-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
Holdings, or ratio decidendi (Latin for “the rationale for the decision), are those parts of a court’s opinion that are binding on lower courts and later courts. This binding is referred to as the doctrine of stare decisis which provides hierarchical (vertical) and temporal (horizontal) continuity throughout the judicial system. Obiter Dicta (Latin for a statement “said in passing”), or dicta, are those parts of a court’s opinion that are not binding on lower courts and later courts. Dicta may suggest an interpretation of the law that may prove useful in future cases.
Distinguishing holdings and dicta is sometimes difficult and in some court opinions, intentionally so. Sub-categories of dicta, such as judicial dicta, and their different levels of authority, make the determination even more perilous. Dissenting opinions are always considered dicta.
Vertical stare decisis refers to the power of higher courts to bind the decisions of lower courts. All courts are bound by vertical precedent to follow the holdings in the decisions of the Supreme Court. Vertical stare decisis is generally considered absolute.
Horizontal stare decisis refers to the power of a court to bind itself. The Supreme Court while not bound by its prior decisions, does give them “substantial weight” in deliberations. There is a strong presumption that prior judicial articulations of the law are correct and generally should be followed. Horizontal stare decisis preserves a stable doctrine and prevents cycling.
While “we hold that …” or “the rule is …” are frequently giveaways to holdings, it is no guarantee in the holdings/dictum debate. In United States v. Rubin (1979), J. Friendly, in a concurring opinion, wrote:
A judge’s power to bind is limited to the issue that is before him; he cannot transmute dictum into decision by waving a wand and uttering the word “hold”.
Consider the example found in Minor v. Happersett (1875), a Supreme Court case dealing with the constitution of the State of Missouri that ordains: “Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.” The following passage is from J. Waite’s opinion:
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 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.
Portland Examiner contributor Dianna Cotter claims the reference to the natural-born citizen clause in this passage is part of the holding. The Wikipedia entry correctly identifies this reference as obiter dictum.
H/T: Legal Theory Lexicon, Judith M. Stinson, Michael Abramowicz and Maxwell Stearns, Robert G. Scofield.
Who cares? He has the court on his side. Right?
To the people who weren’t going to vote for him this would mean nothing to them, they already had their arguments. It only deceives the people who looked to him for honest interpretation of his situation.
The campaign site’s original verbiage invites this type of response: “The 14th Amendment refers to citizens, not natural-born citizens. Because he doesn’t say he’s a natural-born citizen, he knows he isn’t one!”
How about asking Squeaky why she chose the name of a Murderer for her online persona?
How about it it Squeaky?
Bob, what?
I am trying to understand what you just wrote. Are you saying they wanted to avoid the 14th amendment discussion?
EW: What name calling do you object to, specifically.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The only sites that comment on the change at the campaign site are birther sites. Funny that.
Also, the original rationale invited the argument that President Obama was a citizen but not a natural-born citizen (as the 14th Amendment does not use that modifier).
Squeaky, the fact that your comments quickly degenerate into name calling because someone disagrees with your stance demonstrates immaturity and weakness. Any hope you had in convincing me that your point of view is the correct one was completely destroyed by your own actions and any consideration I would have given your blog is now lost.
ksdb
What is your interpretation of this statement from the WKA decision?
“His [foreigner] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’ ”
And neither WKA nor any court has ever excluded children of citizen parents from the 14th amendment. Seriously, why do people with no understanding of law pretend they are scholars on the internet. Squeeky os right, this is sovereoign cotizenship bs.
Mrjr101
“Interesting…So what part of the holding will be overturned?”
I can answer that but first answer a question for me.
Does the Minor decision limit the class of natural born citizens to those born in the country to two citizen parents?
Not just birthers, Bob.
Sorry I mentioned it. I just wonder why, with the obvious rationale presented here, they did not stick with it.
But since we’re speculating: Why is it that only birthers commented on this change on the campaign site?
Sorry KSDB your BS won’t work here. If you don’t understand that WKA only cited Minor to show that rhe Minor court was not committed to a view on the citizenship of children of aliens since Minor punted on such issue, you have shown you have no clue as to how to read case law.
ksdb:
You said:Later, it notes that the SCOTUS UNANIMOUSLY excluded children born of citizen parents from the citizen clause of the 14th amendment.
OH, this looks like a familiar argument. That the 14th Amendment does not include people born in the United States of two citizen parents. This is common among the Sovereign Citizen crowd. (and one particular Vattle Birther I know).
I guess next the Henry V Vatte Birther will show up.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
So now we are goimg to speculate on who changed a website and what qualifications they had as constitutional scholar? Getting pretty silly. No one took the Vattel bs seriously back then . In fact, I bet no one connected with the campaign even knew someone was making such a claim if in fact the birthers had made it yet.
@Philo Publius
“The Court established Mrs. Minor’s citizenship by defining THE “class” of natural born citizens as those born in the U.S. to parents who were citizens. By recognizing Mrs. Minor as a member of THE class of persons who were natural born citizens, the Court deemed her a U.S. citizen. Establishing her citizenship was required before they could address the issue of whether Mrs. Minor had the right to vote.”
Not so fast my friend. The court may have defined A class of natural born citizens in Minor but it did not rule out the possibility that another class existed. The Court in the WKA ruling defined the NBC population was larger than the class of citizens born of citizens.
Someone doesn’t seem to understand the WKA decision, even after it has been explained to her in detail several times. Justice Gray respected and upheld the NBC definition used in Minor. He noted that when construing the citizen clause of the 14th amendment, the Constitution does NOT say who shall be NBCs. IOW, this is a clear declaration that NBC is NOT defined by the 14th amendment. Later, it notes that the SCOTUS UNANIMOUSLY excluded children born of citizen parents from the citizen clause of the 14th amendment. It AFFIRMS that V. Minor was found to be a citizen by virtue of BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria (which wouldn’t be necessary unless the court was upholding the NBC definition).
The Lynch case was ONLY cited as an example of birth citizenship being tied to a common law definition (Gray ignored that Lynch opined that anyone born in the country could be eligible for president). The binding common-law case that Gray did cite was dependent on the allegiance of the parents and noted that children born in the country could be EITHER U.S. citizens OR natural born subjects of Great Britain. Under that ruling, Obama is a natural born subject, not a U.S. citizen. These common law examples were cited to give the 14th amendment teeth so that it could justify overriding an international treaty. Gray’s last citation of the term natural-born citizen in the WKA decision is where it cited the definition of NBC from Minor that nearly matches Vattel’s definition word-for-word.
The Ankeny decision, as was also explained to this person, errs and contradicts itself by noting that the so-called guidance it was relying on from WJA was not actually followed in the WKA decision itself since it never declared WKA to be a natural-born citizen. Ankeny quotes WKA’s citation of Minor in saying that the 14th amendment doesn’t say who shall be natural-born citizens. It contradicts itself in one section saying that Minor leaves open the question for children born of alien parents, but then says it contemplates scenarios where both parents are aliens. How exactly does it leave a question open that it contemplated?? The Indiana Appeals Court was an ignorant embarrassment. They downplay Vattel as nothing more than an 18th century treatise. They cite a passage from WKA saying NBC must “be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution,” and yet they turn around and call the original intent of the authors of the 14th amendment as “various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate,” as if it has no value.
Fortunately, we all know that Ankeny doesn’t overrule the Supreme Court in Minor or in Wong Kim Ark, which eloquently and exclusively characterized the children born in the country to citizen parents as natural-born citizens.
@Nal:
Courts interpret; it is what they do. When the U.S. Supreme Court “interprets” the U.S. Constitution to mean something, that interpretation is the (binding) law of the land.
Your questions would be better directed at someone who had worked for Obama.
Wong Kim Ark‘s rationale has been repeatedly explained; how did the U.S. Supreme Court get it wrong?