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

To: Godebert; nathanbedford
There is a simple argument against Minor vs. Happersett being a "binding precedent." Like many legal arguments, it is an argument by analogy.

From Wikipedia: "In common language usage, 'fruit' normally means the fleshy seed-associated structures of a plant that are sweet or sour, and edible in the raw state, such as apples, bananas, grapes, lemons, oranges, and strawberries. On the other hand, in botanical usage, 'fruit' includes many structures that are not commonly called 'fruits', such as bean pods, corn kernels, tomatoes, and wheat grains."

Watch carefully now. If a court with jurisdiction had been called upon to decide whether a tomato is a "fruit" and so decides, that is not a decision as to whether an apple or a raspberry or a blueberry is also a "fruit." To be a "fruit," an apple or a raspberry or a blueberry need only meet the common definition and meaning of "fruit" and none need be a tomato in order to be a "fruit."

The binding precedent of Minor vs. Happersett is that Virginia Minor had no 14th Amendment "right to vote" although she was a citizen because no man and no woman of any description or citizenship had such a "right." That the SCOTUS found that Virginia Minor (apparently an aggressive feminist legal troublemaker with a lawyer husband, demanding allegedly under the 14th Amendment, her alleged "right to vote") in a decision handed down in the period shortly after the War Between the States, noted that she had been born on American soil and that both of her parents had been American citizens, that she herself was a citizen and therefore had standing to seek judicial relief (standing ONLY), then proceeded to make mincemeat of her claim.

As to her citizenship, the court found that the term Natural Born Citizen is nowhere defined in the Constitution but had some prior presence in common law (judge made law prior to the enactment of the 14th Amendment). It also noted that since she had been born of American citizens on American soil, she was a citizen by the strictest standards. That does not mean anything other than what it says. It makes no observation as to whether she would be NBC if only one parent had been an American citizen or if she had been born of one or two American citizens abroad. In fact, SCOTUS specifically declined to determine such the answers to such questions.

That Virginia Minor was a citizen was a preliminary finding as to her credentials to have standing, a preliminary matter without which the case would be dismissed for lack of plaintiff's standing, depriving the SCOTUS of any jurisdiction whatsoever. That she had natural born citizenship does not mean that those with different credential did not and the SCOTUS pointedly refused to rule on such totally extraneous questions.

137 posted on 05/11/2016 4:25:05 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society: Rack 'em Danno!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]


To: BlackElk
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 clearly defined “natural-born citizen” by two independent remarks:

1. “…all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.” First, the Court states that these persons are “citizens”. But then it makes a second statement about this class –

2. “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” This class of citizens are part of a class defined as “natural-born citizens”. They are citizens, natural-born. This distinguishes them from all other citizens. If this were not the case, it would have been sufficient for the Court to stop at the first statement concerning their citizenship.

But the Court didn’t stop there. Because the Court was avoiding the 14th Amendment, the Court went to the second step and defined this class to be different from all other citizens. This class did not require the 14th Amendment to be US citizens.

Whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens” was not a question before the Minor Court because Mrs. Minor was natural-born, whereas Wong Kim Ark was not. The determination of his citizenship required the 14th Amendment, whereas Mrs. Minor’s did not.

It was held that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen – as the syllabus states in point 2 – because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens. This was the independent ground that springs forth precedent. (See Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 at 84 (1996)).

151 posted on 05/12/2016 3:24:15 PM PDT by Godebert (CRUZ: Born in a foreign land to a foreign father.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | 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