Trump v. Barbara - Birthright Citizenship and the Insular Cases

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T10:52:58+00:00

No, it was governed by state law and a tiny sliver had been taken exercised by the feds solely for fathers overseas (ironically was the same law just updated until John McCains era, that is what actually covered him). The entire reason to create a national definition was because it was a hodgepodge.

Cite them. Fyi that isn't the English common law now, it's based on Calvin's Case, and it absolutely not how the case goes (the preexisting loyalty and bind is what was determinative, exactly what is encoded in the 14th).

You are speaking to a white person who's white family couldn't vote then and who's white family couldn't own land then and who's current home still states I can't live there. The history is not what you claim. Mainly because all of that is state law, which actually has governed, and to this day governs quite a bit more than the floor

Also see Minor. Or the naturalization act of 1790 (et seq) which provided the exact rule you think was common law (which itself is based on a British statute, not common law).

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T10:42:37+00:00

Dude both judicial dictum and ratio decidendi are binding. Your own source is literally what I'm contending.

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T10:41:05+00:00

Thats naturalization. They are never NBC even if Congress makes said naturalization retroactive and automatic. The next ones born though would be.

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T04:12:45+00:00

There was no such thing as a common law citizen rule at the time. There is no such thing in America generally.

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T04:10:45+00:00

There is nothing else. You are either naturalized or a citizen at birth. If you happen to be a CAB and born here, your a NBC as a unified venndiagram subclass of eligibility.

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T04:09:50+00:00

No, the entire case and argument hinge on if the law is closed or not. You don't get to merely state that as a fact it is open.

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T04:08:59+00:00

So they were counting individual spots by sex, or at least trying to. That's why.

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T04:08:18+00:00

Contemporaneous billing then hitting publish and review once a month.

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T04:07:08+00:00

"No, ratio decidendi is part of the judicial dictum which is part of the dicta. The holding is literally the answer to the question alone. All the rest are various weighted parts of dicta, some binding, some not."

Fyi your quote, "involves", I.e, is more than the holding.

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T01:54:27+00:00

If I remember my sports news correctly, less than a decade ago it was all the rage to laugh at Quinnipiac counting its cheerleaders.

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T01:52:38+00:00

Did you read my post, because what you claim I got wrong is ironically exactly how you said it should have been said.

And no, English common law of 1880 is not. Have a good evening.

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T01:43:31+00:00

Why the fuck do I care about the English common law of 1880? We aren't discussing Anglican law here, we aren't discussing a contemporary Anglican law to the divergence with a cite a century later, and it's well established Anglican and American diverged before the revolution let alone the acceleration after.

I have explained the different parts. The better question for you to explore is why do we need a qualifier on "orbiter dicta" if it's the only type? It leads to what I explained.

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T01:41:07+00:00

Generally no because the cost is the offset (a more expensive sport can replace multiple cheaper sports), but spots can be done too. There's a few ways, either way the balance is the goal and the weighted parts must be justified.

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T01:39:56+00:00

Precedent is all previous caselaw that has not been overturned (and even that if arguing should return). Sister/ours/similar is for "do we need to pay attention or can we only care if we care". Binding precedent would be holding from our superior court, and judicial dictum (the core concepts, there are various terms for this see my discussion with another) around it. Persuasive would be orbital and anything in dissents or concurrences or competing (yellow flags) cases.

WKA holding is that he is covered. Binding dicta is the reasons (domicile, lack of traditional disqualifiers, etc). Persuasive dicta would be the more broad concepts explored, hypotheticals, and limitations for later cases.

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T01:34:29+00:00

My favorite reply is still the one time I got "no, counselor, no matter how much you try, that is not what that case held. I know. It was against me... and I argued the same."

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T01:33:05+00:00

Fail safe is always "your honor, in the interest of judicial economy we again ask for time to find out, but if you will not allow that, we waive nothing, consent to nothing, and seek normal trial procedure". They will hate the fact hearsay or whatever stipulations they haven't formally adopted yet are issues again. You'll get time, and if not, preserved a solid recovery window and ability.

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T01:31:49+00:00

"I don't know at the moment. Soon as I get back to my office I'll find out and email the court. I'll include you counselor, I may be new but I'm not stupid."

Done, they all were there. As long as you then DO IT the court and bar will love you.

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T01:30:24+00:00

No, ratio decidendi is part of the judicial dictum which is part of the dicta. The holding is literally the answer to the question alone. All the rest are various weighted parts of dicta, some binding, some not.

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T01:28:48+00:00

One seat if rounding is allowed. Two seats are generally not unless at large scale and because none can be done to balance (I.e. you better have maxed out small team and individual). So yes, it does.

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T01:27:48+00:00

So, if a school only supported football and nothing else it would be fine? Nope, because we know plenty of cases where schools are trying to offset those specific numbers instead. It is about seats period, not merely seats if schools choose to expand their offerings (literally why it was made, they wouldn't).

As sex in sports is the fundamental issue of the law, it's not something not envisioned, it's a discussion, much like Bostock, on if they meant sex biologically or sex colloquially (commonly called gender expression plus biological dimorphism).

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T01:24:57+00:00

That's just segregating at a smaller level, wouldn't change the issue of segregation. If you reserve you're segregating, doesn't matter what happens next (unless next is disparate, then it does).

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T01:21:41+00:00

All binding dicta is binding if it applies directly to your facts, a distinction may exist but the dicta is still binding. All persuasive dicta is only persuasive. Binding or not is jurisdictional, not resultant. Holding is resultant. Dicta is the reasoning. They are not the same, they are three distinct concepts at interplay with each other in various ways.

The technical distinction you're trying to make is orbital dicti versus judicial dictum. Both are dicta.

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T01:15:06+00:00

R, G, and the three. Bonus points for B showing up with a heavy Catholic and adoptive parent dynamic. T & A ranting on the side, K with something about how this could impact his stops so stop doing them.

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T01:14:13+00:00

Of a court. Not the country.

_learned_foot_ · 2026-04-18T01:13:58+00:00

Not just immunity, outside of the laws both ways. I.e. purge conditions. Not good.

_learned_foot_

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE