Triangulating Minor's definition of Natural-Born Citizen; why it's an exclusive definition

equilateral triangle ^ | 02-07-2012 | edge919

[PA-RIVER]

You have to admit, this one is the nail in the coffin for the birther idiots. You can see that these two are the same without alcohol. If you just slam you head on a cement floor 5 times and then quickly read these two, they are exactly the same for about two minutes! You'll also see some spots that look like stars!

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

Some authorities go further and include as Natural born citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

[PA-RIVER]

Since we have now established that these two sentences have the same meaning, we need to understand why the court wrote it with “Natural born” inserted into the second sentence:

“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”

“Some authorities go further and include as Natural born citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”

I would suggest that the court was running low on ink and the Justice's hand may have started to cramp. So completing the sentence without “natural born” inserted was simply a matter of economy. Writing with a feather was difficult and messy, so allowing readers to fabricate their own translations was preffered. The writer knew that Justices such as Bladder Gutsburgh could construe any meaning in any sentence, (just as we have proved with our scientific Jim Beam test) so just getting the general topic on paper was the most important task at hand.

Sentences have meaning. They are basic constructs of thoughts. But unfortunately, these sentences were written by people 200 years ago, and most them white men. So we can dismiss most of what they have written as racist, bigoted and homophobic gibberish. After further review, I am convinced that leaving the "Natural born" out of that phrase was also an attempt to smear the first black president.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

...and my girlfriend is actualy my wife!!

And your wife went along with that? What was she drinking???

[Harlan1196]

Why do you think Leo Donofrio is credible? Before 2008 he is a legal cypher - no legal cases, no publications, no mention anywhere to indicate he was a practicing lawyer. Why should anyone regard him as a Constitutional scholar?

[bvw]

Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem

1. Person A makes claim X.

2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.

3. Therefore X is false.

[bvw]

I will restate Harlan1196's claim against snafubar:

"You either do not have the intellectual capability to comprehend and contribute to discussions on the Constitution and the Law, or you are not permitted to do so (for reasons unstated). You therefore must rely upon authorities to tell you what is the proper way of thinking about the Constitution and the Law, and also for any analysis, interpretation and result of the application of Constitution and Law.

And you must choose among only those authorities I approve of.

[Harlan1196]

No - I would just like people to explain why I should pay any attention to Leo. He has no law experience - can you even tell me what law school he went to?

[bvw]

No founding era Supreme Court judge went to Law School either.

[Harlan1196]

They weren’t professional poker players or wannabe rock stars either. They were educated pillars of the community.

So can you point out a single legal accomplishment by Leo before he saw the potential $$$$ in the birth certificate movement?

[edge919]

For a bonus round, try these:

“...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

“...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of two parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

Excellent. Now we know why Ankeny said that Minor only considered situations when BOTH parents were citizens. Drinking also explains why they botched their citation of Wong Kim Ark.

Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, ...

[Brown Deer]

He has no law experience...

Really?

can you even tell me what law school he went to?

St. John’s University, School of Law

I would just like people to explain why I should pay any attention to Harlan1196

[bvw]

The men who wrote the Constitution had very little law school background. Only a few had “read” in Law at some college. All were self-taught, either in whole or part.

Why is it today that someone must be a certified “professional” with law degree, with standing before some Bar, to comment upon, to discuss EXPERTLY the Constitution and the Law? I will tell you there is no GOOD reason.

[Harlan1196]

So what is his legal history? How successful cases? How many publications? Help me understand why he is such a prominent Constitutional scholar.

He might be all you think he is - it is just that details seem scarce. Be is almost Obama like in that regard.

[Brown Deer]

What makes you qualified to question his credentials? You’re too ignorant to understand that he graduated from a very prestigious university!

[Harlan1196]

Obama graduated from Harvard Law School. What are you trying to tell me here?

As for Leo, I know enough to question a lawyer with no history and a unblemished record of failure when it comes to eligibility law suits.

Sorry, I respect success and accomplishments. How many losers do you really respect? That’s why I would.like some details about him. He is almost Obama-like when it comes to his past.

[Brown Deer]

I never said anything about your hero, 0bot.

[Harlan1196]

So why are you so impressed with prestigious law schools? I say it says nothing about their graduates - it where you end up that counts, not where you started. Harvard has created its share of failure’s. No doubt Leo’s school has too.

[Brown Deer]

So why are you so impressed with prestigious law schools?

Never said I was.

It was you, who said, "He has no law experience - can you even tell me what law school he went to?"

Obviously, you're too ignorant to know much about him and since you are so ignorant, you're not qualified to question his qualifications.

Harvard has created its share of failure’s.

Universities don't create failures. You're a failure, did the U.S. Navy create you? No.

[Harlan1196]

So what is his legal experience? That’s all I am asking. How can I judge him when there is nothing to judge?

Let’s try another tack - why do you respect his legal acumen?