[Non-Sequitur]

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment...

Then why didn't the 14th Amendment say that?

Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

But Chief Justice Waite does not go on to specifically define natural-born citizen, does he? He does not say that those born in the U.S. of foreign parents are natural born citzens. He also does not say that they are not. So Minor v. Happersett proved nothing. Other than a woman couldn't vote.

[Tublecane]

“So Minor v. Happersett proved nothing.”

Exactly. But for some reason we’re the ones who don’t know what we’re talking about. Yet they throw irrelevant citations and quotes into their posts as if it was appropos to anything.

[aruanan]

But Chief Justice Waite does not go on to specifically define natural-born citizen, does he? He does not say that those born in the U.S. of foreign parents are natural born citzens. He also does not say that they are not.

He's stating below what "natural born" was understood by the framers of the Constitution to mean at the time it was written.

"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."

[Lower55]

“He also does not say that they are not. So Minor v. Happersett proved nothing. Other than a woman couldn’t vote.”

He also did not define what a woman is. Where in the constitution does it define what a woman is??????????