The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: You state: "READ IT !!!!! It

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: MvH (see in situ)

You state: "READ IT !!!!! It

You state: "READ IT !!!!! It does not define NBC !!!!! It says that born on soil to citizen parents clearly is NBC. It does that (sic?) explore the other options."

But your quote from the decision clearly states "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". So NBC = "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens". Whether you like it or not, THIS IS A DEFINITION! Get it? Who are you claiming is illiterate?

There are no other options to explore for NBC, just other options to explore for CITIZENSHIP! In your mind, you apparently think the Court is referring to other options for NBC, when it was simply stating that there are other options for CITIZENS. Usually when I see this type of stubborness, well ... frankly, I don't usually see this type of stubborness!

As I have repeatedly mentioned in my post and comments on this topic, the Court in Minor was focusing on CITIZENSHIP, NOT NBC, since it needed to establish that Ms. Minor was a CITIZEN before it could determine whether her status as a citizen entitled her to vote. And because it found that she was a NBC, she therefore was a citizen.

So after defining NBC and indicating that there were NO DOUBTS about NBCs being citizens (ie. no doubt that Ms. Minor was a citizen), it contrasted, on the one hand, NBCs who are undoubtedly citizens, with those on the other hand, who "some authorities ... include as citizens", namely "children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship", who may or may not be CITIZENS.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?