But they did.
TWO SCANT PARAGRAPHS DOWN from where they quoted Article II, Section I of the Constitution: "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" - they followed it up by recognizing:
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, [ - A MERE THREE YEARS AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION - ] provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.
In recognizing - TWO PARAGRAPHS DOWN FROM WHERE THEY TALKED ABOUT ELIGIBILITY TO THE PRESIDENCY - "that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS,"
The United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett thereby recognized that children born abroad of US citizen parents are eligible to run for President of the United States.
There is ONE REASON, and one reason only to draw a legal distinction between "citizens" and "NATURAL-BORN citizens," and that is ELIGIBILITY TO RUN FOR AND SERVE AS PRESIDENT.
This is therefore an EXPLICIT REJECTION of the birther doctrine that "natural born citizens" are ONLY those born BOTH on US soil AND of US citizen parents.
And if you can't convincingly disprove that, then YOU HAVE NO CASE; the "both-and" definition of "natural born citizen" is DEAD.
But they did.
TWO SCANT PARAGRAPHS DOWN from where they quoted Article II, Section I of the Constitution: "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" - they followed it up by recognizing:
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, [ - A MERE THREE YEARS AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION - ] provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.
In recognizing - TWO PARAGRAPHS DOWN FROM WHERE THEY TALKED ABOUT ELIGIBILITY TO THE PRESIDENCY - "that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS,"
The United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett thereby recognized that children born abroad of US citizen parents are eligible to run for President of the United States.
There is ONE REASON, and one reason only to draw a legal distinction between "citizens" and "NATURAL-BORN citizens," and that is ELIGIBILITY TO RUN FOR AND SERVE AS PRESIDENT.
This is therefore an EXPLICIT REJECTION of the birther doctrine that "natural born citizens" are ONLY those born BOTH on US soil AND of US citizen parents.
And if you can't convincingly disprove that, then YOU HAVE NO CASE; the "both-and" definition of "natural born citizen" is DEAD.
Sorry for the double post.
Nathanael, ping to post re: explicit Supreme Court rejection of birther doctrine.
I don't believe this is correct. The 1790 law was replaced and the language extending NBC status to the children of US citizens born overseas was dropped.
Under then-current law and Leo's analysis of Minor, McCain was not only not NBC, McCain was not even a US citizen at birth.
McCain became a nunc pro tunc (retroactive) US Citizen at birth being born to US citizens on foreign soil only due to a law passed shortly after he was born. That makes McCain a statutory citizen and a statutory citizen can never be a natural born citizen, IMO.
In noting the ongoing dialogue surrounding children born on US soil of alien parents and then explicitly refusing to settle the debate, the Court was saying it explicitly refused to restrict citizenship to only those born of citizen parents.
Beyond that, you have some novel ideas regarding "subject to the jurisdiction" which run directly counter to established case law.