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.
Minor v. Happersett made no legal decision whatsoever as to what a natural-born citizen is.
Yup. Here is the conclusion to that case:
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
Can many of these poster who often misuse MvH, tell me where in the decision above defined Citizenship?
No. It does not. This is what it says about vetting.
You do know how to read... right?
Too bad none of that happened for Obama. That's why Pelosi sent the states the paperwork with the required verbiage missing. Go ahead, do a FOIA request for those docs and see for yourself. Why did she purposely leave out that information? There is only ONE reason for that.
There has been no SCOTUS definition of Constitutional NBC since then. The Minor v. Happersett ruling is the only SCOTUS definition of Constitutional NBC.
This is, of course, a lie. As the excellent and scholarly Congressional Research Service report explains:
Quote:
The Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, in ruling in 1875 that women did not have the constitutional right to vote in federal or state elections (as a privilege or immunity of citizenship), raised and discussed the question in dicta as to whether one would be a “natural born” citizen if born to only one citizen-parent or to no citizen-parents, noting specifically that “some authorities” hold so. The Court, however, expressly declined to rule on that subject in this particular case. In dicta, that is, in a discussion not directly relevant to or part of the holding in the case, the Court explained:
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.
Those issues or “doubts” raised in dicta by the Supreme Court in Happersett in 1875 were, however, answered by the Supreme Court in a later decision in 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which clearly repudiated the narrow and exclusive “original-community-of-citizens” reasoning of the Court in Dred Scott based on lineage and parentage, in favor of interpreting the Constitution in light of the language and principles of the British common law from which the concept was derived. The majority opinion of the Court clearly found, by any fair reading of its reasoning, discussion, and holding, that every person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (that is, not the child of foreign diplomats or of troops in hostile occupation), regardless of the citizenship of one’s parents, is a “natural born” citizen, and that the Fourteenth Amendment merely affirmed the common law and fundamental rule in this country that one born on the soil of the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a “natural born” citizen:
That's why Pelosi sent the states the paperwork with the required verbiage missing. Go ahead, do a FOIA request for those docs and see for yourself. Why did she purposely leave out that information? There is only ONE reason for that.
Long ago debunked (http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/pelosi-the-dnc-and-the-story-of-the-two-letters-of-certification/ - broken link).
If you had bothered to research the LAW of the individual state requirements concerning candidacy letters, instead of relying on what BIRTHER LIARS tell you to believe, you'd know that the entire Pelosi letter DNC letter is nothing but a load of hogwash.
2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.
2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.
Note MULTIPLE PARENTS.. not just ONE
Actually... no. They didn't "rule" that. They simply mentioned it in dicta.
But certainly, you wouldn't argue that such a person would not be a citizen.
2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.
Note MULTIPLE PARENTS.. not just ONE
I tried to argue that one as well. They don't seem to think the plural of parentS means anything.
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.
