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.
We don't know if the Supreme Court cites cases 'approvingly.' That term is not included in either Minor or WKA. There was certainly stronger dicta that could have been pulled from Lynch v. Clark to make the point you pretend WKA made, but never did.
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.
You're making my argument for me by having to qualify Obama's allegiance by saying "IF he was born in the USA." Thanks.
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.
So you think that saying a meaning for a term is NOT an attempt to define it?? I've read some spin, but that's retarded. And Minor did use Vattel's definitinon. I've underlined the clauses of the two verbatim definitions where they match. Read and learn. Vattel: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. 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 ..." That's enough to be considered plagiarism.
"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."
Your quote from Minor sounds like more recitation of Vattel. "The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country." "A prince, a lord, ranked his subjects under the head of his private property; ... " Vattel also explains how these terms are dependent on the country.
Minor supports the idea that subject and citizen refer to the same concept under differing governments.
However it doesn't say that the terms are identical nor does it say that natural born subjects = natural born citizens. For the latter, Minor gave a very specific definition, or in your nomenclature, a very specific meaning.
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.
Immediately following this section, Minor says, "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens." If what you believed is true, then the easiest thing they could have said was that all persons born in the country are citizens at birth with no need for naturalization. They don't. Instead they acknowledge that you need to be born of citizen parents and that there were doubts about being born in the country of noncitizen parents. There's no need to make a distinction if birth alone is sufficient for all born in the country to become citizens, especially in light of the recent ratification of the 14th amendment. Instead they maintain that only one definition was used by the framers and that was the only definition for which there is no doubt.
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.
WKA doesn't resolve those doubts. It nevers disputes Minor's definition nor does it every say that those born in the country 'without reference to the citizenship of the parents' are natural born citizens. Further, if the 14th amendment defined or redefined natural born citizenship, the Supreme Court missed TWO huge opportunities to say so. Instead, Minor says that definition is extraconstitutional and WKA cites that definition 'approvingly.' So according to YOUR standard, this is what the court believes: all children born in the country of parents who are its citizens = NBC.
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.
The court never made argument A. This is your delusional fantasy. The closest you have ever come to supporting this nonsense is through a citation that says the terms citizen and subject are analagous. That's not sufficient nor accurate to say that WKA argued that WKA was a natural born citizen. The ONLY term the court used in reference to the plaintiff was 'citizen of the United States.'
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.
It's true the courts have not granted anyone standing, but that has nothing to do with the WKA ruling. You're connecting apples and highways.
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.
Your true colors show here. You've argued more successfully for my position than your, so in the final analysis, you resort to petty and ignorant insults to cover for your own rhetorical deficienies. Sorry, but that's a fail.