[RummyChick]

My opinion is that you are wrong as to it being settled law.

You forgot U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark

But For example, Let me just take one you quoted:

Minor VS Happerett


Chief Justice Waite: “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 [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.

[conservativegramma]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I very much disagree with it. It is settled law.

In your quoting of Minor v. Happersett what should have been highlighted is this phrase: "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also." It goes on to conclude, "As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

Under Happersett, a natural born citizen is clarified to mean natural born citizen without a doubt. Whenever someone is born to a non-citizen parent there will always be doubt! Therefore, it is settled law that a child born to TWO citizen parents leaves NO DOUBT as to being natural born.

This definition was re-affirmed under the 110th Congress Senate Resolution 511 regarding John Sidney McCain. Therefore, it is settled law.