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.
WKA went to great lengths to define citizen, but did not define natural born citizen.
Why then do real judges in real courts making real decision in real cases call bullsh*t on that claim?
To this very day, Wong Kim Ark is the only Supreme Court decision that has ever been cited in any subsequent court as precedent regarding the definition of natural born citizen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
We know that because U.S. citizenship law wasn't the same as the English law that applied to English subjects.
And yet, to defend this claim, you post laws that are identical to English common law. Fascinating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Ex Parte Lockwood noted:
"In Minor v. Happersett, 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, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since"
In this way, IC actually provides evidence against several of his claims.
1. The Lockwood decision never discusses natural born citizenship once. The phrase (or even the word "natural") can be found nowhere in the Lockwood decision. Therefore, it is a lie to suggest that it constitutes a citation of Minor as precedential for the definition of natural born citizen.
2. IC insists ad nauseam that the Minor decision cannot be discussing "natural born citizenship" if it only mentions "citizenship." But here in Lockwood, they are mentioning only citizenship while directly referencing Minor's mention of "natural born citizenship." We find therefore that IC's desperate parsing is rebuked by the very court decisions he grasps at for support.
3. And with the ubiquitous Birther habit to search for magic words, IC hallucinates that the phrase "this court held" somehow changes what is mere dicta in the Minor decision to an actual holding of the court. But of course we have long known this argument to be flaccid.
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 “hold”.
Ex Parte Lockwood recognized Minor v. Happersett's discussion of Constitutional natural born citizen and Minor's status as such, defined by the court, to be a holding of the court.
This is, of course, a lie.
Ex Parte Lockwood never even mentions "natural born citizenship" once let alone cites Minor for precedent regarding its definition.
WKA went to great lengths to define citizen, but did not define natural born citizen. We know that because U.S. citizenship law wasn't the same as the English law that applied to English subjects. The U.S. didn't grant birthright citizenship to Blacks and Native Americans born in the U.S. until about a century and more AFTER the Constitution was drafted - the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.Which is flawed, as I've proven above.
They are also incorrect about that, as well. Ex Parte Lockwood noted:
"In Minor v. Happersett, 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, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since"
Besides Ankeny, how many court decisions are you going to label "wrong", before you entertain the possibility that your interpretation is the "wrong" one?
It cites the exact passage in which SCOTUS defined Constitutional natural born citizen. Binding precedent recognized and cited.
You really don't understand the law very well.
It never even mentions natural born citizenship. Therefore, it cannot be recognizing Minor as precedential regarding something it never even mentions.
It's bad enough that you imagine a decision sets precedent with mere dicta. It is worse that now you seem to think a decision recognizes precedent when it doesn't even say anything at all.
The Birther mind is a godd@mned prodigy of nature.
It remains an unchallenged fact: Wong Kim Ark is the only Supreme Court decision that has ever been cited as precedent for the definition of natural born citizen by any subsequent court.
Ex Parte Lockwood recognized Minor v. Happersett's discussion of Constitutional natural born citizen and Minor's status as such, defined by the court, to be a holding of the court.
Precedent established, recognized, and cited.
Oh for god's sake!
Parte Lockwood cites Minor because the cases are virtually identical in that the plaintiff's are women, citizens, and as such were demanding that women should be granted the same privileges and immunities as men under the 14th Amendment! There is absolutely NO attempt by the Court in ex Parte Lockwood to define natural born citizen!
"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, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizons of the United States was no violation of the federal constitution."
And yet, to defend this claim, you post laws that are identical to English common law. Fascinating.
You're missing the factor of time. You seem to think WKA asserts English law applied to citizenship laws in the U.S. since before the Constution was drafted and after, but we know for a FACT that isn't true given WHEN the two laws I cited were enacted.
Quote:
IC insists ad nauseum that the Minor decision cannot be discussing "natural born citizenship" if it only mentions "citizenship." But here in Lockwood, they are mentioning only citizenship while directly referencing Minor's mention of "natural born citizenship."
Minor v. Happersett defined Constitutional natural born citizen in the very same passage Lockwood cites.
Quote:
And with the ubiquitous Birther habit to search for magic words, IC hallucinates that the phrase "this court held" somehow changes what is mere dicta in the Minor decision to an actual holding of the court
That would be because it's not dicta. When the court discusses a certain reason as an independent ground in support of the decision, that reasoning is not dictum.
Undoubtedly, but this thread will continue on the 27th;.....:
if only vegas accepted bets.
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.
