Nice of you to provide such easy pickings.
“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.” Obama ADMITS his citizenship was governed under British law. There’s no legal documentation that puts him within the allegiance of the United States. The other part of this you don’t seem to want to admit, is that case was acknowledging that persons born in the United States were either English or American depending on how they chose their allegiance. Their children would naturally follow the conditions of their parents.
“The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:” The Supreme Court of North Carolina doesn’t trump the Minor decision and definition. Second, this decision undermines your claim. “... all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State ...” We’re not arguing over who are born citizens of the State, but since this ONLY applies to free persons, we immediately see that this DOES NOT incorporate the so-called English common law definition of natural born subjects, which is supposedly EVERYBODY born in the country regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
The Lynch v. Clark ruling is a lower court ruling in New York. The justice does a fairly comprehensive job of reviewing what he calls public law as opposed to common law. He cites Vattel and several other cases. He acknowledges, despite his own insistance that the common law was the rule in all states, a law in Virgina that says “all children, wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth.” He also says, “The provisions of naturalization laws enacted by Congress, are urged as decisive, that children born here, of alien parents were not citizens.” The judge disagrees, but cites no specific support for why this isn’t true, other than his personal opinion.
None of these citations provide a specific Supreme Court conclusion that natural born subject = natural born citizen ... and none of it overturns the definition provided by Minor. The summary of the case simply says Wong Kim Ark is a citizen of the United States ... a constitutionally distinct and separate term from natural born citizen.
When the Supreme Court cites a lower court case approvingly, and uses it to advance their argument, the lower court ruling then states what the Supreme Court believes.
“There’s no legal documentation that puts him within the allegiance of the United States. “
If you could read, you would know that is a false statement. Allegiance did not require one to be a citizen, but merely to live in amity with the government - as they very clearly state in WKA. If he was born in the USA from parents present legally in the USA, he qualifies.
There was no attempt to define NBC in Minor. Minor is quoted in WKA as saying the meaning is found in common law...so Minor contradicts your unfounded belief that Vattel ruled.
From MInor:
“For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words “subject,” “inhabitant,” and “citizen” have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government...” Minor supports the idea that subject and citizen refer to the same concept under differing governments.
“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 [n6] 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,” [n7] 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.”
Note that Minor provides for TWO forms of citizenship - by birth, or by naturalization. It envisions no other. If you are not a citizen by birth, you need to be naturalized.
Minor goes on:
“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 [p168] 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.”
Again, one is either a citizen or an alien. In Minor, they did not attempt to resolve any doubts about the effect of having alien parents - if they had, there would have been no need for WKA, since the issue would already have been decided.
In WKA, the Court made its decision, using a two prong argument. WKA was a citizen because A) he qualified as a NBC, and B) he qualified under the 14th Amendment. No court since then has rejected that decision.
To suggest WKA didn’t overturn Minor is to assume Minor addressed the issue of the status of someone born in the USA of alien parents. That is obviously incorrect. If they had, there would have been no case involving WKA.
The WKA ruling went beyond Minor, and left no doubt in the minds of any legal authority, which is why no legal authority (someone with standing) has challenged Obama based on his father. And since no legal authority has doubts, you cannot get in the door of the court...because your case is so worthless that the courts won’t even consider it.
You would understand why if you could read. Birthers who close their eyes to Supreme Court decisions cannot complain when they then lose every case.