Is there some part of the word "verbatim" you don't understand??
Minor: 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 ...The Wong Court cited the common law, which include English AND AMERICAN common law.
Law of Nations by Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
... to define citizenship by birth via the 14th amendment. To define NBC, they cited and affirmed the Minor definition, which I've already shown is a verbatim match of Law of Nations.
And Lynch (1844) clearly stated that THE AMERICAN COMMON LAW made people natural born citizens WITHOUT RESPECT TO THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS.
The Lynch decision was a state court ruling by one judge giving an unsupported personal opinion. There's a reason why Lynch's claim about NBC is NOT cited in Wong Kim Ark while the Minor definition of NBC is fully cited.
Insisting that it says things that it VERY CLEARLY never said - such as that it takes two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen - is twisting it, scratching at it, and clawing at it.
This is drama-queen nonsense. Twenty-seven Supreme Court justices affirmed the definition I gave. There is no twisting, scratching or clawing.
Is there some part of the word "verbatim" you don't understand??
Is there some part of the fact that there were 7 or 8 prominent writers on the law of nations, and that NONE of the others agreed with Vattel on citizenship, that you don't understand?
Minor: 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 ...
Law of Nations by Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Why don't you quote the entire sentence? Hmmmmm?
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.
Whether the wording seems "verbatim" to Vattel or not, it is clear that the Court was NOT referencing Vattel in that sentence, they were referencing THE COMMON LAW.
How do we know? THEY TOLD US.
The Wong Court cited the common law, which include English AND AMERICAN common law.
... to define citizenship by birth via the 14th amendment. To define NBC, they cited and affirmed the Minor definition, which I've already shown is a verbatim match of Law of Nations.
No. They specifically told us EXACTLY WHY they cited Minor, and it was NOT what you claim:
That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench.
So they cited Minor NOT to show that children had to have citizen parents to be natural born citizens, but SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THAT THE MINOR COURT BELIEVED NO SUCH THING.
And they ALSO cited Minor for the purpose of showing that it was the COMMON LAW (and not Vattel) that one OUGHT TO LOOK TO in order to understand the phrase:
"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." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.
So yes, they certainly cited Minor. Just not for the reason you claim.
And Lynch (1844) clearly stated that THE AMERICAN COMMON LAW made people natural born citizens WITHOUT RESPECT TO THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS.
The Lynch decision was a state court ruling by one judge giving an unsupported personal opinion. There's a reason why Lynch's claim about NBC is NOT cited in Wong Kim Ark while the Minor definition of NBC is fully cited. Again, the Court said the Minor passage was cited to show that the Minor Court did not necessarily believe it took citizen parents to make a natural born citizen. And while they didn't pull the quote from Lynch, THEY APPROVINGLY REFERENCED THE CASE THREE TIMES.
This is drama-queen nonsense. Twenty-seven Supreme Court justices affirmed the definition I gave. There is no twisting, scratching or clawing.
No, I'm sorry. That is simply not the case.
The evidence is absolutely, utterly overwhelming that neither Minor nor Wong say what you claim, and that virtually no real authority in history, including conservative Constitutional think tanks, agrees with you. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor completely contradicts you. And yet, like all birthers, you imagine you know more than virtually every authority in history, including the great majority of Supreme Court Justices who have ever commented on the issue.
And that's all I have to say. I stated two hours ago on another thread that my weekend was over, and I am returning to my work week. This is my final post to you.
So keep on twisting and misrepresenting the Constitution. Because I know that the facts are completely irrelevant to you, and you most certainly will.