“If you disagree, you’ll need to explain specifically where and why.”
I did, in post 566:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2781065/posts?page=566#566
You cannot understand basic English, as you proved again in post 570.
I cannot help someone who reads WKA and concludes “the court was committed to this view of excluding NBCs and children of foreign subjects from the 14th amendment”.
Here, again, is what the court wrote...get back to me when you know the difference between see Spot run, and see Spot not run:
“Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:
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.16 Wall. 73.
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..
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.”
A court cannot reject Slaughterhouse more thoroughly than that.
Nonsense. The whole paragraph is broken down. The part of the phrase you cite, I agreed that Miller and the other justice did not understand something. I explained what they did NOT understand. The fact they misunderstood it doesn't change the fact that the Supreme Court was committed to the cited view. Those justices who "misunderstood" and were divided in Slaughterhouse were NOT divided in Minor. They ALL voted unanimously in a decision that specifically REJECTED the 14th amendment in favor of a citizenship based on an NBC definition matching Vattel's in Law of Nations. You need to start being honest and wrap your head around that. Juvenile comments about "See Spot run" only demonstrates YOUR level of reading ability and nothing more.
And speaking of honesty, you completely lopped off this part of Slaughterhouse:
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.
This was the ONLY part of Slaughterhouse that Gray rejected. That's far from the so-called thorough rejection as you tried to dishonestly characterize it.