The "elsewhere" is a verbatim match of Vattel's definition of NBC. There's no English common law. Minor didn't cite any. It's why I put Minor's definition side by side with Vattel's. They match so much that Waite should have been sued for plagiarism (since he failed to cite Vattel). All the citations of common law used in Wong Kim Ark were ONLY used to bolster the 14th amendment, which the SCOTUS, as Gray acknowledged, UNANIMOUSLY said EXCLUDED NBCs.
Plus, like the other fibber Vattle Birther here, you quote the Venus stuff which was 1830 something and not even about natural born citizen stuff.
I already explained that it was quoted to show that the Court had previously cited Vattel by name. The definition that Marshall cited is the same one used by Waite with only minor (pun intended) variation.
Plus, yes I have shown you where the 14th and natural born citizen are the same thing, but you just want to pretend that I haven’t because it proves you are wrong.
Nothing you posted overrides Minor's definition. Wong Kim Ark cited and legally AFFIRMED that definition. Gray used as guidance for making him UNABLE to declare Ark to be a natural born citizen. The words speak for themselves. It IS an exclusive, self-limiting definition:
... all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. These are the natives, or natural-born citizens ...Which all of this is why REAL conservative lawyers like Mark Levin say about Vattle Birther PRETEND lawyers on the Internet:
Levin is just shutting out the inconvenient truth. The Supreme Court is clear. NBC = born in the country to citizen parents.
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
Here is a linky thingy:
Plus, if you will notice, you just said there is no such thing as English common law which the Supreme Court just said there was and then starts to review it, and I quote the same Supreme Court again:
"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.13
Sooo, how come if there is NO English common law like you say, the Supreme Court is quoting it and NOT some Swiss guy named Emerich de Vattel???
Plus, I don't think lawyers are always right on stuff, but I would sure rather take Mark Levin's word on something, and Ann Coulter then some PRETEND lawyer on the Internet.
Plus when you take a few minutes to read the Minor case, which was a woman's voting rights case, here what else what Judge Waite said:
"From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth." Sooo, women and minors who were born here were already citizens because they were born here. Not because of who their parents were. And no mention of Vattle. And citizens of aliens??? Judge Waite said "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts" which is just the opposite of what you are saying which is that this case solved in favor of Vattel, who is not even mentioned in the case. What you are doing is misleading people.
Sooo, you need to quit being a Vattle Birther, and quit misleading people about Mark Rubio not being eligible.