Replies

I assumed nothing of the sort. However, it's pretty obvious that it defines "natural born subject" and, by extension, "natural born citizen."

Right. And if it was 'obvious,' then the plaintiff would have been declared a natural born citizen. And if it was 'obvious,' there was no need for the 14th amendment. And if it was obvious, there was no need to cite the Minor definition of natural born citizen, but they did. And if it was obvious, we wouldn't have had persons who were native born in the United States, but who were natural born subjects of Great Britain, but we did. Wong tells us this too. "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens."

And if it was 'obvious,' then the plaintiff would have been declared a natural born citizen.

The plaintiff wasn't suing in order to run for president. He was merely trying to establish that he was a citizen. Therefore, there was no need for the court to directly rule on whether he was natural born or not.

Nevertheless, the passage I cited, as well as the rest of the opinion, makes it very clear the court regarded him as a natural born citizen.

And if it was 'obvious,' there was no need for the 14th amendment.

The 14th Amendment was needed in order to have freed slaves made citizens, as common law precedent was insufficient in their case. However, common law precedent is crystal clear that the child of free resident aliens, so long as he is born under US jurisdiction, is a natural born citizen.

Justice Gray makes that point again, and again, in the opinion, if you bothered to read it for yourself (which I doubt).

And if it was obvious, there was no need to cite the Minor definition of natural born citizen, but they did.

I don't follow your argument.

And if it was obvious, we wouldn't have had persons who were native born in the United States, but who were natural born subjects of Great Britain, but we did.

Yes, someone can be both a natural born citizen of the United States as well as a natural born subject of the UK. What's your point?

Wong tells us this too. "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens."

Sure. So?