Minor says NO SUCH THING and you continue to ignore it.The Chief Justice DECLINED to address anything but what was relevant to that case and CLEARLY stated so.
BS:
Why Wasn’t Ankeny v Daniels Appealed To The Supreme Court?
January 10, 2012 10:10:32 PM EST · 53 of 191
Triple to Triple
The money quote from Minor:
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
Page 88 U. S. 168
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. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies
Why Wasn’t Ankeny v Daniels Appealed To The Supreme Court?
January 10, 2012 9:58:09 PM EST · 52 of 191
Triple to El Sordo
Nope, the case says that there is a class of citizen, the natural born citizen, that nobody doubts or contests their citizenship. These natural born citizens are persons born within the jurisdiction to 2 citizen parents. There are other people that have debatable or sometimes argued citizenship, but they don’t matter in minor v heppersett, because in this case the woman has NBC status.
No way around it.
You are either deliberately misleading in your analysis and reading of the case, or lacking the mental capacity to comment on it objectively.
Fogbow much?