Birther brigade going after Rubio now (status, amendment, constitutional)

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

SCOTUS determined Minor's Constitutional citizenship status further on in the decision. Why would that be, HD?

They didn't "determine" her status. They acknowledged it. They didn't have to determine it, because it was never in question.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

Excuse me?

The 14th Amendment negates every word of every concurring decision of the Dred Scott case.

You're imagining things.

Exactly which section of the 14th Amendment specifically calls for the negation of the entirety of Scott v. Sandford? Hmmm...?

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Again, for you, because you're not getting it. ...

In order to even examine the question of Minor's Constitutional protection of her right to suffrage, SCOTUS had to FIRST determine her Constitutional citizenship status.

WRONG. They affirmed her standing to file the lawsuit before pursuing the question at hand, whether states could prohibit female citizens from voting.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

The "idea" which SCOTUS had just defined in the decision.

What a pointless comment.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

No. They didn't. It was already conceded by everybody.

You can keep sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la, I can't hear you,", but it DOESN'T change the FACT that in order to even examine the question of Minor's Constitutional protection of her right to suffrage, SCOTUS had to FIRST determine her Constitutional citizenship status. And SCOTUS did exactly that.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

There's nothing in the 14th Amendment that negates SCOTUS's Vattel citation.

Except that the 14th Amendment totally invalidates the SCOTUS decision in the Dred Scott case. Thereby rendering the Vattel citation irrelevant since it is made within an invalidated ruling.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

WRONG. They affirmed her standing to file the lawsuit before pursuing the question at hand, whether states could prohibit female citizens from voting.

Wrong. The court granted certiorari. There was no issue of standing.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

In order to even examine the question of Minor's Constitutional protection of her right to suffrage, SCOTUS had to FIRST determine her Constitutional citizenship status.

Wrong. Her citizenship status was never even an issue before the court.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

They affirmed her standing to file the lawsuit

By defining Constitutional NBC and applying their definition to Minor in the decision. That is binding precedent.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

You're imagining things.

Exactly which section of the 14th Amendment specifically calls for the negation of the entirety of Scott v. Sandford? Hmmm...?

Stop embarrassing yourself. That you would even ask that question reveals a depth of ignorance regarding American history that is breathtaking.