For a triangle, you can say it's in doubt because the number of sides is unknown, but there's no argument for saying the number of sides is unimportant to the argument, unless you get into non-Euclidean geometry, which is the mathematical equivalent of a birther legal fantasy land.
Euclidean geometry is too superficial. It lacks depth.
Thanks for confirming that the analogy is dead on. This follows the exact language of Minor. What you’re referencing is irrelevant because the Minor court already said NBC is NOT defined by the 14th amendment. Wong Kim Ark confirmed this point.
Leo Donofrio, Esq. has a different take on the British common law as it relates to the US Constitution:
“There is a fundamental distinction between natural law in the international community, and natural law under the English common law.
Our Constitution forbids the establishment of religion, while respecting the rights of all persons to worship God or nature as they like. The English common law is in direct polar opposition to our Constitution, in that infidels were considered enemies of the state. In Calvin’s Case, which is universally recognized as having established the English common law with regard to the jus soli rule, the decision makes it perfectly clear that the English common law presumed infidels would never be converted to Christianity, and it specifically states that they are subjects of devils.
Hence, one could be born on English soil, in the King’s castle even, to parents who loved the King, but if the parents weren’t Christian, they could not be natural-born subjects. Instead, they were considered enemies of the King, because they refused to believe that the King was God’s monarch on Earth. This is not “natural law” to anyone who wasn’t Christian.
The English common law’s uniquely Christian definition of natural law governs the English common law concept of natural subjection/natural allegiance. And that is why the English common law definition of “natural-born subject” can never be judicially recognized as synonymous with “natural-born citizen”. Such a construction of Article 2, Section 1, would be directly repugnant to the 1st Amendment.”
Also, I cannot find the term “natural born” anywhere in the 14th amendment. Can you point it out to me?
It's already been proven that state and U.S. citizenship laws contradicted British common law in several instances (e.g., not all Black and Native American children born in the U.S. were provided birthright citizenship until the late 19th century at the earliest). And as far as the 14th Amendment I'll refer you to what the drafters, the Senate Judiciary Committee, say it means:
"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."Congressional Globe
We all know Obama owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign at birth. The DNC openly admitted Obama's citizenship status is governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 because of his non-U.S. citizen father. The only conclusion we can draw from your claims otherwise is either that you're willfully choosing to remain ignorant, or you're deliberately spreading disinformation to cover for a Constitutionally ineligible president.
Interesting because AFAIK, "without reference to the citizenship of their parents" would make one a native born citizen, not a natural born citizen. 2/3 citizenship is derived from paternal lineage and 1/3 from maternal.
Why would the framers make the distinction between NBC specifically for Presidential eligibility? Why not just say "citizen"? Why do you suppose the bureau of vital statistics, to this day, requires birthplace of parents on birth certificates? If one is a citizen simply because they were birthed on US soil, what is the need for parent's birthplace information on the child's birth certificate?