You can continue on in your delusion that Minor defined NBC, but there isn’t a court in the land that will follow your delusions. Nor is there a single state or state DA that will follow it. Nor has any Congressman, any one of which could have raised an objection to Obama’s election.
The plain English of the one paragraph in the decision is that they did NOT try to determine the meaning of NBC, beyond applying it to the woman in the case, who had citizen parents.
WKA most definitely DID apply it to a man born of Chinese parents. They did not spend half of the decision discussing something totally irrelevant. And the dissent recognized the meaning, complaining that the decision would allow the child of a tourist to become President.
Can I make you understand that? No.
But what you should be able to understand is that your essay was full of BS. Naturalized citizens are not NBC, not have they ever been held to be that under the law. And while you can pretend Minor defines NBC, or that it was not a known term PRIOR to the Constitution, no court will ever agree. Indeed, the idea that the Founders used a term no one had ever heard of or knew the meaning of in the Constitution is just stupid.
If you would be honest, WKA gives a good but partial summary of the history of the term NBC. Lynch in 1844 went into more detail, but no court has ever found that the citizenship of the parents impacts the citizenship of the child under US law, if the child was born here.
But you go on with your delusions. You will anyway, you won’t get anywhere because no court has or ever will agree with you.
“The Constititional Convention didn’t include a definition of “natural born citizen” precisely because they didn’t see themselves as in the dictionary business, and because their understanding of the law of nations meant that there was a natural definition of that term which was (in their view) based on reason and first principles, and which their ethic impelled them to leave in that state.”
No, they didn’t define it because the meaning was well established, and known by the states that had started using NBC as a word for word replacement of NBS in their own citizenship laws. The Founders were not following a bad translation of Vattel made in 1797, but common legal use at the time of the writing.
This is the plain English used in the Minor decision: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens ... These were the natives, or natural born citizens, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ALIENS OR FOREIGNERS. The court CLEARLY says if you don't meet the definition of NBC, you are by nature considered an alien or foreigner. Other laws and/or circumstances have to be considered in order for such a person to be a citizen, which is why the court briefly reviews naturalization laws during the next couple of paragraphs. In Virginia Minor's case, the court said that as a woman (which represents a class of individuals) her citizenship did not rely on the 14th amendment as long as she was a natural born citizen. WKA was not a NBC and relied not only on the 14th amendment, but upon a residence and domicil requirement of the parents, as was lengthily explained by Gray. Minor was an NBC. Ark was not.
“You can continue on in your delusion that Minor defined NBC”
I saw on WND where Dr. Corsi said that he discovered Minor while researching his book, and he says it’s the only case on point.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=313665
But when I did a search of the book on Amazon, there are no results for Minor. I get results for Wong Kim Ark and Elk v Wilkins, but nothing for Minor.
Can anyone with the book confirm this? I find it strange that he would say it’s the most important case, even though he never mentions it in the book.