“It is now obvious that Minor was cited in numerous cases as SCOTUS precedent on the definition of natural born citizen “
Totally false. It simply did not happen. That is why the issue was debated before the Supreme Court with WKA years later. They would not have accepted arguments about it if it had been previously settled.
I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would go through the trouble of concocting such an ineffective conspiracy...much less actually trying to pull it off.
First, let me say that reasonable people can differ on the meaning of Minor as compared to WKA without resort to ad hominem attacks, which I hope we can keep off of this thread.
My take on Minor is that the court defined NBC _only_ as a means of establishing whether Mrs. Minor was in a class citizen which they needed to do before they could decide whether she, as a citizen, would have a right to vote.
The court _did_ reach the question of whether Mrs. Minor was a citizen and their holding was that she was a specific type of citizen, a natural born citizen.
In obiter dictum in Minor the court said that regarding the children of aliens born on US soil that was “doubt” as to whether they were citizens. The court said it could _not_ reach the question of whether these children of aliens were citizens, but the court clearly defined NBC in a way that _excluded_ them as being NBC, i.e. born on US soil of two citizen parents. A child born in the US with one or more alien parents cannot be NBC under the Minor holding, period.
Note that Minor was decided in 1875 _after_ the 14A was authorized, so as of 1875 there was still doubt that children born in the US with one or more alien parents were even citizens.
It took until 1898 in the Wong Kim Ark case (WKA) before the court reached the issue of the “doubt” about the citizenship of children born to aliens on US soil raised by the court in Minor.
If you look at the Wiki page (heavily moderated by Obama supporters) even Wiki does not claim that WKA has anything to do with defining natural born citizen. If you search the page you won't find the term, nor will you find reference on the WIKI WKA page to the discussion and definition of natural born citizen in Minor v Happersett that are contained within WKA in obiter dictum.
The whole issue in WKA _only_ involved whether Wong was a 14th Amendment citizen due to being born “under the jurisdiction” of the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
quote
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent about the role of jus soli (birth in the United States) as a factor in determining a person's claim to United States citizenship. The citizenship status of Wong—a man born around 1871 to Chinese parents who were domiciled in the United States—was challenged, based on an 1882 law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. Eventually, this issue reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in Wong's favor, deciding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution could not be impaired in its effect by an act of Congress.
end quote
Per Seizethecarp:
“It is now obvious that Minor was cited in numerous cases as SCOTUS precedent on the definition of natural born citizen “
Per Mr. Rodgers:
“Totally false. It simply did not happen.”
Just one example refuting of Mr. Rodgers by Leo Donofrio:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
quote
The Mystery of In Re Lockwood 154 U.S. 116 (1894).
A crucial US Supreme Court decision which has miraculously been absent from the national dialogue on Presidential eligibility is Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894), an essential case which confirms Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship:
“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if 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 of the constitution as since;” (Emphasis added.)
Lockwood directly cites Minor as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship, yet I can find no hits in Google searches which discuss this case in relation to Obama’s eligibility. Furthermore, If you visit Cornell’s page for Lockwood, the opinion is cut off right after “Minor v”. It never gets to Happersett and what comes after. The Cornell page is filled with gibberish from some other case.
The Lockwood opinion is also mangled at the Wiki Source page which doesn’t mention Minor at all. And as of Oct. 18, 2011, the version on Lexis has “Minor” mis-spelled as “Miner” in the body of the Lockwood opinion hosted there.
end quote
Can you see where they actually pin down the definition? It would be a very simple statement to make for these judges.
I can see they ramble on about English law, but citizens are entirely different from subject. A subject is more like a slave.
The dissent in KWA is an interesting read as well. That might provide more ammunition in support of our Kenyan Prince, as it tells the full spin of arguments.
As I understand it, the dissent was agitated that the decision might be read to allow foreign citizens into the presidency. It seems even back then, they knew an opportunist anti American with direct roots into foreign countries would attempt to destroy the country.