“the Minor v Happersett precedent-setting holding on the definition of NBC as requiring two citizen parents on US soil”
Except Minor, of course, expressly said they were NOT exploring the scope of NBC. But that is too high a grade English for you, isn’t it?
“Your ad hominem attacks do not advance your argument and do not reflect well on you.”
I have little patience for someone who has had his errors pointed out at great length, but who is too dense to comprehend. There is a reason that every court and every state ignores you, and it is NOT because we’re all a bunch of Obama-lovers.
When Lynch wrote this in 1844:
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.
(pg 250)
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
he wasn’t acting as an Obama-bot. He was summarizing the opinions that held sway.
When the court in WKA wrote:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
they were not promoting Obama. They were describing what they found.
Was it “dicta”? Yes, and I’ve said so multiple times. However, it is dicta that has influenced many decisions over the last 100+ years, and the US Supreme Court has refused to revisit what was written in 1898. They had the opportunity, and they turned it down. And installed Obama in office.
Complain all you want, but you will not find a reputable lawyer or a court to back your fantasies up. NBC wasn’t a phrase the Founders pulled from a bad translation of Vattel made 10 years after they wrote the Constitution. It had an established legal meaning, which the US Supreme Court has already said “was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
It cannot get much clearer than that. Since you refuse to believe your eyes, I have to conclude you are a conspiracy nut.
Here is one, Frederick Van Dyne Assistant Solicitor US Department of State and author of A Treatise on the law of Naturalization of the United States and Treatise on Citizenship of the United States. I gave you this link before you said you read it but apparently you did not. I will cut through to the meat, which solidifies the precedent in Minor v Happersett, with the punchline, It is crucially important to recognize that Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship could not be established without the 14th Amendment since he was not a natural-born citizen. If he had been in that class, the Court would have established his citizenship under Article 2 Section 1 as the court had previously done for Virginia Minor.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/multiple-instances-of-historical-scholarship-conclusively-establish-the-supreme-courts-holding-in-minor-v-happersett-as-standing-precedent-on-citizenship-obama-not-eligible/