Let me first say that I believe the framers intended that only children born to 2 citizen parents should be considered natural born.
But to me Minor is not clear enough to be used as precedent...... Minor basically clarifies something we all agree.... That children born of 2 citizen parents are natural born but it leaves open the possibility that others are also
“”””... 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. “””””
Why does it not say ..... as distinguished from (regular citizens)?
Minor never really clarifies the difference between regular citizenship and nbc. This confusion is further reinforced by the following “”””Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. “”””
So from this we can conclude that there is no doubt that children born to 2 citizen parents are Natural Born but there are doubts about everything else? This is all too vague to be considered clear precedent. We need to put pressure on the courts to clarify this matter
Because it's paraphrasing from the Law of Nations. Second, I believe this court was taking a stand against the 14th amendment becoming too broad. They make a very fine point of how natural-born citizens don't need the amendment neither before nor SINCE it was adopted. Third, they are recognizing that the various states had different citizenship rules of which there was doubt, but that for persons who fit the characterization of natural-born citizen, there is no doubt. In effect, they're saying that the characterization of natural-born citizenship means citizenship WITHOUT doubts. As we learned in Wong Kim Ark, the 14th amendment carries plenty of doubts that have to be reconciled. This decision did so by using permanent residence and domicil to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment, thereby limiting it's impact to the children or resident aliens, which Obama does not fit, same as he does not fit the natural-born citizen definition.
Otherwise, what point did it serve the Minor court to say ANYTHING about the parents being citizens unless it was used to exclusively define natural-born citizenship?? This is the question that Foggers and Faithers can't answer without admitting that citizen parents were used to define natural-born citiznes. I don't find this vague at all. The Minor court explored every other way to become a citizen including naturalization (which is also part of the 14th amendment), but the court only characterized one set of circumstances as natural-born ... those persons born to citizen parents. If it could mean something else, they would have said so, especially considering that Minor argued she was a 14th amendment citizen. All the court had to do was accept that argument, but they did not do so.