Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: butterdezillion

Before you get too carried away, ask yourself this: if someone deliberately changed that page to remove the reference to Minor, why did they leave the link for “88 U. S. 167”—which leads directly to the text of Minor? Doesn’t that suggest that maybe this wasn’t an attempt to hide something?


83 posted on 07/01/2011 10:04:29 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies ]


To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

What Donofrio is saying is that they took out the title of the case so that those who would search for references to Minor v Happersett would not be able to see the different places where it was used as precedent in other cases. Donofrio has recently said that the two-citizen-parent definition for “natural born citizen” is established precedent, and cases that cited Minor v Happersett as precedent on questions of citizenship would support that.

What Donofrio is saying now is that back in early 2008 somebody realized that the Minor v Happersett references would prove that there is already an NBC definition established as precedent so they wanted to make it as difficult as possible for people to find out when Minor v Happersett was cited as precedent. So they had Justia take out that title so it wouldn’t show up in a search.


113 posted on 07/02/2011 6:49:50 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson