Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-06-2011, 01:36 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,254,856 times
Reputation: 1837

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Your own quote proves you wrong

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-06-2011, 01:38 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,254,856 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
That makes no sense at all. If they meant only ONE parent, it wouldn't be plural. "Children of A CITIZEN PARENT"
Wrong. Read that sentence with your change and see how it doesn't make any sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2011, 01:40 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,923,822 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
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..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2011, 01:42 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,254,856 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Easy: Blacks voted for Obama

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2011, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,033,796 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2011, 01:45 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,923,822 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
This isn't even a comparable analogy
Anything that proves you wrong, isnt comparable.. got it.. thanks for playing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2011, 01:47 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,923,822 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2011, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,033,796 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Easy: Blacks voted for Obama

Are you tell me all blacks got together and placed ONE vote for Obama?, or did they go into polling places and vote INDIVIDUALLY
It means that more than one black voted for Obama. It refers to no individuals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2011, 01:47 PM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,893 posts, read 18,393,947 times
Reputation: 6465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaturaccioli View Post
Like they say, "If it sounds too good to be true it probably is."



"I hear you captain, Loud and clear"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2011, 01:49 PM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,062,313 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
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..
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top