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.
They are a judge’s expression of opinion on a point other than the precise issue involved in determining a case. Dicta are not considered to be binding precedent and are regarded as of little authority, on account of the manner in which they are delivered
The boy can be taught. Note my added emphasis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Where is this court ruling indicating the judges were wrong because here in america, precidence holds a lot of value.
The judges weren't wrong. They never "ruled" what you said they ruled in the first place.
That said... the actual binding precedent is found in US v. Wong Kim Ark.
Quote:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
I have a scenario for the people who believe that natural born US citizens are only those born on US soil to two parents of US citizenship. Let's say a female US citizen goes to a sperm bank here in NYC, gives birth in NYC, and then raises her child as a single mother with no knowledge of whom the sperm came from. Is that child a natural born citizen or a naturalized citizen?
Wrong. The one (2 citizen parent theory) evolved out of the original (born in Kenya theory). But both are merely attempts at making an end run around the Constitution and invalidating a free and fair election.
Just because you disagree with their end runaround, it doesnt make the issue less valid..
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
And that is the sole distinction recognized by US law... natural born on one hand, naturalized on the other.
There is no third category.
Thats not true.. there has been a third category issue going back till the founding fathers which consists of people born here, but parents not.. Have you missed the whole illegal immigration arguments, or the stories about people coming here for the sole purpose of giving birth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
That would be an internal squabble between you Birthers.
FAILURE.. that sums up your replies because I'm not even close to a birther.. When you cant argue facts, attack the other poster.. typical..
Thats not the precedent being discussed. You cant follow along with the thread with the rest of us but expect us to take you seriously
its Minor v, Happersett
Yes: This is what Mv H said in DICTA:
Quote:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Here is the Conclusion:
Quote:
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.
Please point to us where in the Conclusion does the court define natural born citizenship.
Just because you disagree with their end runaround, it doesnt make the issue less valid.
Oh, of course not. The issue is invalid completely independently of whether or not I agree with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Thats not true.. there has been a third category issue going back till the founding fathers which consists of people born here, but parents not.. Have you missed the whole illegal immigration arguments, or the stories about people coming here for the sole purpose of giving birth?
There is no such third category. It is a complete Birther fabrication. No US law, statue, rule, regulation, court decision or Constitutional provision has ever asserted a "third" citizenship. There are only two; natural born and naturalized. Note the relationship in terminology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
FAILURE.. that sums up your replies because I'm not even close to a birther.. When you cant argue facts, attack the other poster.. typical..
Walks. Quacks. Duck.
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.
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.
