Perfectly clear, since I posted the quote from WKA in post #140.
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.Interpreting it in light of the common law means, as you have been told in the past, that children born on American soil are natural born citizens, with the few narrow exceptions I have posted before.
Gray affirmed, when he said the Supreme Court was: .. committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment ...
Way to take quotes out of context so they say the opposite of what the speaker really said! But you might want to look at in context in WKA
That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench...But nice try make Justice Gray say the opposite of what he really said! A true test of either your research skills, or your intellectual honesty - you best know which.
Sorry, but this is patently false. Enlgish common law is simply a framework Gray uses to give teeth to the 14th amendment. He acknowledged very clearly that the court previously defined natural born citizenship as those who are born in the country to citizen parents. Once Gray affirms the Minor definition, he never uses the phrases NBC again in the decision and INSTEAD uses his own term of "citizenship by birth." He distinguishes these two terms. One is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution and the other is defined by the Constitution per the 14th amendment. You have to read ALL the words.
Way to take quotes out of context so they say the opposite of what the speaker really said!
It's not out of context. In the Slaughterhouses cases, Justice Miller said, "The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." Gray is noting that Miller did not understand at the time that the Supreme Court was ALSO committed to interpreting the 14th amendment as EXCLUDING children born in the country to CITIZEN parents. This is why Gray, a couple of paragraphs later, refers to the Minor decision that UNANIMOUSLY rejected the 14th amendment as applying to a natural born citizen (Virginia Minor). That IS the context.
One other thing: If you look at how Justice Waite defines NBC in the Minor decision, he uses the term common law. Gray may have assumed that Waite was referring to English common law, hence his "interpreted in the light of" comment. The problem is that Waite did not rely on English common law for the definition of NBC. Instead, it is a near-verbatim citation of Vattel's law of nations. Examine the two definitions side by side. I've highlighted the phrases that match.
MINOR "... 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 ..."
VATTEL: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."