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.
Joe Montgomery was already taken.
1 - Birthers claim a native citizen means one born of alien parents in the USA. They know it does NOT require citizen parents. In reality, NBC and native citizen are interchangeable, but you are the first birther I’ve seen admit it.
2 - WKA goes into great detail on NBC, because it says NBC = natural born subject. I know you do not understand that, but pretty much everyone else who reads it does.
3 - Minor is NOT legal precedent on citizenship. It is persuasive precedent for the idea that there are two types of citizenship - native & naturalized. As they wrote here in Minor:
“Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.
For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words “subject,” “inhabitant,” and “citizen” have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.
To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.
Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by “the people of the United States,” [n3] and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, [n4] and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of “the United States of America,” entered into a firm league of [p167] friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever. [n5]
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen — a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
Minor then goes on and specifically refuses to define NBC, other than to say that no one disputes the idea that someone born in the USA of citizen parents is one. However:
“For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
I know you don’t understand what Minor wrote, which has always been persuasive precedent only. Minor held:
“Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.”
Thanks, Edge. That is a very informative post.
Speaking of insanity, the idea that the Framers would have preferred a person w divided loyalties to occupy the highest office in the land over one w undivided loyalties—now that is truly insane. I make allowances for those who genuinely do not comprehend ‘divided loyalties’ in this context. But for anyone who grasps the concept to imagine the Framers purposely enshrined the right to become POTUS to the children of foreigners—again, one word: insane.