“The court used NO definition. They accepted the plaintiff’s claim at face-value ...”
Sure they did. They used the definition of being born in the USA, even to alien parents, as sufficient to call him a ‘natural-born citizen’. If your point is that they didn’t inquire or justify the definition, granted, but they obviously did use it. Neither did they inquire into whether the sky was blue or whether the plaintiff was an adult.
“As for the Lynch decision, Sandford’s claim makes little sense, “Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.””
It’s funny how quote after quote and cite after cite, restating the common understanding, is nothing but ‘worthless dung’ to birthers, but then a few shreds of mis-represented quotes is golden, solely because its the few shreds that dont blow their cause out of the water.
Sooner or later, one has to respect the weight of the evidence and common understanding.
John Jay’s comments of course do nothing to alter or contradict the above quote, or the definition of ‘natural born citizens’ as commonly understood. It justifies ‘natural born’ but does NOT define it.
The Vattel quote is descriptive but not limiting, and moreover has no force in US law since it is descriptive to other countries and NOT US or England, and proof of that is found in 1790 naturalization law and other laws that grant citizenship at birth to children born overseas. Derived from English law on the matter, they are clear in intent and purpose. Granting citizenship to children born overseas DOES NOT take away the birthright citizenship of those born in the US.
“Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.” - US v Wong Kim Ark
They didn't use a definition. They accepted a claim at face value because the only thing being contested was place of birth. The defendant had no reason to challenge the citizenship status of the parents as the plaintiff could have still claimed 14th amendment citizen at birth. This is why skeptics don't dispute that Obama MIGHT be a citizen (if he could prove his place of birth); just not a natural born citizen.
It’s funny how quote after quote and cite after cite, restating the common understanding, is nothing but ‘worthless dung’ to birthers, but then a few shreds of mis-represented quotes is golden, solely because its the few shreds that dont blow their cause out of the water.
No one used the term 'worthless dung' and no one here is a so-called birther. I guess that makes for a good strawman, but it's not a strong debate technique. Sandford illogically answers the question he poses without acknowledging these several 'reasonable doubts' he listed. Again, Justice Gray avoids using any direct quotes from this decision, obviously because it was trumped by Justice Waite in the Minor decision.
Sooner or later, one has to respect the weight of the evidence and common understanding.
The weight of the evidence is that the highest court to define natural born citizenship in relation to the Art II Sec I is the SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett. A common misuderstanding by lower courts does not outweigh that definition, especially when the SCOTUS affirmed the Minor definition in WKA.
The Vattel quote is descriptive but not limiting, and moreover has no force in US law since it is descriptive to other countries and NOT US or England, and proof of that is found in 1790 naturalization law and other laws that grant citizenship at birth to children born overseas.
Sorry, citizenship at birth to children born overseas fits Vattel's definition of children naturally following the condition of the father without regard to birth. Vattel's definition of NBC was otherwise used nearly verbatim by Justice Waite in Minor.
“Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.” - US v Wong Kim Ark
The Constitutional requirement is natural born citizen, not natural born subject. "... all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens ..." - US v Wong Kim Ark