“No, if you’ve followed my posts, I explain that as the court formally defined native in Minor, it required birth to citizen parents, the same as natural born.”
No, it doesn’t. It expressly says they are NOT trying to determine what NBC or native means.
I know you don’t understand that, but every state & every court does.
For those not familiar, here is the passage:
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.
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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
To repeat for emphasis
“For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
“Whether these terms are more interchangeably used in English law is irrelevant since Gray finally settles on an official definition of NBC from Minor.”
No, he does not and cannot, since Minor found “it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
Also...do you realize that a decision that comes after Minor would expand or clarify Minor, or expressly reject it - as they rejected the Slaughterhouse decision. Minor cannot overrule a later decision - particularly when Minor found “it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
You write
“It’s noting that the Slaughterhouse case was not comprehensive because the court didn’t address these other issues yet. They did not understand that when those issues were addressed that it would end up excluding NBCs and Indians from the citizen clause of the 14th amendment.”
Actually, they told the Slaughterhouse decision to pound sand:
This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together — whereas it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse [p679] with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside. 1 Kent Com. 44; Story Conflict of Laws § 48; Wheaton International Law (8th ed.) § 249; The Anne (1818), 3 Wheat. 435, 445, 446; Gittings v. Crawford (1838), Taney 1, 10; In re Baiz (1890), 135 U.S. 403, 424.
In weighing a remark uttered under such circumstances, it is well to bear in mind the often quoted words of Chief Justice Marshall:
It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated.
Cohens v. Virginia (1821), 6 Wheat. 264, 399.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
They then cited Minor as evidence that the court had NOT excluded children of foreigners as citizens - although the Slaughterhouse case specifically did so.
WKA overturned Slaughterhouse.
But these discussions all took place AFTER the NBC/NBS discussion found in Parts 2, 3 & 4. And parts 5 & 6 did not overturn parts 2,3 & 4. WKA uses a two prong attack - the NBC clause in 2-4, and the 14th in 5 & 6.
No, you don’t understand that. Everyone else does.
Again, you can squeal about my interpretation, but you cannot get around the fact that 50 states, Congress, the Supreme Court & every Congressman (and the GOP & Rush Limbaugh) agree with me, and disagree with you.
And you cannot deny it, because Obama is recognized as President by all 50 states, the GOP, Congress, the Supreme Court, and everyone else in the real world. Only in WND-land does Minor agree with you, and WKA have nothing to do with the NBC clause.
You don’t by any chance know how to diagram sentences do you??? Because if you can, or know somebody who can, then here is a real simple way for any Vattle Birther who is truly confused to understand it. I was hoping Editor Surveyor would since he is a editor, but he just ignored me. But here is the gist of it from that law case thingy in 2009:
persons - the noun
born within the borders of the United States - adverb phrase because it tells where???
are - linking verb
natural born citizens - the direct object
Regardless of the citizenship of parents - some kind of clause???
Maybe if they could see it diagrammed they would have less problem with it. At least the honest ones.
Yes, it does and YOU cited the EXPLICITY language that confirms it. "These are the NATIVES ..." Helps if you think before you post.
To repeat for emphasis
“For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
... because Virginia Minor met the definition of NATIVES. To repeat for emphasis, here's point No. 2 from the syllabus:
2. In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since.
Notice that above the court affirms its own definition of NATIVES (born in the country to citizen parents). This isn't just a definition for Virginia Minor, but for women (and men as noted in the Opinion) as a class. Notice it says this is true as much before the 14th amendment as since it was adopted. This means that the 14th amendment did NOT change the definition of natural born citizen. It created a new definition for those persons born in the country NOT meeting any other definition. WKA added that such persons must be born to parents with permanent domicil in order to meet the subject clause.
Also...do you realize that a decision that comes after Minor would expand or clarify Minor, or expressly reject it - as they rejected the Slaughterhouse decision.
They didn't reject Slaughterhouse. They expanded on it by citing Minor and Elk showing that the court was "committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment ..." It worked around the Elk decision by baselessly claiming that Indians had a "peculiar relation to the National Government." Also, it used dicta from the dissent in Elk to claim an Indian could become subject to a state by severing himself from a tribe and becoming a " a bona fide resident of a State." In one fell swoop, Gray INVENTED a rationalization for his own residency requirement to meet the subject clause. He did NOT do any such thing with the Minor decision. Minor was NOT discussed further NOR was the term natural-born citizen, instead opting for the generic, second-class term "citizenship by birth." Read it.
Actually, they told the Slaughterhouse decision to pound sand:
No, Gray only took exception to Justice Miller lumping together consuls and "foreign ministers." Gray noted that Miller later concurred in a ruling that consuls were not in the same class. It's worth noting here, that Gray cites the law of nations in this passage (note that the court's definition of NBC matches that of the law of nations):
... or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers ...
Gray disputes nothing else from Miller's exceptions to the subject clause, particularly the part underlined below:
The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
That EXCLUSION is supported in Minor. One other note: It's poor form for Gray to say, "It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness ..." about Miller's consul exclusion, when Gray's "peculiar relation" comment about Indians in regard to the Elk decision is "unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities ..." etc.
They then cited Minor as evidence that the court had NOT excluded children of foreigners as citizens - although the Slaughterhouse case specifically did so.
Absolutely false. He said the court was "committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment ..." and that this was MANIFEST from a UNANIMOUS judgment in the Minor decision. Let's look at Minor again:
There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position.
Do you understand what that says?? Women did NOT need the 14th amendment to be citizens. Waite repeats this exclusion.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
This is a statement made AFTER the adoption of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment is part of the Constitution. Neither the 14th amendment NOR the Constitution defines NBC. Waite said you must look elsewhere and gets a verbatim definition matching Vattel's definition in law of nations, and further that this definition is sufficient for the purposes of the case. That is a rejection of the 14th amendment as including natural born citizens. But wait, that's not all ....
The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men.
IOW, if you met the NBC definition, you were excluded from the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment.
In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment ... did not confer citizenship on her.
There you have it. Here is a citizen whose citizenship was NOT conferred by the 14th amendment, because she was a natural born citizen. She, as a woman and a class of persons, was "EXCLUDED from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment" in a UNANIMOUS decision.
Again, you can squeal about my interpretation, but you cannot get around the fact that 50 states, Congress, the Supreme Court & every Congressman (and the GOP & Rush Limbaugh) agree with me, and disagree with you.
Sorry, but this is a logical fallacy. A concensus of incorrect opinion doesn't invalidate legal precedent. The definiton from Minor is clear: "... all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens. These were the NATIVES, or natural-born citizens ..." That definition was cited and UPHELD in Wong Kim Ark.