Replies

Which has no relevance to whether they are correct or not, despite your strenuous effort to imply that it does. Judges do not become morons in dicta.

And your strawman argument persists. It is recognized that portions of an opinion central to the decision are likely written with greater care than the tangential points. The majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark, for example, discusses this.

And C.J. Marshall NEVER says that paragraph from Vattel was adopted or supplies the meaning of the Article II "natural born citizen."

Yes, the words "is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands" cannot possibly mean that he regard Vattel as the applicable standard.

But the standard for what? Marshall says Vattel is more explicit on "it" -- meaning the point at issue (domicile in an international law case). He doesn't claim Vattel has the least to say on domestic law matters. The Constititution isn't even in view in The Venus.

It simply wreaks of desperation because it requires ignorance regarding the concept of synonyms.

The larger point -- which you keep ducking -- is that nothing in his opinion suggests that any part of what C.J. Marshall quotes from Vattel supplies the meaning of any Constitutional term. Your quibble about synonyms is a smokescreen.

We only need turn to Justice Waite in "Minor v Happersett" to see that he explicitly equates the word "native" with "natural born citizen."

Is J. Waite also an Actual Authority? He didn't have direct ties to any Framer? Why is he being cited?

Oh, wait! Of course! It's be HE SAYS WORDS THAT YOU THINK SUPPORT YOU!

So in the Engineer's School of Legal Authorities we can see that "Actual Authority" means "Someone who utters words that DL likes," while "False Authority" means "someone who utters words DL doesn't like." It's an easy rule to learn.

Yes, J. Waite uses the term "native." So what? He also says that the case DIDN'T involve the question of a person born to an alien parent(s). When that question was before the Court they indicated that "native" includes persons in the U.S. to alien parents:

Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (That opinion also cites C.J. Marshall in a case were Marshall was actually

And the Court also uses "native" in place of "natural born" when discussing presidential eligibility. Luria v. U.S."Native born" including BOTH children of citizens and children of aliens, both are thus indicated to be Article II eligible.

So, indeed, this equating of "native" with "natural born" is just one of MANY reasons why all these legal commentators, historians, and judges hold to a conclusion you don't.

Of course your next response is likely gonna be, "That's dicta, so we should ignore it."

Minor was a voting rights case that has been overturned by Constitutional amendment. The case didn't present the question of fhe birth status of someone born of an alien parent(s). Yet somehow you conclude this overturned decision didn't touch on that issue has some lingering import on a case involving chidren of aliens. But, of course, you think an international law case presenting the issue of domicile that didn't touch on the Constitution has relevance to a domestic case involving a Constitutional question.

Your thinking processes are so result-driven and muddled it is no small effort to unpack all the idiocy you stuff into a single post.

But I'll grant you this much. If what you have is the question of whether some born in the U.S. of citizen parents is a "natural born citizen," then Minor affords some analystical/precedential value. But if the question involves the status of someone born of alien parent(s) (e.g., Obama, Rubio, Jindal), Minor is but so much overturned irrelevancy.

b. Marshall had direct connections with several of the Constitutional framers.

Which might be a significant observation in a case where he's addressing a specific constitutional term. But in The Venus he doesn't make one peep about the Constitution, so your observation is just more irrelevancy.

You also ignore the fact that the very first two words he quotes from Vattel are "The citizens".

I don't ignore it. I merely place that in context by observing 1) C.J. Marshall doesn't indicate citizenship was at issue, whereas he does with domicile, 2) he doesn't at all discuss that citizenship passage from Vattel, whereas he does with the later domicile passage; and 3) most significantly, he doesn't in the least indicate there's any connection between what quotes from Vattel and the Constitution. So Marshall furnishes no proof whatsoever that the Article II "natural born citizen" has anything to do with Vattel.

You should stick to engineering; your attempts to discuss law are inept.

And your strawman argument persists. It is recognized that portions of an opinion central to the decision are likely written with greater care than the tangential points.

Which does not make the tangential points invalid, especially regarding something so fundamental as to what constitutes a citizen. You aren't going to sell this crap.

The majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark, for example, discusses this.

" And C.J. Marshall NEVER says that paragraph from Vattel was adopted or supplies the meaning of the Article II "natural born citizen."

So? Erroneous opinion is not restricted to you.

The larger point -- which you keep ducking -- is that nothing in his opinion suggests that any part of what C.J. Marshall quotes from Vattel supplies the meaning of any Constitutional term.

As a Delegate, and as someone who worked very closely with James Madison to secure the Ratification of the new Constitution in Virginia, His understanding is tantamount to it being a constitutional term. I note he isn't citing "Blackstone".

Your quibble about synonyms is a smokescreen.

No, your quibble about the absence of the term "Natural born" is a smokescreen, as is your quibble that the Chief Justice of the Supreme court doesn't know what the F*** he is talking about when writing dicta.

Is J. Waite also an Actual Authority? He didn't have direct ties to any Framer? Why is he being cited?

No, he's not an actual Authority, but he is the match of anyone your side has put forth so far. Given that his position was unanimous within the court, I would say even more so.

Oh, wait! Of course! It's be HE SAYS WORDS THAT YOU THINK SUPPORT YOU!

There's no "think" about it. The words unequivocally support a correct understanding of the topic. He explicitly says the 14th doesn't cover "natural born citizen", he then goes on to explain that "native" and "natural born" are synonyms, and that there are disputes among the Authorities, with YOUR position being the more dubious.

For someone who falsely accuses others of using the strawman tactic, you seem to be an old hand at it yourself. Perhaps if you'd had some formal training in logic or something, you might have had the wit to realize your hypocrisy.

Yes, J. Waite uses the term "native." So what? He also says that the case DIDN'T involve the question of a person born to an alien parent(s).

Which is irrelevant to the fact that his opinion is correct anyway. Another smokescreen from you. Burning Strawmen tend to make a lot of that you know.

When that question was before the Court they indicated that "native" includes persons in the U.S. to alien parents:

Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.U.S. v Wong Kim Ark

Here's that Snake eating it's tail again.

"Native" is redefined by the Wong Court to include those born to Alien Parents, and then you cite the Wong court to "Prove" that "Native" includes born to alien parents. Circular reasoning much?

You Also completely ignore that the court Invokes the 14th amendment as the governing law, and you further ignore that no "natural born" citizen has need of the 14th to BE a "natural citizen." You aren't very good at this reasoning stuff, are you?

And the Court also uses "native" in place of "natural born" when discussing presidential eligibility. Luria v. U.S.

Yes, and it explicitly cites the Minor v Happersett interpretation of the word "native."

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall.

"Native born" including BOTH children of citizens and children of aliens, both are thus indicated to be Article II eligible.

The word "Children" does not show up in a search of Luria v US. Neither does the word "Wong". Nothing in Luria supports your claim. As a matter of fact, Luria cites Minor v Happersett. Who are you trying to con with this crap? Are you simply lying, or just a complete ditz at research?

So, indeed, this equating of "native" with "natural born" is just one of MANY reasons why all these legal commentators, historians, and judges hold to a conclusion you don't.

You're an idiot. You've been caught, and you still trot out this pretentious arrogance. You're arrogant, but without any redeeming quality which should engender such arrogance.

Minor was a voting rights case that has been overturned by Constitutional amendment.

And here comes the smoke. Yeah, overturned by the 19th amendment about 45 years later. Both of your points are irrelevant crap which you throw out because you CANNOT MAKE ANY WORTHWHILE POINT. The Facts are not on your side, so you have to cloud the focus.

Your thinking processes are so result-driven and muddled it is no small effort to unpack all the idiocy you stuff into a single post.

Says the guy who cites "Luria" to prove the children of aliens were eligible for the Presidency.

But I'll grant you this much. If what you have is the question of whether some born in the U.S. of citizen parents is a "natural born citizen," then Minor affords some analystical/precedential value.

No No NO... it's "Dicta", remember? It is exactly wrong or something. At least in so far as "The World according to Captain Idiot" is concerned.

But if the question involves the status of someone born of alien parent(s) (e.g., Obama, Rubio, Jindal), Minor is but so much overturned irrelevancy.

Yes, the 19th amendment completely changed the Presidential eligibility requirements. More crap from "The World according to Captain Idiot."

Were you laughing when you typed this? I was laughing when I read it. At least you are entertaining. Reminds me of a little kid with a wooden sword thinking he's Peter Pan or something. Oh wait, I forget, you're the bumbling captain that had his leg torn off by a crocodile, and more recently his balls torn off by myself.

You should stick to engineering; your attempts to discuss law are inept.

Naw, it's the legal system itself which is inept. It has elevated the compounding of error into a religious doctrine, the consequences of which we see all around us. As for you, I do not doubt your contribution to either field would be pathetic.