Clause 4 of Art. II, Sec. I, has nothing to do with natural born citizenship.
I think this has been explained to you before--I know I learned it in some discussion here. The original Clause 3 was superseded by the 12th Amendment. If you no longer count that one, therefore, what was Clause 5 is now Clause 4. That was clearly what the Indiana court meant--or do you really think they can't count up to 5?
How exactly do they get any "guidance" when the SCOTUS doesn't even take the action they claim to have divined from the ruling??
Because, unlike you, they can clearly see what the SCOTUS's reasoning was, even if they never said "WKA is a natural born citizen" in so many words.
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.
In all that verbiage, you still haven't addressed (1) why Waite used the word "further," if he wasn't talking about an extension of the definition of "natural born citizen"; and (2) whether anyone ever successfully expressed doubts about the citizenship status of that second class. Who are the "some authorities" Waite refers to?
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
No, they just said that women did not need the 14th Amendment to become U.S. citizens. That NBCs existed prior to the 14th Amendment does not mean that people to whom the 14th applied could not be NBCs. That's a basic logical error on your part, in line with your (and other birthers') inability to grasp the distinction between a sufficient and necessary condition (i.e., "two citizen parents is enough to make you an NBC" vs. "two citizen parents are required to make you an NBC").
As someone once said: "Read it. Learn it. Understand it."
If this were the court's only mistake, I might cut them slack. I cited three separate sources that identify the clause as the 5th, not the 4th. The Indiana court cites an Indiana law, so I suppose they are handcuffed to the stupidity of their own state's legislators. The court made other errors. One, they said the plaintiffs didn't argue about where Obama was born in one part of the decision yet they admitted that they did in another. They downplayed the intent of the authors of the 14th amendment as "quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century ..." and Vattel's Law of Nations (which has been cited frequently by the SCOTUS) as "an eighteenth century treatise." Then they claim without any logical basis that "the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens ..." Minor doesn't specify anything about BOTH parents being one or the other. It simply says people who are NOT born of citizen parents (plural) are distinguished from aliens or foreigners, which would categorically refer to those of mixed parents.
Because, unlike you, they can clearly see what the SCOTUS's reasoning was, even if they never said "WKA is a natural born citizen" in so many words.
The Indiana court misses the entire point. Gray could NOT declare WKA to be an NBC because he didn't meet its definition. The WKA decision had no problem attributing Virginia Minor's citizenship to a definition of NBC, so if it was the same, they should have no problem doing so for WKA. They did not.
In all that verbiage, you still haven't addressed (1) why Waite used the word "further," if he wasn't talking about an extension of the definition of "natural born citizen"; and (2) whether anyone ever successfully expressed doubts about the citizenship status of that second class. Who are the "some authorities" Waite refers to?
1) I did address it because the "further" is an addendum to the previous paragraph about how citizens could be added by birth or naturalization. It sets up TWO classes of citizens, but one has doubt. There's nothing in the construction that suggests anyone goes further in definining natural born citizen, which I also addressed. 2) The "some authorities" is probably a reference to individual states. You do understand that the ONLY authority that matters here is the SCOTUS itself?? There would be NO authority that trumps them.
No, they just said that women did not need the 14th Amendment to become U.S. citizens. That NBCs existed prior to the 14th Amendment does not mean that people to whom the 14th applied could not be NBCs.
Sorry, but this is exactly what Gray talked about when he said the SCOTUS was committed to the view that the children born in the country of citizens are EXCLUDED from the operation of the 14th amdendment. The very next paragraph goes right to the Minor decision specifically.
As someone once said: "Read it. Learn it. Understand it."
That was me and my advice still stands. You're hanging on to a "further" and "some authorities" and an Indiana state court decision that admits the SCOTUS did not to the same conclusion they divined from thin air. I've explained how those points have failed and have supported my points directly from these SCOTUS decisions. Read it. Learn it. Understand it.
You are just wasting your time arguing with the Vattle Birthers. Nothing you say to them or prove to them will ever work, because they are one of two things:
1. Liars trying to deceive people.
2. Very, very stupid.
Either way, you are just talking to people who are not really open to facts or logic. They give other Birthers a bad name, and frankly, I find them about on the level of those people who don’t believe we landed on the moon, because they are one of two thing:
1. Liars trying to deceive people.
2. Very, very stupid.