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.
The Supreme Court in Lockwood, Ex Parte held that the definition of natural born citizen in Minor was a holding:
"In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, 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"
Mr Obama's partisans like to spew misinformation in this forum. The fact is the Supreme Court in Minor defined Article II, section 1 in the Constitution.
Minor was found to be an Article II natural born citizen because she was born in the US to citizen parents.
Wong Kim Ark was found to be a citizen based on the subject to jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment because his parents were permanent residents at his birth.
Obama's father was NOT a permanent resident. How can anyone not see the difference. Ah...if you want to subvert the Constitution perhaps you cannot.
Why do the Obama partisans want to deny the liberty of US citizens? They have a right to challenge Obama. These challenges should not be met with slander and ridicule.
Yes it is. Minor v Happerset sets binding precedent.
This is one of the most persistent of the idiotic Birther memes.
Minor v. Happersett was not a citizenship case. It was a suffrage case. A case cannot set precedent regarding issues that are not even before the court.
And Virginia Minor's citizenship was never an issue before the court.
A judge’s power to bind is limited to the issue that is before him; he cannot transmute dictum into decision by waving a wand and uttering the word “holdâ€.
Why do the Obama partisans want to deny the liberty of US citizens?
Who's doing that? The Birfers are well within their rights to make fools of themselves.
Quote:
They have a right to challenge Obama.
Certainly. They also have a right to slather themselves in tomato ketchup and demand to be addressed as "Grand Poo-Bah, Emperor of Mars". They do not have the right to be taken seriously in either case.
Quote:
These challenges should not be met with slander and ridicule.
Why on Earth not? It's instructive for them and entertaining for us.
Quote:
What the heck is happening to this country.
A black Democrat was elected as President and some people went a little weird in the head.
This is one of the most persistent of the idiotic Birther memes.
Minor v. Happersett was not a citizenship case. It was a suffrage case. A case cannot set precedent regarding issues that are not even before the court.
And Virginia Minor's citizenship was never an issue before the court.
The question presented was whether, since the adoption of the 14th Amendment, women had gained the right to vote. The Supreme Court in Minor held that nowhere in the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, was anyone, man or woman, granted a right to vote. And it was only this part of the Minor case which was superseded by the 19th Amendment. The other issue decided by the Court in Minor required the Supreme Court to determine if the woman was, in fact, a US citizen. As to this determination, the Court did not construe the 14th Amendment. In fact, the Court specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment with regard to her citizenship. Instead, the Supreme Court in Minor chose to construe Article 2 Section 1. The Court made a certain, direct determination that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen before the adoption of the 14th Amendment and that she did not need the 14th Amendment to be a US citizen. The Court then, having determined that she was a US citizen, avoided any construction of the 14th Amendment as to her citizenship status. Therefore, the holding in Minor is in no way superseded by Wong Kim Ark which is another case that Obama supporters like to use to make the binding case that he is a natural born citizen but in reality, it doesn't.
This is one of the most persistent of the idiotic Birther memes.
Minor v. Happersett was not a citizenship case. It was a suffrage case. A case cannot set precedent regarding issues that are not even before the court.
And Virginia Minor's citizenship was never an issue before the court.
The Obama faction continues to spread misinformation in this forum by posting an ad hominem argument . Here's the truth folks, not partisan spin:
Minor via counsel claimed 14th Amendment citizenship. Yes its that simple to refute the false claims of the Obama partisan. We grow weary of the partisan spin. How about posting the truth.
The question presented was whether, since the adoption of the 14th Amendment, women had gained the right to vote.
Yes it was.
It was not whether or not women were citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McGarrett
The Supreme Court in Minor held that nowhere in the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, was anyone, man or woman, granted a right to vote.
Yes it did.
And therefore, citizenship was completely irrelevant to the question before the case, and the ruling of the court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McGarrett
And it was only this part of the Minor case which was superseded by the 19th Amendment.
Who cares? That has exactly nothing to do with this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McGarrett
The other issue decided by the Court in Minor required the Supreme Court to determine if the woman was, in fact, a US citizen.
There was no other issue before the court. Here... look again at what the decision itself says in its first paragraph:
Quote:
The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here.The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination.
See? There was no other issue before the court.
Note also, the decision concedes Virginia Minor's citizenship in its very first sentence!
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.
