“The WKA didn’t go into great detail about the meaning of NBC at all. NBC is only mentioned about 5 or 6 times and the last time it is mentioned is when the court affirmed the Minor definition of NBC: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.”
Which is proof you are nuts. No sane person reads WKA and concludes they didn’t address the meaning of NBC. Nor will any court ever descend to that level of nuttiness.
Here is a link to the NBC decision, so anyone who wants to read it for themselves can:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Also see:
page 382
And the Appellant’s brief to the Supreme Court:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA
Luria:
“The case was heard upon an agreed statement and some accompanying papers, from all of which it indubitably appeared that Luria was born in Wilna, Russia, in 1865 or 1868,
and came to New York in 1888; that he entered a medical college of that city the next year and was graduated therefrom in 1893;
that he applied for and procured the certificate of citizenship in July, 1894;
that, in the following month, he sought and obtained a passport from the Department of State, and in November left the United States for the Transvaal, South Africa, arriving in December; that from that time to the date of the hearing, in December, 1910, he resided and practiced his profession in South Africa; that he joined the South African Medical Association and served in the Boer war;
that his only return to the United States was for four or five months in 1907, for the temporary purpose of taking a postgraduate course in a medical school in New York, and that, when entering that school, he gave as his address, Johannesburg, South Africa.”
That has nothing to do with Obama or birthers.
They only cite Minor to say:
“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”
You're proving my point that you can't read, Rogers. I didn't say WKA did NOT address the meaning of NBC. I said it did NOT go into GREAT DETAIL as YOU claimed. It mentioned NBC 5 or 6 times and THEN it affirmed the Minor definition of NBC. The rest is NOT about NBC and you know it.
They only cite Minor to say:
“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”
Thanks for proving my point for me yet again. I'm pretty sure you and other Obots like to claim that Minor doesn't have anything to do with presidential eligibility, but this citation proves that it does indeed serve as the legal PRECEDENT on Art. II. Second, this part of this that DESTROYS your arguments is the conspicuous absence of WKA in the Luria Citation. Let's look at the rest of the paragraph, shall we???
Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.
Now, in the list of citations, notice there is NO MENTION of WKA. And the ONLY refernce to "native citizen" in Minor is under this definition:
all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. These are the natives, or natural-born citizens ....
And we have YOU to thank Rogers, because YOU were dumb enough to bring up this Supreme Court citation that proves Minor and NOT WKA is THE legal precedent on defining NBC as birth to citizen parents. Thanks!!
And BTW, the epitome of insanity is to refer to yourself on a discussion site with a name like "MrRogers." That IS insane indeed.