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.
And your reading comprehension fails yet again. He only addressed what the court already knew. That Minor was a citizen. NO one on either side of the case argued the opposite point. The plaintiff (Minor) and the defendant (Happersett) agreed that she was a citizen. The disagreement came when it had to with Voting
I still do not see where Lockwood explicitly stated taht Minor was a Natural Born Citizen. Only that per her citizenship (being born of citizen parents) that she herself was a citizen of the United States.
Care to show us where Natural born is in his findings?
And from Minor V Happersett:
We have given this case the careful consideration its importance demands. If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us. The arguments addressed to us bearing upon such a view of the subject may perhaps be sufficient to induce those having the power to make the alteration, but they ought not to be permitted to influence our judgment in determining the present rights of the parties now litigating before us. No argument as to woman's need of suffrage can be considered. We can only act upon her rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an end if we find it is within the power of a state to withhold.
Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone, and that the constitutions and laws of the several states which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we Affirm the judgment.
Please show us where in the decision they claimed that Minor was a Natural Born Citizen. They spent on 1 paragraph entertaining what a natural born citizen was, but made it clear that they weren't interested in arguing that pont.
Yet Wong Kim Ark spent pages describing the derivative of citizenship, and how the US used English Common Law to establish our citizenship laws.
What carries more weight? A case that spent 1 sentence on the non-issue in dicta, or a case that spent pages describing how one earns citizenship, in a CITIZENSHIP case?
Ok I will. Ex Parte Lockwood explicitly referred to Minor v Happersett as precedent.
Try again, Anonymous Internet Person.
Ex Parte Lockwood never mentions natural born citizenship once. In fact... the word "natural" occurs nowhere in the decision. So whatever precedent you hallucinate is being cited here, it is not the definition of natural born citizen.
So... I have cited Ankeny v. Daniels. And we are still waiting for you to cit a single case where Minor v. Happersett was cited as precedent for the definition of natural born citizen.
Facts are undeniable. Your egregious misinterpretations however are not facts.
No misinterpretation on my end. Just wishful thinking on your part.
PLUS there's no way you can dispute the FACT that the 14th Amendment provided birthright citizenship nearly 100 years AFTER the Constitution was drafted, and the Indian Act of 1924 was enacted ANOTHER 50 or so years later.
No misinterpretation on my end. Just wishful thinking on your part.
There you go again, accusing me of "wishful thinking."
And yet, my side has won every single court case raised in the past three plus years.
And yet, Barack Obama is still President of the United States.
Wishful thinking does not appear to be necessary on my side of the debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
PLUS there's no way you can dispute the FACT that the 14th Amendment provided birthright citizenship nearly 100 years AFTER the Constitution was drafted, and the Indian Act of 1924 was enacted ANOTHER 50 or so years later.
Alas... the author of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, Senator Jacob Howard called bullsh*t on the claim at the very moment he first introduced the clause to Congress:
Quote:
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.
Care to show me in the case Wong Kim Ark where he is declared a 'natural born citizen'?
Straw man.
I have proven that US v. Wong Kim Ark has been cited (very recently I might add) as precedent for the definition of natural born citizen.
We are still waiting for you to show us a single example of where Minor v. Happersett has ever been used as precedent for the definition of natural born citizen.
This is your big chance to put up or shut up Anonymous Person. Why are you letting it slip away?
Ex Parte Lockwood never mentions natural born citizenship once. In fact... the word "natural" occurs nowhere in the decision. So whatever precedent you hallucinate is being cited here, it is not the definition of natural born citizen.
So... I have cited Ankeny v. Daniels. And we are still waiting for you to cit a single case where Minor v. Happersett was cited as precedent for the definition of natural born citizen.
Hop to it.
Franky, Ex Parte Lockwood cites Minor as precedent. Wong Kim Ark was never declared a 'natural born citizen'. Ankeny is only a state law case and surely does not overrule Minor which confirmed the American “common-law” definition of a “natural-born” Citizen” to be a child born in the country to citizen parents. The Indiana court acknowledged that Wong Kim Ark did not declare Wong an Article II “natural born” Citizen. Ankeny did not hold that Obama was born in Hawaii or that he is a “natural born Citizen.”
Last edited by Steve McGarrett; 01-18-2012 at 07:17 PM..
Problem is... first and foremost... that if you read all the rules you will find that a Georgia administrative agency subpoena cannot be served outside of the state of Georgia. Orly Taitz failed in getting one of these bogus subpoena's served in Hawaii just last Friday.
And until there is an order to compel from the judges, such subpoenas are the equivalent of asking "please." There is no legal penalty to ignoring them.
Well, not entirely accurate, since failure to provide proof, will keep his name off of the georgia state ballot.
On a side note, I want to say thanks to all of those sending me the postive reps for my posts.
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.
