Be serious. The Supreme Court knows stare decisis.
Posted on 01/11/2016 3:03:26 PM PST by Kaslin
The opinion in Minor v. Happersett of the phrase “natural-born citizen” is obiter dicta.
I am surprised that Rush did not know the difference between citizenship and natural born citizen. I hope someone clues him in.
You must know there is a distinction between the term citizen and natural born citizen? Do you?
The term natural born citizen was understood by the framers of the Constitution to mean born in the country to both parents who were U.S. citizens. There is a difference between natural born citizen and citizen. You can be a citizen at birth by being born to one parent who is a citizen. However, you are not a natural born citizen. You can be born out of the country and if you are with one parent who is a U.S. citizen, you too are born a U.S. citizen. However, you would not be a natural born citizen.
Incorrect. For those not familiar, Obiter dictum is Latin for a word said "by the way", that is, a remark in a judgment that is "said in passing". It is a concept derived from English common law, whereby a judgment comprises only two elements: ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. For the purposes of judicial precedent, ratio decidendi is binding, whereas obiter dicta are persuasive only.
HOLDING EQUALS PRECEDENT
The direct holding of the Supreme Court in Minor set a binding precedent. Those pretending that the Supreme Court's direct construction and definition (in Minor) of the natural-born citizen clause is dicta are mistaken. They need to review the first two points of the syllabus, which state:
1. The word "citizen" is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.
2. 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 to the Constitution as since." (Emphasis added.)
Check the words "if born of citizen parents" again. They are stated at the very top of the syllabus and more than once in the Opinion of the Court. This is a direct holding of the case. It is clearly precedent. For it not to be precedent, the Court could not have held that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen. But since that determination was part of the holding, the grounds by which they made that determination are precedent, not dicta.
Agreeing to interpret a law in a way that goes against the spirit of that law seems to me to be a waste of time.
Be serious. The Supreme Court knows stare decisis.
So if it were up to me to clarify the situation, I would add the caveat that the child must not at any time have renounced American citizenship or claimed nationality to any other country.
Children can't renounce their citizenship. Nor can their parents do it on their behalf.
Therefore, all the copious birfer drivel surrounding little Barry bastard's sojourn in Indonesia is garbage.
I knew you wouldn't. And couldn't.
Court cases have been cited endlessly to you with you ignore and demand each new person find and cite them again.
Cited incorrectly.
Play with someone else.
If you don't want your claims to be questioned then don't post.
Obama’s citizenship status was never settled by the Supreme Court but I guarantee the Dems will challenge Cruz’s eligibility and land a suit right in their laps.
I disagree with the second half of that. For a government to have such a claim on people is akin to a press gang. I suggest you read the dissenting opinion in US v. Wong Kim Ark.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.