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.
In fact, there was as the case was about Constitutional rights.
But not citizenship.
Again... the simple facts are as follows:
1. Minor v. Happersett was not a citizenship case, it was a suffrage case. Hence, any discussion of citizenship contained within it is dicta by definition.
2. The citizenship of Virginia Minor was never even a question before the court. It was given as true in the very first sentence of the decision, and never even mentioned in the actual court ruling.
3. The citizenship of Virginia Minor was conceded by both sides, and never briefed or argued at any level as the case wound its way to the Supreme Court.
4. The Minor court explicitly refused to settle the citizenship status of the children of aliens. This is so obvious that the Wong court specifically cited that exact passage to prove that no prior court believed that the children of aliens born on US soil were not born citizens. Hence, it is a lie to claim that the Minor decision provided an exclusive definition of "natural born citizen."
5. The Minor court explicitly asserted that the definition of "natural born citizen" should be sought in the common law. It never even cited Vattel once.
6. The Minor decision has never been cited in any subsequent case for its "definition" of natural born citizen.
7. Even if (arguendo) every one of the false Birther claims regarding Minor v. Happersett were actually true, any value it provided as precedent would have been annulled by the later Wong Kim Ark decision. WKA is reigning precedent, as proven by its subsequent citation regarding the definition of natural born citizenship and Presidential eligibility.
Last edited by HistorianDude; 12-07-2011 at 10:42 AM..
The retroactive conferral of citizenship on adopted children would create differences between adopted children and other persons who acquire U.S. citizenship by naturalization.
They are not NATURALIZED, they are DIFFERENT
Nonsense. Naturalized is naturalized, and that citizenship is absolute not "retroactive." The law is explicit that foreign born children who gain America citizenship via adoption are not citizens at birth.
Hopefully, a pack of five star leaders, the really old folks in the Pentagon will "grow a pair" and handcuff BO before we even get a reply from the S. Court. They sure have sound, Constitutional authority to do so.
Ah... so we have a fully admitted seditionist among our ranks here... do we? Just one clue....
no they didn't, because leahy and chertoff were not giving an exclusive definition of NBC. it still stands that no congressman, judge, law professor or constitutional scholar agrees with your interpretation of NBC.
That's your perception, and you're wrong.
Note the EXACT statement again...
Quote:
"Sen. Leahy: "Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens."
Anywhere in the world. The U.S. is anywhere in the world.
No one in Congress disputed what Senator Leahy and Michael Chertoff said, or offered any alternative meaning of the Constitution's natural born citizen clause.
The relevant passage in the SCOTUS decision, again:
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. 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."
Note the specific reference to "all children" that appears in the only SCOTUS definition of Constitutional NBCand SCOTUS's rationale for permitting the case to proceed. SCOTUS established Minor as a Constitutional citizen by defining Constitutional NBC, the only SCOTUS case to define such.
Anywhere in the world. The U.S. is anywhere in the world.
.
never said is wasn't.
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.
