15 thoughts on “Precedent Cases

  1. Why don’t you include Lockwood Ex Parte – it cites Minor as precedent. This clearly goes against the ‘dicta’ argument against Minor being a ‘citizenship case’.

    From Lockwood:

    In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizens of the United States was no violation of the federal constitution.

  2. I am not sure about your argument so I will have to read the case. Thanks for the reference

  3. Why don’t you include Lockwood Ex Parte – it cites Minor as precedent. This clearly goes against the ‘dicta’ argument against Minor being a ‘citizenship case’.

    From Lockwood:

    In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizens of the United States was no violation of the federal constitution.

  4. I am not sure about your argument so I will have to read the case. Thanks for the reference

  5. The case has limited relevance as it does not address the status of those born on soil to non citizen parents.

    In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizens of the United States was no violation of the federal constitution.

    The court looked at the status of children so born a few years later and found that indeed it was covered by our Constitution.

    Again this is not an issue of citizenship as much as the right of a woman to be admitted to the Bar.

  6. Note that the lower court also addressed Minor and similarly observed that the Court did not rule on the status of children so born, leaving that for a later court, which would be US v Wong Kim Ark.

  7. Lockwood ex parte was 1894, Wong Kim Ark was 1898. Have any cases post-WKA that uses the language ” if born of citizen parents”? WKA is the precedent-setting case.

  8. Yes, and the case is of little relevance really as it did not address, like Minor, the status of children born on soil to alien parents.

    Why don’t people read United States v Wong Kim Ark, which takens Minor and expands it to cover children born on soil to any parent.

  9. The term natural born citizen is not used in Ex Parte Lockwood, so even if one makes the case that the Minor was a citizenship case, it did not determine the definition of natural born citizen. The single sentence “[t]hese were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” can be taken out of the decision and the decision is not changed in any way. That is almost the definition of dicta.

    As Judge Morrow of the District Court of the Northern District of California said in Wong Kim Ark,:

    “But the supreme court has never squarely determined, either prior to or subsequent to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment in 1868, the political status of children born here of foreign parents. In the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 168, the court expressly declined to pass upon that question.”

  10. As Judge after Judge has said, and as appears in countless books, it is established beyond any doubt that we as a nation currently consider anyone born a citizen (not Naturalized later) to be a natural-born citizen, eligible (if meeting the other criteria) to run for President.

    It is neither stupid, seditious, nor dishonorable to argue that we should never have adopted this definition. It is, however, stupid, seditious and dishonorable to argue that that definition is NOT the one currently in force. An important distinction. It is that very distinction for instance which makes Mario Apuzzo not a serious constitutional scholar whose ideas are worthy of consideration, but rather a buffoon.

  11. Lockwood ex parte was 1894, Wong Kim Ark was 1898. Have any cases post-WKA that uses the language ” if born of citizen parents”? WKA is the precedent-setting case.

  12. Yes, and the case is of little relevance really as it did not address, like Minor, the status of children born on soil to alien parents.

    Why don’t people read United States v Wong Kim Ark, which takens Minor and expands it to cover children born on soil to any parent.

  13. The term natural born citizen is not used in Ex Parte Lockwood, so even if one makes the case that the Minor was a citizenship case, it did not determine the definition of natural born citizen. The single sentence “[t]hese were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” can be taken out of the decision and the decision is not changed in any way. That is almost the definition of dicta.

    As Judge Morrow of the District Court of the Northern District of California said in Wong Kim Ark,:

    “But the supreme court has never squarely determined, either prior to or subsequent to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment in 1868, the political status of children born here of foreign parents. In the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 168, the court expressly declined to pass upon that question.”

  14. As Judge after Judge has said, and as appears in countless books, it is established beyond any doubt that we as a nation currently consider anyone born a citizen (not Naturalized later) to be a natural-born citizen, eligible (if meeting the other criteria) to run for President.

    It is neither stupid, seditious, nor dishonorable to argue that we should never have adopted this definition. It is, however, stupid, seditious and dishonorable to argue that that definition is NOT the one currently in force. An important distinction. It is that very distinction for instance which makes Mario Apuzzo not a serious constitutional scholar whose ideas are worthy of consideration, but rather a buffoon.

  15. Wish we could edit these. Second paragraph second sentence I omitted “not,” as in “…to argue that that definition is NOT the one currently in force.”

    NBC: Done.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s