The SCOTUS needs to finish the job that has eluded Congress nearly 30 times in the last 130 years in defining “Natural-born citizen”, in context of Art II, Sect. 1, Clause 5 or otherwise.
The Minor case, as does the Wong case, are some of the FEW cases that dance around the subject of “Natural-born citizen” and give insight. The Minor case comes close, as is referenced in the US v. Wong case
The cases give us a glimpse as to how the SCOTUS would rule, just as they defined “to keep and bear arms” in the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER case last year. They turned to Vattel, Common Law and other sources available to the Founders to define (not re-define) original Constitutional wording and concepts.
Art VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution was first used by the SCOTUS in 1819 in stating that Maryland could not tax the Second Bank of the United States. Most recently in 1982, the SCOTUS ruled, “A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute” — neither the Supremacy Clause, nor any related SCOTUS ruling, says that all Common Law is bunk, so therefore ignore it when making a Constitutional ruling!
As Constitutional scholar Larry Kramer has said, "Their [i.e., the Framers'] Constitution was not ordinary law, not peculiar to the stuff or courts and judges. It was ... a special form of popular law, law made by the people to bind their governors, and so subject to rules and considerations that made it qualitatively different from (and not just superior to) statutory or common law." Federal law is superior to state law -- but it does not ignore Common Law when such reference is needed, especially to define the Framers.
The 14th Amendment, Wong, Minor or any other case or Naturalization Act does NOT define that a “Citizen” is a “Natural-born Citizen” — that is only wishful thinking of the Left.
You claimed the guiding light was Minor and not Wong.
You are wrong.
Minor did nothing to resolve the issue.
Wong is the case under the Supremacy Clause unless you find me one later than Wong.
"a special form of popular law, law made by the people"
Excellent!
Thank you BP2!
Did someone use the "L" word?
For some strange reason the "L" word always reminds me of the -- so called -- 'Lost' Thirteenth Amendment
“…If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them”
Let's see... title of nobility or honor... where did I hear that?
Oh, I know, YOUR HONOR!
Of course, the "title," er, I mean, well, it's just a way of showing do respect to one who obviously holds a "higher" -- more "noble" -- station in life, you know, like when we say "my lord..."
Alrighty then...
By the way:
Where is it written in the constitution that one has to first be an 'attorney' to sit on the Supreme court?
If the framers of the constitution -- themselves, mostly attorneys -- thought it an unnecessary qualification, would it not follow that they wrote the constitution itself in such a way that ANY reasonable and literate person could understand it?
STE=Q