“The 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens ... therefore NBS can NOT be NBC.”
That is NOT what the court said, tho, is it? It said:
“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.”
A paragraph later, they go on to analyze the meaning of NBC, using the common law meaning of natural born subject since, after all:
“The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
The same rule:
1 - In the English Colonies
2 - at Independence
3 - In the US prior to the Constitution, and
4 - continued UNDER the Constitution, which can only be true if NBC = NBS.
I don’t post this to you, edge, because you are not sane. But anyone who reads should read WKA for themselves:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
It's EXACTLY what the court said. Read it. Learn it. Comprehend it.
“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
The 14th amendment IS the Constitution. The Minor court went outside of the Consitution to define NBC and it is saying specifically that the 14th amendment does NOT define it.
A paragraph later, they go on to analyze the meaning of NBC, using the common law meaning of natural born subject since, after all:
The next paragraph is NOT about NBC. It doesn't use the term at all in what you've quoted. You've got to quit lying.