There’s no vast difference. Fuller was quoting from the syllabus in Minor. Fuller is also the guy who dissented in Wong Kim Ark and cited Vattel in defining natural-born citizen. That same definition nearly matches the Minor definition verbatim. It’s the same definition that Gray cited verbatim and affirmed was due to citizen parents in the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark. You should be seeing a pattern now. Natural-born = born in the country to citizen parents. There’s no other reason to say anything about the parents being citizens.
edge919 wrote: “There’s no vast difference.”
Well, not in your comment after you snip them both.
edge919 wrote: “Fuller was quoting from the syllabus in Minor.”
MMaschin noted that Fuller was stating the holding in Minor, and on that he was correct. Clearly he used the syllabus, which states the holding. That’s not in question. Where you get debunked is that neither the syllabus nor what MMaschin cited where the Court described the holding includes the dicta about “natural born”.
edge919 wrote: “Fuller is also the guy who dissented in Wong Kim Ark”.
Where Fuller wrote that he “cannot concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case”, arguing in part:
“I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural-born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
Why is that reason to dissent? According to your theory, edge919, the majority opinion implies nothing about the eligibility issue, yet Fuller argues against the majority on those grounds. Is it perhaps possible that the Chief Justice understood the implications better than you do?
edge919 wrote: “[Fuller] cited Vattel in defining natural-born citizen.”
True. Fuller wrote:
“Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
In that same Dissent he also wrote:
“In my judgment, the children of our citizens born abroad were always natural-born citizens from the standpoint of this Government.”
Fuller’s own judgement *disagrees* with what he cited to Vattel. Fuller’s dissent and the Court’s majority opinion both disagreed with Vattel, though in different directions. What’s more instructive is that the opinions are not written at the third-grade level. Citation, even quotation, does not imply agreement.
Interpreting precedents and tracking which control is a challenging task. I’ve seen no one posting here who is really competent at it, including myself. Fortunately our legislature has the worlds best library with an excellent research staff. Jack Maskell actually has the expertise that so many birthers pretend.