This isn't hard. Justice Waite had no doubts as to whether US-born children of citizens are natural born. He had doubts whether US-born children of aliens are natural born.
Wrong. The court tells us the definition of which there is no doubt is THE definition that was in the nomenclature of the framers of the Constitution.
Yes, but the court says it is uncertain as to whether US-born children of aliens fall under the definition.
If you wish to claim to the contrary, please show me the passage where Waite rules that children of aliens can't be natural born citizens.
This definition was provided as answer to what what qualifies a person as being a natural born citizen in order to be constitutionally eligible for the office of the POTUS.
Yes, and the sentence I quoted above explicitly says the court has doubts about the case of a US-born child of aliens. Again I ask you, what part of "there are doubts" do you not understand?
If the court was uncertain, it would not have accepted this definition.
The court DID NOT accept it as the exclusive definition. The court explicitly left open the question of whether children of aliens could be natural born citizens.
Sorry, but Wong Kim Ark cited Minor's definition of natural born citizen.
Please cite a paragraph.
He doesn't say anything about the children of aliens and he doesn't express his personal doubt. He explained in no uncertain terms what defintion was understood by the framers of the Constitution. He said some authorities go further, but that there have been doubts. He doesn't say who has the doubts. He simply says that it's "sufficient is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens." So, there is no uncertainty. He doesn't say he doesn't know how to define this type of citizenship or that he doesn't know which definition to use. He certainly had a perfect opportunity to proclaim that the 14th amendment redefined what it meant to be a natural born citizen. Of course, its existence already destroys the notion that anyone would be a naturl born citizen without citizen parents. If that was what the definition was, there would be no need for the citizenship parts of the 14th amendment.
If you wish to claim to the contrary, please show me the passage where Waite rules that children of aliens can't be natural born citizens.
I already did. He told us what definition was used by the framers of the Constitution. It required the children to born of citizen parents.
The court DID NOT accept it as the exclusive definition. The court explicitly left open the question of whether children of aliens could be natural born citizens.
Not at all. He said what the framers used and that it was sufficient. There's no question left open by those statements.
Please cite a paragraph.
And you'll admit I'm right??
... Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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 [p680] 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.
"Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship."