- In fact from the text you have provided, I could argue the Court specifically went out of it's way not to rule on the definition of a Natural Born Citizen.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, 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 [p168] 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.
- Permalink Reply by on
- HR,
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 (The children born of citizen parents are natural-born)
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] 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.(doubts are to the second class and it was not necessary to solve them)
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Court didn't make a ruling, only an observation. Are we reading the same text? It say..."Some authorities go further...", it doesn't say the Court agrees with that position, only that "Some authorities go further" Two sentences later it clarifies this position when it says..."For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."What it does say is logical...Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization.
- Permalink Reply by on
- /that is why the entire issue is MOOT.
- Permalink Reply by on
- what is the purpose of ignoring the 14th amendment as it is very well settled in law as to the child born in the USA is a citizen period. You can not be a citizen and then not be a citizen. IMHO
- Permalink Reply by on
- He's arguing the Art II Sec 1 criteria as to a Natural Born, and he's not doing bad. I didn't expect him to use Minor, but I've been down this road, and feel there is nothing new under the Birther sun.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Bingham made that statement you are refering to while debating S61 the Civil Rights Act of 1866. So the statement doesn't hold any water for it to be used as valid for the 14th. Also Bingham didn't write the first clause of the 14th, Howard did.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Your correct. I did not say the comments I posted were in regard to the 14th (I dated them both and posted links). You'll notice I stated after the quotes 'find the debates on passage of 14A'. And, again yes, Mr. Howard wrote the first clause and Mr. Howard made some interesting comments as well regarding citizenship. Well worth reading.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Here's what Bingham said,- John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))I'm going back and reading your linksThe first link didn't workThe second is so small I can't read it, you have another link to that?Anyone who has taken Con Law knows that Bingham said a lot of stupid stuff. Just like today, most of these guys weren't really attorneys and half of them misquoted the law and had to come back and redefine their statements. So debates don't really show us anything, I'm looking for SCOTUS rulings.Send me the Howard Quotes you have.
- Permalink Reply by on
- HR, I'll repost the first link. The second I believe you can move your cursor over and left click to enlarge.Now this one is a little small. I'll look for a better source:
- Permalink Reply by on
- Opinion in Congress has no validity in a Court of law. Judges tend to look to the law and then to similar law for guidance. They do not like speeches as meaningful objects very often. When reading SC briefs and decisions rarely will a speech be quoted as a source of fact. JMHO
- Permalink Reply by on
- The intent of the law, in court, can be used to determine findings. Therefore the intent of the Congress, in Federal law should be in consideration IMO. The Congressional record would be the source to determine intent.It hold for contract law as well. A meeting of the minds in regard to intent of promises.It aslo holds for individual relations, the promises men live by, the intent of those promises being relavent.
No comments:
Post a Comment