The translation is not "bad" (well, maybe for Obama apologists). The translation was changed to fit the prevailing understanding of the term. Second, it's not a screw-up in any sense. The definition and decision was unanimous. The Wong Kim Ark court cited that definition and posed NO PROBLEMS with the definition, and gave the holding based on Virginia Minor being born to citizen parents. The WKA court RESPECTED that definition and STOPPED using the term NBC after the citation of Minor. Instead, Gray uses a separate term that is ONLY defined by the 14th amendment. And that is different because he specifically said the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. You can't have it both ways.
That is why a statement made in passing, irrelevant to the case, is not considered binding.
It wasn't made "in passing." The statement was used to reject Virginia Minor's argument of being a 14th amendment citizen. And if it was made in passing, why did Justice Gray cite it verbatim in Wong Kim Ark?? And why does the Luria decision cite Minor and NOT WKA as the Supreme Court precedent on Art II presidential eligibility if it was just "made in passing"??
It was a voting rights case, not a citizenship one.
Wong Kim Ark and Luria prove otherwise:
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ...
Why does Ark point out the highlighted part if it is JUST a voting rights case?? And here's Luria which again cites Minor in terms of citizenship:
Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.
See, that's a lot of uses of the word "citizen" and NO use of the term "voting rights" ... and NO MENTION of Wong Kim Ark. Hmmmmmm. Spin, Obots, spin.
“The translation is not “bad” (well, maybe for Obama apologists). The translation was changed to fit the prevailing understanding of the term. Second, it’s not a screw-up in any sense. The definition and decision was unanimous. The Wong Kim Ark court cited that definition and posed NO PROBLEMS with the definition, and gave the holding based on Virginia Minor being born to citizen parents.”
You are factually incorrect. The translation WAS bad, since the term NBS (sujets naturel in French) was not in that passage, although Vattel used it once elsewhere, so he knew about it. That means he CHOSE not to use it.
And WKA only cited Minor to show that the Slaughterhouse decision was wrong, and the WKA decision did not, in any way, endorse the passing comment found in Minor.
Here it is:
“That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection” (that is, in relation to citizenship),
reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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 [p680] 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 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.
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”
That is NOT, in any way, an endorsement that two citizen parents are needed to be a natural born citizen, particularly since the spent half the decision showing it was NOT.
Sorry, edge. You are a nut.