I haven't misstated anything. WKA made a clear distinction.
"The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States.""
"The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.""
Here they say the Constitution defines 'citizen of the United States' via the 14th amendment (by citing the language of that amendment). In terms of natural born citizenship, it cites Minor.
"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."
Clearly, one term is defined in the Constitution and the other, NBC, is NOT. Justice Gray doesn't dispute Justice Waite's conclusion and is in fact, bound by them. Later in the decision, Gray cites Waite's definition of NBC.
"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 [p680] 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."
All children born in the country of citizen parents ARE natural born citizen as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. The Indiana Appeals Court argues that the Minor decision only deals with persons born of two citizen parents or two alien parents, but clearly, the only people recognized in this definition of NBC are those persons born to citizen parents with the alternative being that anybody else not meeting that definition is considered a foreigner or alien.
Justice Gray in the WKA decision does nothing to dispute this decision. Instead, he had to find a way to say that a person born of an alien can still be a citizen at birth. This is why he did an extensive review of English common law, proposing that if English common law (not natural law) can allow the children of aliens to be subjects, then that same principle would apply in the United States (but only as expressed by the 14th amendment). Second, he had to use English common law to express the thought that the Constitution overrides a treaty with China that did not allow the naturalization of its subjects in foreign countries. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually jibe with the wording of the Constitution that says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land ..." and puts the Constitution and Treaties made under equal footing.
Lastly, what you faithers don't want to acknowledge is that WKA said that for children born of non-citizen residents to 14th amendment citizenship, their parents needed to be permanent residents and have permanent domicil in the United States. WKA's parents met this standard. Obama's father does not.
Edge919 - A marvel of mis-reading, selective quoting and bad logic. The truth is SO SIMPLE, and yet you cling to complex and obscure lie, by ignoring the many points in plain sight that make your claims fatally flawed.
If you READ THE WHOLE RULING of Minor v Happersett, with a mind open to facts and logic, you will see that the simple truth - that ‘natural-born’ and ‘acquired citizenship at birth’ are one and the same - and the court even stated as much, on their way to making a ruling that declared women to be citizens yet not entitled to vote.
1) There are two ways to become a citizen:
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization.”
2) One of those ways, by birth, is synonomous with ‘natural-born’:
“This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
3) THIS SECTION IS ABOUT WHO ACQUIRES CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH AND USES “NATURAL-BORN” AS A TERM TO DESCRIBE THAT CLASS:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
note at the end, they just say citizens, when the whole paragraph is about natural-born citizens. Note that ‘there are doubts’ does not in any way limit the prior definition. Wong Kim Ark and subsequent decided that.
4) THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS SECTION WAS TO DETERMINE IS WOMEN ARE CITIZENS, the ONLY purpose for using “natural-born” was to distinguish from the OTHER case, that of naturalization:
“ The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. “
and later... the court declares: “From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth. “
5) CLAIMS THAT THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL-BORN IS FIXED OR LIMITED IS SPECIOUS AS LATER IN THE RULING ... “and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.
You state: “Clearly, one term is defined in the Constitution and the other, NBC, is NOT. “ Clearly, this statement is wrong. Citizenship rights are defined in the constitution and in laws. Attempts to treat a simple legal term of art as an artifice of some special and different class meets with the dull thud of reality- no court ruling, no law, and no contitutional provision has ever defined ‘natural-born citizen’ as anything other than simply those citizens who acquire citizenship at time of birth.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/minorvhapp.html