Replies

That is, the question of whether or not a person is a "natural born" citizen or not is relevant for only one purpose under our law and that is under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution to test the eligibility of a person to hold the office of President of the United States--that was not the issue in Minor.

Would you say that Minor v. Happersett has within it a definition of, or what constitutes, a natural born citizen?

That is what I have tried to explain in #39--that is a technical question. The lawyer looks at that question as a joke the answer is so obvious. That is what the Ad Law Judge thought of Orly.

Minor has nothing whatever to do with the natural born citizen question under Article II--the reference is technically "dicta"--loose language in the opinion from the court. The court called it a holding but it isn't--it has nothing to do with the issue.

"Would you say that Minor v. Happersett has within it a definition of, or what constitutes, a natural born citizen?"

That is what I have tried to explain in #39--that is a technical question.
That is a straightforward question. There either is or there isn't a definition.

The lawyer looks at that question as a joke the answer is so obvious.
If the answer is "so obvious" then why don't you answer it with a straightforward answer?
The answer to the question can't be "it's a technical question". That's a statement, not an answer.

Minor has nothing whatever to do with the natural born citizen question under Article II...
I know the case. I'm not asking you that. I'm asking you...Does Minor v. Happersett have within it a definition of, or what constitutes, a natural born citizen?"

That is what I have tried to explain in #39--that is a technical question. The lawyer looks at that question as a joke the answer is so obvious. That is what the Ad Law Judge thought of Orly.

Minor has nothing whatever to do with the natural born citizen question under Article II--the reference is technically "dicta"--loose language in the opinion from the court. The court called it a holding but it isn't--it has nothing to do with the issue.

The ALJ in Georgia cited dicta from a state appeals decision. This fails because it's not the highest legal precedence and it its not even the holding of this lower court decision. Nowhere in the Ankeny decision is Obama ever declared to be a natural-born citizen. The Ankeny court made a conclusion about a definition based on misinterpreting dicta from the Wong Kim Ark decision, which they ended up admitting was neither part of the holding nor part of any legal precedent.

We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution's Article II language ...

Now contrast that with a Supreme Court decision which cited Minor with WKA nowhere to be found:

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.

This quote is from Luria v. United States, decided about 15 years AFTER Wong Kim Ark. The Supreme Court has no problem recognizing Minor has something to do with the NBC question from Article II. Luria uses the term "native citizen" which was defined in Minor as "all children born in the country of citizen parents."