Replies

Oh brother. Can’t you read.

“It claimed that it left open the question of citizenship for the children of two citizen parents, and elsewhere said that it CONTEMPLATED this scenario.

That is not what this says.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

“Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen. 12”

Footnote 12 says:

Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.

I can’t even bother with reading the rest of your post when you can’t even get ths right.

Btw, I had never even read this case until someone on this thread brought it up as if it proved his point. But it doesn’t . Because the court is saying Minor didn’t resolve the issue about NBC.

Can't read??? You're proving my point for me by posting the contradicting statements. What it cited from Minor does not say in any words that a question is left open. This is the Ankeny court not reading what it cited. It claims a question was left open, but in the footnote, it says the scenario was contemplated RATHER than a even narrower scenario which it reserves for Obama. So which question is left open: the scenario that was CONTEMPLATED or Obama's scenario.

And really, you don't help yourself when you admit that you don't read the parts of someone else's posts that are inconvenient for you. Ankeny ruins its own contradictory claims by citing the actual language from Minor that says:

These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Does the court not know what "as distinguished from" means?? Does the court not want to admit that Minor reviewed citizenship for alien children under the Nationality Act of 1790?? And does that court not understand that is undermined its own logic when it said:

In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."

Only six years after the 14th amendment was ratified, the Minor court said it does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. I can go on and on about the mistakes in Ankeny. Would you like to quote some more passages to keep proving my points for me??