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

To: Mr Rogers
The syllabus is NOT the decision.

Justice Fuller quoted the Minor syllabus in Ex Parte Lockwood to great effect. The color coded sections below illustrate how each part was quoted verbatim:

From Lockwood:

In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation., and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities.
The Minor syllabus:

1. The word "citizen" is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.

2. In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since.

3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities.

135 posted on 02/24/2012 8:42:27 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies ]


To: edge919; Mr Rogers

You wanted another, Mr Rogers, and you got it...but good.

(snicker)

142 posted on 02/24/2012 8:50:37 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies ]

To: edge919

And the WKA court held that NBC = NBS = 14th Amendment. But the comments made in the dicta are not binding, just as the WKA court rejected the Slaughterhouse decision’s comments.

Here is what WKA (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html) says:

“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”

Let’s go thru that:

It says there is a principle “citizenship by birth within the country”. It says the exceptions to that rule are:

“the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State” and “children of members of the Indian tribes”.

It says their discussion has shown that those exceptions were driven “by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America” - referring to the common law NBS, and the US NBC.

It says the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is intended “to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words” those exceptions discussed, that were true in the colonies as NBS, and in the US prior to the 14th as NBC.

Thus you have A & B, where the set of all A is identical to the set of all B, thus A = B. Or in this case, A = B = C:

“citizenship by birth within the country”, excepting “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State” and “children of members of the Indian tribes”, and that was true in the colonies under NBS, true after the Constitution under NBC, and true under the 14th by intent of the writers in saying “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”.

Some here make a big deal about slaves not being citizens, but slaves were considered property under Dred Scott, and thus not capable of being citizens. And since so many people thought the Dred Scott case was an obscene rejection of “citizenship by birth within the country”, Congress and the states passed an amendment declaring, inescapably, what they believed had always been true under the NBC clause:

“citizenship by birth within the country”.


144 posted on 02/24/2012 8:54:59 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | 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