[syc1959]

giggy-Fool

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.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…;

[EnderWiggins]

I'm very familiar with Minor v. Happersett. In it, Justice Waite offers two definitions of NBC. They are not actually exclusive definitions, since if the second is true, the first is true as well.

The first is pretty much the de Vattel definition"; "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens."

The second is the definition according to Anglo-American common law; "children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."

So... which did the justices decide was correct?

Darn, they didn't. You left out the very impotent next sentence. I'm sure that was just an innocent oversight on your part. It reads:

"For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

Gosh... one can only wonder why you cite this case at all. It can hardly serve to define a phrase that it explicitly refuses to define.