1:28:45 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When an ass brays, don't reply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2716 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers
Actually, he wrote, “there have been doubts...For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts”. He doesn’t state his thoughts on it either way, just notes that doubts exist. And he leaves it an open question.

It's not an open question. There was only one definition available for which there was no doubt. He doesn't say the doubt can be resolved, but there's no need because he has a definition for which there is no doubt. What you don't seem to understand or want to admit is that it should have been easy to say that the 14th amendment resolves any doubts or changes the definition. Waite says the 14th amendment is NOT needed to establish citizenship of the person in question. Why would he do this if he or anyone else on the coutr thought the 14th amendment resolved the doubts?? Certainly you understand this was the majority opinion and that one of the other justices could have stepped up to say the 14th amendment resolves these doubts. Why bother to talk about natural born citizenship at all when you have a brand spanking new Constitutional amendment that could define citizenship for your plaintiff?? It's obvious: He's and the court are rejecting this amendment as applying to natural born citizenship. IOW, the court in both Minor and WKA are saying that anyone who needs to have their citizenship defined by the 14th amendment (like Obama) CANNOT be a natural born citizen.

WKA spent pages discussing WHY a person born of alien parents met the criteria for NBC.

This is pure delusion. There aren't any pages saying this at all. None. You're trying to connect dots that simply are not connected.

2,723 posted on 10/27/2010 1:44:15 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2719 | 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