Birther brigade going after Rubio now (England, constitutional, children, foreign)

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by mrlqban

How easy for you it's to ignore the first part and make the argument for the second, isn't? Lockwood refers to both actually, good try. So whats your deal? Is it not binding precedent on citizenship or is it? Make up your mind.

I didn't ignore it at all. I even quoted the entire citation, unlike you.

I then went on to note the parallel in both cases. In neither of them was the citizenship of the woman a question before the court. In neither of them was her citizenship relevant to the ruling. In neither of them was her citizenship even mentioned in the ruling. In both of them... discussions of the citizenship of the individual were mere orbiter dicta.

Unless you are trying to create a brand new (but completely pointless) concept of "precedential dicta" in which the dicta of later cases is governed by the precedence of earlier dicta, you are providing nothing here of passing interest to the conversation.

I assure you, stare decisis concerns the actual law, not the casual asides contained in decisions.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

There was nothing in Minor that excluded citizenship of someone born in the United States to alien parents. They explicitly say they aren't addressing that question.

Um... yeah... citizenship. They declined to resolve the doubts as to whether someone born in the United States to alien parents was even a citizen at all. THAT'S what they left open.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

In fact, it DOES. Read it again:Minor v. Happersett

Inserted asterixes and color coding does not save you.

There are two kinds of US citizen and only two. Natural born and naturalized.

And that passage is not addressing naturalized.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Um... yeah... citizenship. They declined to resolve the doubts as to whethersomeone born in the United States to alien parents was even a citizen at all. THAT'S what they left open.

And that has since been settled by the actual precedential case, Wong Kim Ark.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THESE DOUBTS.

That means, they chose not to address the question.

Yeah, the question of whether persons born in the United States to alien parents were even citizens at all.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

Inserted asterixes and color coding does not save you.

It was intended to save YOU.

If you have a different interpretation, post the passage with your diagrammed analysis.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

It was intended to save YOU.

My salvation is secure.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

If you have a different interpretation, post the passage with your diagrammed analysis.

Oh my. You don't know what a diagrammed analysis is either? Because color coding and asterixes is not it.

I already offered my interpretation here. Read it again:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/21559791-post815.html

It is (you will notice again) the same as that of real judges in real courts making real decisions in real cases.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

And that has since been settled by the actual precedential case, Wong Kim Ark.

They're citizens, unless they're not under the jurisdiction of the U.S - which is where the doubts arise. Being a citizen is not enough to meet the Constitutional requirement for Presidential eligibility.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

They're citizens, unless they're not under the jurisdiction of the U.S - which is where the doubts arise.

And if that citizenship is gained at birth rather than via naturalization, they are natural born citizens.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Being a citizen is not enough to meet the Constitutional requirement for Presidential eligibility.

Not if they are naturalized, no.

Otherwise? Yes.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Um... yeah... citizenship. They declined to resolve the doubts as to whether someone born in the United States to alien parents was even a citizen at all. THAT'S what they left open.

So? There aren't three kinds of citizens in this country, there are two. Those who are born with citizenship, and those who acquire citizenship through naturalization. Your fantasy of a third kind is simply a fantasy, you have no court, ever, saying that there is a third kind. The judges choice to avoid the question in Minor is a non-answer.