Replies

Now you are back to mis-leading people about the Minor case, which does not even have the word VATTEL in in nowhere.

No one who can read was misled. I said Waite did NOT cite Vattel, only that he used the exact same words Vattel used in his definition of natural citizenship. Read it AGAIN.

They match so much that Waite should have been sued for plagiarism (since he failed to cite Vattel).

Here is what the Supreme Court said about the Minor people, in 1898, and I quote:

I already quoted the passage that Gray used, except that I explained that Waite did NOT cite English common law. His definition of NBC matched Vattel's side by side, which is why I put them side by and underlined the matching phrases.

Plus, if you will notice, you just said there is no such thing as English common law which the Supreme Court just said there was and then starts to review it, and I quote the same Supreme Court again:

I didn't say there is no such thing as English common law. I said there's no English common law in the Minor decision. Waite did NOT cite ANY English common law when giving his definition of natural born citizenship.

squeeks, you're posts are bordering on delusional because you are claiming things that I never said and you're ignoring what I did say.

Sooo, women and minors who were born here were already citizens because they were born here. Not because of who their parents were.

You're not reading ALL the words. Waite said "native women and minors." Waite has already said "natives" are those who are born in the country to citizen parents.

Judge Waite said "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts" which is just the opposite of what you are saying which is that this case solved in favor of Vattel, who is not even mentioned in the case. What you are doing is misleading people.

Sorry, but this is babbling nonsense. Waite said it was not necessary to solve the doubts about the second class of citizens, because V. Minor fell within the first class of citizens ... natural born citizens ... those who are born in the country to citizen parents. We KNOW this is what he meant because it was explained as much 20 plus years later by Gray in the Wong Kim Ark decision, who said:

The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ...

Sooo, you need to quit being a Vattle Birther, and quit misleading people about Mark Rubio not being eligible.

This isn't about Vattel. It's specifically about what the SCOTUS ruled on multiple occasions:

all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Now ... you said this was somehow misread backwards. You still have not explained why you believe so.

You said:"I didn't say there is no such thing as English common law. I said there's no English common law in the Minor decision. Waite did NOT cite ANY English common law when giving his definition of natural born citizenship." FIRST, here is what the Minor judge said:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar. . .

Now let's look at that. First, the Minor judge went to common law in the very next sentence.

SECOND: Look WHO and WHEN they did it "framers of the Constitution" means it was done before it was framed, or signed, which at that time we were under. . .ENGLISH LAW!!! Which included ENGLISH COMMON LAW!!! Even after the constitution American still used and USES UNTIL THIS VERY DAY English Common law. (Which I learned in my 6 hours of Business Law in college)

Plus, I am not sure if I caught you pulling the "but" stuff on one or two threads, sooo if you have only done it once, then just ignore me fussing at you again above.

If you are innocent of that one, then I want to substitute that fussing for this fussing:

I looked at the page numbers where you picked sentences out of context, and the two sentences you put together were not only about two different things, but were 48 PAGES APART in the court case. How could you!!! Have you no shame!!!