[BladeBryan]

sourcery wrote: “It’s logically and factually impossible to cite a case’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ when the text of the opinion of the cited cases nowhere includes the term ‘natural born citizen.’”

First, what case are you talking about? The term ‘natural-born citizen’ appears in the Supreme Court’s opinion deciding WKA, and in the Court of Appeals of Indiana’s opinion deciding Ankeny v. Daniels. You addressed this comment to me, and those are the cases I brought up. Is your issue the hyphen between ‘natural’ and ‘born’? Did I forget some case to which I cited this issue?

Second, useful a tool as string-search is, you should have noticed by now that legal scholarship is harder than that. Many talented people have devoted their life’s work to bringing clarity to fine points of law. Unless self-deception is your actual goal, trying to dumb-down the material to your comfort level is clearly not working, has not worked, and almost certainly will not work.

When law dictionaries, court decisions, and the peer-reviewed literature all say that you are wrong, maybe it’s time to take a clue. All the more so when you find yourself on the side that has lost over a hundred legal actions and won zero.

[sourcery]

Firstly, when controlling Supreme Court precedent agrees, it's quite irrelevant how many other courts or legal authorities say whatever else. That applies to Ankeny vs. Daniels, by the way.

Secondly, the term "natural born citizen" does not appear anywhere in the text of the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark. Now that's any easy one to falsify, no? Just cite where it does.

Unless self-deception is your actual goal, trying to dumb down the clear and unambigous holding as to the meaning of "natural born citizen" as defined in Minor vs. Hapersett is clearly not working, has not worked, and will not work in the future.

[sourcery]

My apologies. I should have searched for "natural-born" and not just "natural born". However, the term "natual-born citizen" occurs only 1) as quotes from the text of the Constitution, without make any statements at all regarding what the term means, or 2) in a quote from Minor, but again without Chief Justice Gray making any statement himself regarding what it means:

1. The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States." By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been "seven years a citizen of the United States," and every Senator to have been "nine years a citizen of the United States." and "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."
2. "In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167."