Reality is my evidence. Barack Obama is the president, sworn in by a Chief Justice who expressed no qualms about his eligibility. An Indiana Court of Appeals wrote--in reference to Obama--that "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." (Is your claim that "there's NOTHING in the decision that declares Obama to be a natural born citizen" based on the fact that they didn't use "Obama" and "natural born citizen" in the same sentence?) Counter that, all you have is "they're wrong!"
But, for example, you write that
Another class of persons are those who "some authorities" consider to be citizens by virtue of birth without regard to the citizenship of the parents. Waite specifically distinguishes this class of persons from those who constitute NBCs.If he's distinguishing them, why did he write, "Some authorities go further..."? To anyone reading normally--i.e., for comprehension rather than for desired outcome--the use of "further" clearly means he was extending the description just given. If the second sentence only has to do with citizenship, not the particular kind of citizenship under discussion, why would he use the word "further"?
And speaking of evidence: what evidence do you have that any authorities do not "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"? Besides the standard exceptions for ambassadors etc., did any authority ever successfullly argue that someone born within the jurisdction was not a citizen at all?
This is called "circular logic." It's generally not the job of a Chief Justice to take a personal action to prevent the seating of a U.S. president. As to whether he had qualms, it's hard to say. We do know that the oath was botched.
An Indiana Court of Appeals wrote--in reference to Obama--that "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
We've addressed this already. Clause 4 of Art. II, Sec. I, has nothing to do with natural born citizenship. Further, I've shown how the so-called guidance the court claims is incorrect. In fact, this court even admits by way of footnote that WKA was never declared to be a NBC. How exactly do they get any "guidance" when the SCOTUS doesn't even take the action they claim to have divined from the ruling??
We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial.
The Indiana court claims this fact is "immaterial" to WKA, yet the court in Minor (from which Gray quote the definition of NBC) directly related NBC to Art II language.
This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," ...If he's distinguishing them, why did he write, "Some authorities go further..."? To anyone reading normally--i.e., for comprehension rather than for desired outcome--the use of "further" clearly means he was extending the description just given. If the second sentence only has to do with citizenship, not the particular kind of citizenship under discussion, why would he use the word "further"?
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
He's talking about a second class of persons being "include[d] as citizens," but he does not say they are included as natives or included as natural born citizens. In the previous paragraph, Waite mentions that citizens may be added by birth (since the original citizens were those who declared independence from Great Britain). Those persons who are added as citizens are NBCs (those born of citizen parents) and those included as citizens by "some authorities" with no regard for the parents. He clearly says these are two different classes of individuals. For the first class, NBCs, there is no doubt about their citizenship. The second class (with no regard to the parents citizenship) there are doubts. The point that you and other faithers seem to miss is that Waite and the court could have accepted Virginia Minor's argument and declared her a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment. By emphasizing this definition of NBC, they effectively excluded it from the operation of the 14th amendment, which is what Gray wrote in the WKA decision.
And one more thing. Remember the silly "neither/nor" argument?? Eight of the nine justices in the Slaughterhouse Cases were part of the UNANIMOUS Minor decision that defined NBC and excluded it from the 14th amendment. Clearly they believed that the subject clause was NOT limimted to what you call "standard exceptions."