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.
No one who can read was misled. I said Waite did NOT cite Vattel, only that he used the exact same words Vattel used in his definition of natural citizenship. Read it AGAIN.
They match so much that Waite should have been sued for plagiarism (since he failed to cite Vattel).Here is what the Supreme Court said about the Minor people, in 1898, and I quote:
I already quoted the passage that Gray used, except that I explained that Waite did NOT cite English common law. His definition of NBC matched Vattel's side by side, which is why I put them side by and underlined the matching phrases.
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:
I didn't say there is no such thing as English common law. I said there's no English common law in the Minor decision. Waite did NOT cite ANY English common law when giving his definition of natural born citizenship.
squeeks, you're posts are bordering on delusional because you are claiming things that I never said and you're ignoring what I did say.
Sooo, women and minors who were born here were already citizens because they were born here. Not because of who their parents were.
You're not reading ALL the words. Waite said "native women and minors." Waite has already said "natives" are those who are born in the country to citizen parents.
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.
Sorry, but this is babbling nonsense. Waite said it was not necessary to solve the doubts about the second class of citizens, because V. Minor fell within the first class of citizens ... natural born citizens ... those who are born in the country to citizen parents. We KNOW this is what he meant because it was explained as much 20 plus years later by Gray in the Wong Kim Ark decision, who said:
The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ...Sooo, you need to quit being a Vattle Birther, and quit misleading people about Mark Rubio not being eligible.
This isn't about Vattel. It's specifically about what the SCOTUS ruled on multiple occasions:
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.
Now ... you said this was somehow misread backwards. You still have not explained why you believe so.