Why Wasn't Ankeny v Daniels Appealed To The Supreme Court?

Then hit the Report Abuse button and report the “lies”. After all, if the “lies” are that bad ...

If somebody put a gun to your head and said, ‘Tell the truth about Fantasywriter’, you’d end up dead.

Sad but true.

If somebody put a gun to your head and said, ‘Tell the truth about Fantasywriter’, you’d end up dead. Sad but true.

You assume they'd live past pulling the gun and talking. ;)

“It was not necessary for the court to conclusively define NBC because it was not a concept in dispute before the court.”

That is a very interesting statement. And it may explain why the Minor decision is not usually cited as having defined NBC.

The best example of this comes from the Wong Kim Ark case.

In his dissenting opinion Chief Justice Fuller makes several claims about what the majority opinion means. He says that according to the majority, the Constituional terms “natural born Citizen” and “citizen of the United States” were defined based on English Common Law. That would have been an excellant time to point out that Minor is binding precedent for the definition of NBC. But he doesn’t mention Minor.

Later in the dissent, he says that it is inconceivable to him that children of visiting aliens born in the United States are eligible to the Presidency while children born overseas to American citizen parents are not eligible. And again he doesn’t cite Minor as precedent.

And this is the Justice who wrote the Lockwood decision only a few years earlier. If Chief Justice Fuller doesn’t interpete Minor as defining NBC, it is hard to image any court today saying that it is. Which may explain why the Indiana Court of Appeals said this about the Minor decision,

“Thus, the Court [in Minor decision] left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”

I don't understand this obsession with wanting to control how I respond to what you post. In order to clarify what I'm responding to, it's most efficient to quote what you post and to reply to that post.

The wording of your question demonstrates that parental citizenship may only "relate to" and not entirely define NBC.

My question was based on the premise of one definition of NBC (which is why I said THE definition). How the criteria relates to that definition is strictly for entirely defining the term. Second, the wording of my question is irrelevant to the fact that Justice Waite uses the characterization of NBC for only one set of citizenship criteria ... one that looks like it was basically plagiarized from Vattel's Law of Nations.

Minor's citizenship was stipulated, and the court referred to NBC solely as a means of determining whether even the highest form of citizenship should, via the intent of the 14th A, trump a state law that prohibited its female citizens from voting. It concluded, under the very best circumstances for a U.S. female, that despite the 14th A, a state could indeed deny its females the vote.

That's an interesting thought, but the ruling doesn't say anything about a need to determine the highest form of citizenship or whether such citizenship would trump state laws. Instead, Waite explores different ways one can be a citizen and whether voting is one of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. IOW, he's not finding whether the highest form of citizenship can or can't trump a sate law, but whether the lowest form of citizenship (14th amendment) added to the privileges and immunities of citizenship, and whether state laws are actually denying pre-existing P&I of citizenship.

It's interesting that you classify this as the highest form of citizenship, which actually strengthens the idea that when Waite identified two classes of citizens at birth, that he only characterized one as NBC based on the specified criteria.

It was not necessary for the court to conclusively define NBC because it was not a concept in dispute before the court.

The definition was used to dispute a citizenship claim through the 14th amendment. If that concept is NOT conclusively defined, then it doesn't actually reject the argument because the other class of citizenship matches the criteria for 14th amendment citizenship. IOW, there's no point in characterizing the higher form of citizenship of NBC if it is not an exclusive definition and characterization. That the citizenship of the parents is included as part of the holding solidifies that the NBC definition is exclusive. It also explains why Horace Gray went out of his way to avoid declaring Wong Kim Ark to be a a natural-born citizen more than 20 years later.

Think of it this way, if the court had mentioned "bread" and noted such was available in loafs and was sometimes wrapped, that would not have conclusively defined bread.

You're using an oversimplified analogy. NBC is a hyphenated and modified noun and "bread" is not. A better analogy might be a term like whole-wheat bread.

EXAMPLE: It was never doubted that baking flour that contains the bran, germ and endoplasm results in a loaf of wheat bread. This is whole-wheat bread, as distinguished from white bread and Texas toast. Some authorities go further and include as wheat bread those made from flour without reference to bran, germ and endoplasm. To this class there are doubts, but never the first.

The characterizing adjective "whole-wheat" is defined by a specific set of criteria the same way that "natural-born" is defined by a specific set of criteria. The ONLY way to reconcile that the second class is actually NBC is to satisfy the criteria that is not refenced, which is the citizenship of the parents. It's a self-limiting definition, otherwise, there's no point in using the characterization.

This is a poor argument. You're relying on a speculative statement in a dissent which isn't based on anything that is actually stated within the majority opinion. Besides the assumption is wrong. The appeal to the Supreme Court brought up the point that Fuller was responding to, because it was based on a citation made by the lower court. Fuller addresses the speculation made in the appeal, but the majority punts this point entirely. Second, it fails because the majority opinion still quoted, affirmed and respected the Minor definition of NBC.

The Indiana court was all over the place and it fails because it admits that Wong Kim Ark was not declared to be a natural-born citizen. By footnote, the Indiana court tries to brush off this inconvenient fact by claiming its immaterial because the eligibility requirement is only relevant to those persons who become president, ignoring that it's actually a safeguard for the people.

Thank you for your analysis of several decisions that have cited Minor. The analysis sheds light on important aspects that are at a level I have not addressed. It will be interesting to see whether, or how others on this thread respond.

I argued a few years ago thatMinor clearly resolved the NBC issue, but eventually realized that it did not say what I and many others believed it said.

The final quote in your post reveals the risk inherent in any review of the issue by the current court. Again, that risk is undoubtedly viewed as a value by liberals.

OE, my apologies if I and others have hijacked your first post on Free Republic.

I’ve made it clear that we disagree.

I think Minor states that born on US soil of two citizen parents is an NBC but does not limit NBC status to this specific example.

You seem to think that Minor states that NBC status is limited to born on US soil of two citizen parents.

Just how do you know that BladeByran runs thefogbow?

I don’t feel so threatened by opposing or contrary opinions that I think they need to be silenced.

I don't understand this obsession with wanting to control how I respond to what you post.

Allow me to help you understand. It is not a matter of “control” it is a matter of your form of responses.

You have demonstrated to others on this thread that you can be rude, obnoxious and intellectually dishonest. In addition, your cut and paste posts along with the use of upper caps and exclamation points are like blaring loud speakers (you may not understand how impossible it is to intimidate most people in an anonymous public forum).

I discovered this about you several months ago when we first exchanged and as much as told you then that I would appreciate it if you would not post to me when I do not post to you. At the same moment, I realize there is not much I can do but ignore you.

(You will be pleased to know that my initial thought was to reply using the words “flying doughnut” but refrained as it did not seem appropriate for this forum.)

I read it right here on FR. Actually, his association w fogbow has been mentioned on FR for mos, and by different FReepers. It’s no secret. If I found and read the posts, I bet you can too.

I’ve made it clear that we disagree.

It was never unclear. The difference is that I can support my reasoning with a lot more than just one-liners. The characterization of NBC is self-limiting since it is A) applied to a set of circumstances that starkly contrasts with the circumstances the Supreme Court was rejecting in the appellee's argument, B) because of the uncanny resemblence to Vattel's exclusive definition of NBC, C) because of the placement of the sentence in the paragraph, D) because the exact sentence says "as distinguihed from" and E) because the definition and circumstances were affirmed more than 20 years later in a separate Supreme Court decsion. What do you have???

Allow me to help you understand. It is not a matter of “control” it is a matter of your form of responses.

It's one thing to ask about how something is stated, but you've been making several direct and indirect suggestions about how I'm supposed to posted, which started with this:

Would you set out in your own words and in a brief paragraph the points you wish to make in your #52, it would be most helpful for any who may wish to respond.

Followed later by a bizarre response:

re your recent, it is not a reading comprehension problem, it is simply a matter of trying to decide in the time available whether bulky, cut and paste material is relevant.

Note: I didn't say anything about a reading comprehension problem. I had asked what you have trouble understanding. In this same post, you made a bold challenge:

I am confident you will be unable to point to a Minor cite in Ark that is used to support a definition of NBC.

Accompanied with a control statement:

You can have the final word.

Except that I didn't actually get the "final word," because you followed with:

(A suggestion, Edge, you would be more persuasive if you dropped the attitude.)

This is because I questioned your characterization of a few relevant and specific Supreme Court citations as "bulky, cut and paste material." You also questioned my judgment about whether this material was relevant. This means either a) you did not read it, b) you did not understand it, or c) you were trying to dismiss it out of hand as to avoid admitting what it says. Yet, here you are now claiming that I can be "rude, obnoxious and intellectually dishonest." You seem to be projecting your own behaviors onto me. And I understand why. This isn't a winning argument for you. Further, you complain beause I capitalize a few words (which is for emphasis and clarity, NOT for intimidation as you incorrectly presume), and then you accuse me of using exclamation points like "blaring loudspeakers." What exclamation points? I haven't used in any in this thread or the other thread where you were pretending to give me the final word.

I notice you've completely punted the NBC argument now. I will take your deflection and complaints about how I post as a concession on this issue. One suggestion: It's better to post in threads about topics where you have a better understanding of the topic.

What do I have?

Reality.

You read it on FR?

But what leads you to believe that this information is actually correct?

Your reality = a whole lot of nothing. Nicely punted.

Truthers tell me the same thing.

Or was the case appealed and the high court refused to hear the case?

Which still leaves you with nothing. Again, nicely punted.