Replies

Nguyen is irrelevant.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT (1874) IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

The Court in Minor did make a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen. The Court established her citizenship by definining the “class” of “natural-born citizens” as those born in the US to parents who were citizens. Then the Court included Virginia Minor in that class thereby deeming her to be a US citizen. And they did this by specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment and by specifically construing Article 2 Section 1.

The US Supreme Court definition of an Article 2 Section 1 natural-born citizen as stated in Minor v Happersett is strictly limited to those persons born in the United States to parents who were citizens.

When the Court held that Minor was a citizen under Article 2 Section 1 because she was born in the US of citizen parents, that definition became national law. Therefore, Minor supersedes all other sources on this point. It is a direct Constitutional interpretation and definition.

It still stands. Minor vs. Happersett has never been superseded. Never.

I repeat, the CHIEF JUSTICE DECLINED to resolve the issue and SPECIFICALLY said they would not need to do so because it was not relevant to the case. THEY DID NOT RULE THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Don’t believe it. I don’t care. But it is in the case.

And

YES, Nguyen is relevant because the oral arguments show you what the Justices are thinking and it also shows you that IT IS NOT SETTLED LAW.

They discuss Jus Soli, Jus sanguinis and the ability to run for President.

It is LUDRICOUS for ANYONE to claim this is settled law.