Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.
Thats EXACTLY what I said.. ANY ONE CHILD.. its an INDIVIDUAL.. its not a collective.
Again, you fail at grammar and reading comprehension. Notice you ignored the OTHER two sentences I highlighted in the DICTA.
The court recognized that there are other ways of obtaining citizenship that they were not going to ADDRESS, but for this CASE they took the one that they all agreed on to confirm that Minor was in fact a citizen from birth. Minor's citizenship WAS NOT an issue before the court. ONLY that if CITIZENSHIP guaranteed the RIGHT TO VOTE. The court found that citizenship doesn't give the right for WOMEN to vote.
You're failure at understand this small paragraph in an entire ruling is NOT our problem.
Again, you fail at grammar and reading comprehension. Notice you ignored the OTHER two sentences I highlighted in the DICTA.
The court recognized that there are other ways of obtaining citizenship that they were not going to ADDRESS, but for this CASE they took the one that they all agreed on to confirm that Minor was in fact a citizen from birth. Minor's citizenship WAS NOT an issue before the court. ONLY that if CITIZENSHIP guaranteed the RIGHT TO VOTE. The court found that citizenship doesn't give the right for WOMEN to vote.
You're failure at understand this small paragraph in an entire ruling is NOT our problem.
WRONG
That answered the question if BOTH parents are citizens within the jurisdiction.. There are lots of other questions not answered.
Its not my fault that you want to believe it says something that it doesnt because no where does it answer the question about ONE..
Are you tell me all blacks got together and placed ONE vote for Obama?, or did they go into polling places and vote INDIVIDUALLY
This isn't even a comparable analogy
This is however:
I am a member to a country club, my husband is not a member
My country club provides child care services, to children whose parents are members.
I can use the country club child care services because I am a member.
Your stance is that because my husband is not a member, and the sign specifically states that the services are only provided to CHILDREN whose PARENTS are MEMBERS, I cannot use the country club's child care services.
That makes no sense at all. If they meant only ONE parent, it wouldn't be plural.
Sure it would. It is perfectly ordinary English usage.
All that said, I have no idea why you guys get your undies in a bunch on whether it means one citizen parent or two, since we know that under 500 plus years of Anglo-American common law, no citizen parents are necessary if born on national soil.
Anything that proves you wrong, isnt comparable.. got it.. thanks for playing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
I am a member to a country club, my husband is not a member
My country club provides child care services, to children whose parents are members.
I can use the country club child care services because I am a member.
Your stance is that because my husband is not a member, and the sign specifically states that the services are only provided to CHILDREN whose PARENTS are MEMBERS, I cannot use the country club's child care services.
That example actually proves you wrong again because if the Country Club decideds that both parents have to be member and you couldnt use them without both being a member, could you?
Sure it would. It is perfectly ordinary English usage.
All that said, I have no idea why you guys get your undies in a bunch on whether it means one citizen parent or two, since we know that under 500 plus years of Anglo-American common law, no citizen parents are necessary if born on national soil.
There has been no court ruling to indicated that is true either.. Thats a matter of public perception. You are reaching and showing that you dont know the difference between facts, and what people perceive to be.
You just proved there is a 3rd class that you just argued didnt exist.. Thanks for playing
That answered the question if BOTH parents are citizens within the jurisdiction.. There are lots of other questions not answered.
Its not my fault that you want to believe it says something that it doesnt because no where does it answer the question about ONE..
The way I read it, the court simply commented in it's discussion that people like Minor - who were born in the US to two citizen parents - have always been considered US citizens (I think every single person here would agree with that). They brought it up in discussion because Minor claimed that as a citizen, the Constitution granted her the right to vote. The brief mention of natural-born citizenship was basically an aside, and one the court quickly went away from and explicitly said the case ruling would not address.
In the end, the discussion on citizenship was moot since the court ruled that the Constitution does not grant anyone (citizen or not (or natural-born citizen v. naturalized citizen)) the right to vote.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.