Replies

Oh, and - as has been noted UNCOUNTABLE times now:

Minor v. Happersett didn’t define the term for the purposes of Presidential eligibility.

Minor v. Happersett never stated that children born on US soil to non-citizen parents weren’t natural born citizens.

The comment in Minor v. Happersett was dicta, a total side comment unsupported by any authority whatsoever, and therefore of no value at all in setting any kind of precedent.

Even if it had defined the term and set some precedent, that would’ve been overruled by US v. Wong Kim Ark, which discussed natural born citizenship for literally dozens of pages before finding that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen.

And no, they didn’t spell it out in the final proclamation. But the core reasoning clearly established that he was a natural born citizen.

Minor v. Happersett didn’t define the term for the purposes of Presidential eligibility.

An idiot argument. It defined the term generally, therefore it applied to specific instances. What's more, they explicitly said the 14th amendment doesn't define "natural born citizen", and that we would have to look elsewhere for the definition.

But hey, Jeff, isn't the 14th amendment YOUR definition? Odd that the court explicitly says YOUR definition doesn't define what is a "natural born citizen".

Minor v. Happersett never stated that children born on US soil to non-citizen parents weren’t natural born citizens.

Yes it did. It specifically says the 14th amendment (part of the constitution) doesn't "...say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." It clearly rejects the argument that the 14th amendment creates natural citizens. (A point which is obvious to any non-moron.)

The comment in Minor v. Happersett was dicta, a total side comment unsupported by any authority whatsoever, and therefore of no value at all in setting any kind of precedent.

And here comes the loser argument; the claim that the Supreme Court judges are ignorant about obvious points of law.

But they didn't write that Jeff. They wrote "citizen." Ink wasn't so expensive that they needed to save those two words, they intentionally omitted them because they did not regard him as a "natural" citizen. He was a citizen as the result of the 14th amendment, nothing more.

Your type have been expanding their intent ever since. You helped Obama by running interference for him.

LOL.

Minor v. Happersett didn’t define the term for the purposes of Presidential eligibility.
Actually, they did. This is directly from Minor

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that
"No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President "

The court held Minor was a US Citizen because she met the Constitutional qualifications to be President.

Minor v. Happersett never stated that children born on US soil to non-citizen parents weren’t natural born citizens. In Minor v Happersett they explicitly DID state exactly that. The court states the following:

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.
The court is explicitly stating that persons born within the US may be Citizens without reference to the citizenship of the parents. And that the 'first' class, natural born Citizens, are always citizens. The court EXPLICITLY states they are 2 separate classes of Citizens! All natural born Citizens are Citizens, but not all Citizens are natural born Citizens.

The comment in Minor v. Happersett was dicta, a total side comment unsupported by any authority whatsoever, and therefore of no value at all in setting any kind of precedent.

That is a 100% incorrect statement! In Lockwood Ex Parte the court says:

"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. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizons of the United States was no violation of the federal constitution.". Maybe you need to look up the legal definition of a "Holding".

Even if it had defined the term and set some precedent, that would’ve been overruled by US v. Wong Kim Ark, which discussed natural born citizenship for literally dozens of pages before finding that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen.

In US V Wong Kim Ark the SCOTUS CITES Minor v Happersett as precedent!

In WKA, the court says - "Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 166-168. The decision (once again notice the word 'decision', the court is using Minor as precedent) in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship." No ambiguity there! WKA picked up where Minor used judicial restraint. In WKA the court decided the meaning of the 14th amendment clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It never declares him a 'natural born Citizen'.

And no, they didn’t spell it out in the final proclamation. But the core reasoning clearly established that he was a natural born citizen.

LOL. That makes a lot of sense, courts, and lawyers, are always writing things ambiguously to allow others to later draw their own conclusions!

I think maybe you need to get some new talking points from you friends, and then come back!