It's not out of context.
Before I go any further with your post, are you seriously telling me when you post: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 ...You believe it is not out of context and means the same as the original [emphasis added]:
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...Because if you can't comprehend the difference between (paraphrased) "the Supreme Court was committed to" and "None of the justices understood the Court to be committed to" you can't understand the difference between two opposite positions. In which case either your comprehension skills or intellectual dishonesty disqualifies you from an honest discussion.
I've pinged several others on this thread, so they won't waste their time either if your answer is that you really don't see a difference between the two.
Nonsense. You've completely ignored the explanation I gave and you're trying to focus on semanatics I've already addressed. You claim there's a difference, yet you don't say what the difference is or how it affects the context. I'll explain this again. Justice Miller did NOT include NBCs in the original slaughterhouse decision. This is why Gray is bringing it up and attributing this point to the Minor decision. While you're bolding sentences, pay attention to this part bolded below:
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...
The UNANIMOUS judgment from two years later is the Minor decision which exclusively defines NBC (from the Constitution) as "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." Justice Waite used this definition to reject Virginia Minor's claim of being a 14th amendment citizen. That's why Gray says Miller did not understand that the court was committed to the view that NBCs are ALSO excluded from the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment. Miller did not mention NBCs as being excluded from the 14th, but the Supreme Court did so unanimously two years later.
Justice Gray AFFIRMS the Minor definition of NBC and follows it as precedence because it bars him from declaring WKA to be a natural born citizen. Instead, Gray resorts to English Common Law to give teeth to the 14th amendment to establish what he calls "citizenship by birth." That citizenship by birth is NOT natural born citizenship. It is a type of citizenship that is defined by the Constitution per the 14th amendment AND it is controlled by the subject clause, which Gray said hinged on the parents having permanent residence and domicil. Therefore, under these two decisions, Obama is neither an NBC nor a 14th amendment citizen ... even IF he could legally prove he was born in the United States.
“I’ve pinged several others on this thread, so they won’t waste their time either if your answer is that you really don’t see a difference between the two.”
Thanks, but I wasted my time on edge919’s deluded misreading of that very quote some time ago. In one part I wrote:
“How could you possibly think that you can just drop the ‘neither... nor’? When you delete a negation you get the opposite of what the claim actually asserted. Well, normally you would get the opposite; in this case you were so clueless as to the proposition being negated that what you got was hash.”