Replies

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

The so-called "common law" as I've shown already used Vattel's definition of NBC verbatim. One more time. Here are the TWO definitions side by side:

Justice Waite: "... 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 ..."

Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Both definitions says "natives" and "natural-born citizens." Both definitions are dependent on birth to citizen parents. Do you think that definiton of NBC looks like English common law?? If so, cite the passage that matches the way the Vattel definition matches. I'll wait.

Quit chopping stuff up and leaving out important stuff. Here is the REAL Minor quote:

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been DOUBTS, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

It does not say that children of aliens who are born here are NOT NBC's. It says "some say yes" and "some say no" and there are "doubts", which I think is pretty obvious because 24 years later in Wong Kim Ark, there were doubts. If there weren't any doubts about kids of Chinese people, there would NOT have been a case. I mean like DUH!!!

In 1874 there were DOUBTS as to whether or not a heavier-than-air machine would ever fly. Do we still have those doubts??? Not me. Those doubts got answered in 1903 at a place called Kitty Hawk.

Same here. Whatever doubts there might have been got answered in 1898 in Wong Kim Ark. Sooo, I mean where are you coming from quoting a 1874 women's voting rights case to try to over rule a Supreme Court case of 24 years later??? How do you even form that ludicrous a thought???

But let's go further and assume, for this thread, that Minor said "OH heck no--no way the kid of some alien is a natural born citizen just because he was born here in the U.S. Assume that for a minute.

What happens the second that Wong Kim Ark is decided 24 years later. The Minor case would be bad law. Even if it had came right out and said that, in 1874, that there wasn't any doubts and the only NBCs were kids born here to two citizens. Twenty four years later, its no longer the law. For example, is Dred Scott still good law???

Sooo, there is one question about why you try to turn "doubts and they aren't relevant to this case" INTO "Whoopee!!! This case proves there are NOT any doubts." But there is a second question of why are you screwing around with a 1874 case in the first place, when there is a 1898 case that actually addresses the issue???

Don't you think it is kind of a goofy law theory to use a earlier case instead of the later case??? Don't you feel kind of silly trying to convince people to disregard the later case for the earlier one??? Are Vattle Birthers like Benjamin Button and time goes backwards for them??? Oh Tee Hee!!!