That statement demonstrates your inability to read and comprehend the Minor decision. In this regard, we can say the folks at Justia.com did better at it than you.
As I explained elsewhere to a troll a few months ago, the court declared the NBC debate was unnecessary since the definition of NBC was not in doubt.
The court looked at two features of parental citizenship. The first: “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.”
The second dealt with parental non-citizenship. “As to this (second) class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
What possible rationale can be used to argue that the founders, who had just concluded a bloody struggle with England, would allow those of non-citizen parents to hold the highest office in the nation?
Your lack of clarity boggles the mind.
“That statement demonstrates your inability to read and comprehend the Minor decision. “
Yes, well, MY interpretation is supported by every court in the country.
If you could read English, you would understand. You can’t, and thus you are a birther.
But for any lurkers, here is what Minor said:
“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
Oh golly, There I go again - pulling Minor without using justica!
“What possible rationale can be used to argue that the founders, who had just concluded a bloody struggle with England, would allow those of non-citizen parents to hold the highest office in the nation?”
The Founders allowed naturalized citizens in the House. The Founders allowed naturalized citizens to serve in the Senate.
And this may surprise you, but the Founders allowed actual non-citizens to serve on the Supreme Court. There’s no requirement that members of the President’s Cabinet be U.S. citizens either.
So naturally, Birthers argue, the Founders didn’t care about one’s OWN citizenship at birth for any other governmental office, but were desperately concerned with one’s PARENTS’ citizenship at birth for the President! And rather than actually state that outright, they decided to use a term that every successive generation interpreted as ‘citizenship at birth,’ until a poker player who used to think he was God’s prophet revealed the Founders’ TRUE definition.