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.
Nothing. It is you who seems to be under that impression. You quoted the CRS.
Which explains in excuciating detail and with great scholarship that you personally have your head deeply in rectal defilade regarding what SCOTUS has ruled.
So again, what would lead you to such a wacky idea that it overrules SCOTUS when all it does is overrule you?
Seems your tin foil hat is not big enough for your head.
No one can suspend elections. Not even the President of the United States.
Maybe you should read that document you like to try and protect but have no clue what it says: The US Constitution.
They just make it up as they go, they have been doing this since the day Obama started running for office the first time and have been making crap up ever since. After some point one has to simply laugh at them, those that spend their entire life listening to and reading right-wing propaganda lose all credibility when it comes to serious issues. Kinda sad actually.
Virginia Minor's citizenship was never a question before the court. It was conceded by both sides at all levels as the case wound its way through the judicial system.
If that were true, there would be no need for SCOTUS to establish this:
Quote:
"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. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea."
SCOTUS defined Constitutional NBC in establishing Minor's Constitutional citizenship.
No... it did not. In fact it explicitly refused to do so.
The CRS study points out that:
Quote:
Any analysis of the distinction between “holding†and dicta is simplified in Minor v. Happersett, as the Supreme Court expressly explained that “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve†the issue of parental citizenship, thus clearly stating that its discussion was not part of, and the resolution of the issue not necessary to, the underlying holding or ruling of that case.
If that were true, there would be no need for SCOTUS to establish this:Minor v. Happersett
Therefore, you are wrong.
Nope you're wrong:
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.
Conclusion from the 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
Notice how the conclusion and that's all that matters mentions nothing about Natural born citizenship
this is nothing but IC's attempt to hijack another thread on birtherism, repeating the same debunked claims he posted in the other thread not too long ago.
If that were true, there would be no need for SCOTUS to establish this:Minor v. Happersett
There was no need for SCOTUS to establish that. That's what orbiter dictummeans.
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.
