Replies

You have caused me to waste my time yet again on these four ancient and largely irrelevant SCOTUS cases. To the extent that they cite Vattel, who was a Swiss-German philosopher of some sort with absolutely no authority on the meaning of the constitution, the cited material is a dismal failure.

One citation to Vattel's theories was the English translation from the original French, 1797 in English, 1757 in French, the English ten years after the constitution became effective so it could not have served even as "persuasive" much less binding as an inspiration to the constitutional convention.

It does not matter that the justices in the oldest case had served in the revolution much less that their daddies had. That has nothing to do with the quality of their decision. Any reference to NBC was DICTA not a holding of the SCOTUS or a precedent. Do you know what DICTA means in the context of SCOTUS decisions? Bupkus. Furthermore, The Venus case was apparently (according to the cited article) NOT about NBC qualifications at all but on the entirely different matter of what happens to a ship's cargo when the ship is seized as a prize. This would be a case at admiralty and not even part of the ordinary system of law. Admiralty is quite different and is one of the very few genuine specialties recognized in the profession along with patent and copyright. DICTA has as much to do with that case, as a precedent, as would have been words that observed that the decision was handed down on a sunny day.

Minor vs. Happersett is a particularly inapt precedent in that it is about a woman suffragette suing Missouri claiming a legal "right" to register and vote. The SCOTUS of that time ruled, in accordance with law, that she was NOT entitled to register or vote and that was because she was a woman and because women were allowed to do neither. Any DICTA about her citizenship are merely that: DICTA and not at all precedent for the current "controversy."

Shanks is a case determining whether the estate of a father who was a South Carolina "colonist" would go entirely to one daughter who was a South Carolina colonist at the time of her birth to a father who adhered to the revolution and died an American citizen and a South Carolinian for her entire life or whether the estate would be divided between her and her American born sister who subsequently moved to England in 1782 and became a British citizen. With scant few details, we are left to imagine that a claim was made that the sister who had moved to England was challenged as ineligible to inherit because of that simple fact. The DICTA in that case indicate that it may AT LEAST be said that each of these sisters who were born IN South Carolina of a father who was of South Carolina and father and daughters all lived in South Carolina after the revolution until one moved in 1782, were thereby citizens of the United States by their birth in a predecessor colony and by the nationality of their father. I will go out on a limb here and state my suspicion that (1) this does not limit such citizenship as is conferred by birth IN the United States OR by having one parent an American citizen and (2) that no one born in the pre-Revolution colonies is still in shape to litigate such questions. The SCOTUS divided the estate.

Finally US vs. Wong Kim Ark born in the US to two resident alien parents. Some customs pecksniff tried to prevent Wong Kim Ark from returning to the United States after a trip to China. SCOTUS ruled that, born in the United States, Wong Kim Ark was a citizen without further ado though neither of his parents were citizens and ordered him admitted to the US. Just how that is imagined to support perpetually offended politically fundamentalist "constitutional" Birtherism is beyond me. It said Wong Kim Ark was a citizen by birth and not that one must be born here or how many citizen parents one must have if not born here.

Also the website seems to exist to perpetuate Birther heresies as reflected in reader responses and in the 2009 date of the article which suggests that they were a day late and a dollar short on stopping Obozo and apparently the Birthers do not want such shoddy work to go to waste.

Do you really wonder why the courts give this nonsense short shrift?

Lest I seem unfriendly, and in the interest of full discussion, Freeper "Cboldt" with whom I disagree on this stuff is an attorney who apparently has litigated such questions. He has a lot more recent SCOTUS decisions that you may find more useful, has the benefit of a track record here for integrity and candor, and much better advocates your position than this sorry newsletter. You should check in with Cboldt for far better sources.