“You’ve admitted this is based on Vattel, so that proves the Minor court REJECTED English common law in defining NBC, and the WKA decision AFFIRMED the Minor decision.”
No. The Minor court, which did NOT investigate the meaning of NBC, screwed it up. It didn’t matter too much, because it was a VOTING RIGHTS CASE, not a citizenship one. WKA did not, in any way, affirm the Minor court’s use of NBC, and spent half the decision showing it was WRONG.
Edge, you are a fruitcake. You are not sane. But I’ve posted the full quotes, so if anyone sane IS reading this thread still, they will know the truth - something you are incapable of recognizing.
Upon what status did Virginia Minor’s voting rights hinge had she indeed possessed such a right in the judgement of the court, Mr. Rogers?
As plaintiff her claim was that she possessed eligibility to vote on the basis of being a 14th Amendment citizen, so citizenship actually was determinative.
She lost.
They DID investigate the meaning of NBC. Read the decision. The first fourth is about who the original citizens were, as defined by the Constituion.
It didn’t matter too much, because it was a VOTING RIGHTS CASE, not a citizenship one.
The voting rights were tied directly to a class of citizenship. WKA AFFIRMED this when they gave the holding in Minor. Luria AFFIRMED that Minor established a precedent on Art II presidential eligibility based on its citizenship determination. I've given direct quotes. You can't get around this, so it's time to admit you're wrong..
Edge, you are a fruitcake. You are not sane.
Nonsense. You're a typical liberal who relies on the three B's to try desperately to get out of your losing argument: bluff, B.S., and bully. It's not working and you know it. You've proven most of my points for me by admitting that Minor was relying on Vattel, and when YOU pointed out the Luria decision several months ago. Thanks for making my arguments so easy to prove.