The bolded sentence doesn't change the context. It doesn't change that only one of these defintions has never had doubts. It doesn't change that the Minor decision only used ONE of these defintions as THE definition of natural born citizen. It doesn't change the fact that Justice Waite said the accepted defintion of natural born citizen was THE defintion in the nomenclature familiar to the framers of the Constitution. That alone tells us that in regards to the Constitutional issue of presidential eligibility, ONLY ONE DEFINITION APPLIES. So, no, curiosity, the burden is solely on YOU to man up. I've destroyed your pathetic and errant accusation of quoting this definition of out context. Repeating that debunked accusation does not make it true and never will.
Sure it does, as anyone who can read can plainly see, your attempt to deny reality notwithstanding.
It doesn't change that only one of these defintions has never had doubts.
No, what it does is indicate that Justice Waite was uncertain about the definition of NBC. While he was certain that US-born children of US citizens are included, he was uncertain about US-born children of aliens.
That completely destroys your claim that Minor defined NBC to exclude children of aliens.
It doesn't change that the Minor decision only used ONE of these defintions as THE definition of natural born citizen.
Wrong. The court never says the definition of natural born citizen excludes children of aliens. The court just says it is uncertain about them.
Being uncertain about whether a certain class of people fall under a definition is not the same thing as excluding them from the definition.
It doesn't change the fact that Justice Waite said the accepted defintion of natural born citizen was THE defintion in the nomenclature familiar to the framers of the Constitution.
Yes, but Justice Waite DID NOT rule the accepted definition excluded children of aliens. He explicitly said there were doubts about that.
FYI, those doubts were later resolved in the Wong case.
That alone tells us that in regards to the Constitutional issue of presidential eligibility, ONLY ONE DEFINITION APPLIES.
Sorry, but that's just illogical.
So, no, curiosity, the burden is solely on YOU to man up.
Your refusal to accept reality is very sad.
I've destroyed your pathetic and errant accusation of quoting this definition of out context.
Your triumphalist claims of victory remind me of Baghdad Bob.
Repeating that debunked accusation does not make it true and never will.
No, but the evidence I have already presented proves it to be true.