That is a documented case by a competent legal authority, which trumps anything you’ve ever produced.
Sorry, apellates don’ trump the SCOTUS and the conlusion you pesented isn’t even at the link and the ones you reached are wrong.
Here’s some actual SCOTUS decisions:
• “Minor v. Happersett - yes, it’s been mentioned on FR but not fully hashed out. I don’t see how, if this was decided by the SCOTUS then they did indeed give a definition of the term NBC.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html";
Not only has it been discussed, but so too have other SCOTUS cases that have that exact definition that the framers (no doubt) used when they entered the NBC requirement without debate.
Attorney Apuzzo mentions these cases in the “Kerchner v Obama” & Congress case:
“THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:
June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” [the word born is underlined in Jay’s letter.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison’s notes of the Convention The proposal passed unanimously without debate.
Minor vs. Hapersett
“Mrs. Virginia Minor was a native-born American citizen from Missouri who had the audacity to try to register to vote. The registrar, one Happersett, refused because Minor was not “male”. Minor sued in local court and the Missouri State Supreme Court, but she lost. She appealed to the United States Supreme Court claiming that she was a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment and was entitled to vote. The Supreme Court agreed that she was a natural born citizen of the United States, but that didn’t make her eligible to vote.
So incidentally to the main question in the case, the Supreme Court did discuss citizenship...
The section from Minor that is alluded to by the opening quotation is one in which the court is describing the state of citizenship in the United States prior to the Fourteenth Amendment (something that is overlooked by those who use the citation). Here is what the court said:
[To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation and what were afterwards admitted to membership…
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. 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.
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. 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.]
Let’s take a minute to digest that lengthy citation. The most obvious point is that there are two and exactly two kinds of citizens discussed here: ” natural born” and “naturalized”. Take a minute and reread the citation and verify this for yourself. You will see no distinction made between those who are born a citizen and those who are a natural born citizen. Note: “all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens” — not “natural born citizens” but “citizens” but natural born implied because they are born citizens.
The issue addressed in this section is not who is a natural born citizen, but who is a citizen. So when the court talks about “some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” they are saying that there are “doubts” as to whether the children of aliens born under the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens at all. This is the point glossed over when trying to use this case to create a third type of citizen (the non-natural born, non-naturalized citizen).
Let me quote from an earlier portion of the decision:
[Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these states when the Constitution of the United States was adopted became ipso facto a citizen — a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was consequently one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.]
What can be seen from this quotation is the distinction between the concept of who is in a class and whether members of that class are citizens. In relating Minor to the question of Obama natural born citizenship Minor informs us that those born citizens are natural born citizens, but Minor does not inform us who are born citizens. Focus on this language from the Court:
[These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.]
The distinction is not between “plain citizens” and “natural born citizens” but between “natural-born citizens” and aliens (e.g. not citizens).
All of the preceding discussion is related to the situation before passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (“To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment”). The reason for this digression to the time before the Fourteenth Amendment was the question of whether Minor was a citizen apart from the Fourteenth Amendment. The court said that she was: “she has always been a citizen from her birth and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship.” She was such a citizen because her parents were citizens and she was born under the jurisdiction of the United States, and the pesky argument about those not born of citizen parents before the Fourteenth Amendment “it is not necessary to solve”.
I don’t know if this question was ever solved for those born before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, but it is not necessary for us to solve either because there are no more persons living born before the Fourteenth Amendment, and because it was solved for those born after by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wonk Kim Ark. Wong, born in the United States of alien parents, was declared a citizen. It is hardly reasonable to quote the dicta in Minor as casting doubts while refusing to recognize the dicta in Wong which resolved them.”
The final paragraph above is pretty clear. The other cases are minor by comparison and have been discussed at length here. Apuzzo simply strings them together out of context to make it appear they have bearing on this issue that they do not. Apuzzo has no expertise in this field, he will continue to lose on this issue, and cutting and pasting his article proves nothing.
The quotes you cite simply support the fact that NBC is a requirement for President, which needs no support since it is in the Constitution. They say nothing about requiring two citizen parents.