Obama should have been deported with Barak Sr.

OK. Sooo, you didn't get your THEORY from the Vattle Birthers, right??? Sooo, YOUR Theory is ALL YOURS ALONE. Good! Now, let us examine this second way you had of reading WKA and Minor.

1. How do YOU address the fact that the Minor judges did not REACH (which is a new word I just learned about legal stuff) the issue of children born here of foreigners???

2.Why do YOU think the Minor court defined NBC, when the Minor Court people did not say so in either the decision or the syllabus. AND Why do you think the Minor Court decided the 14th amendment made a NEW CLASS of citizenship, when those judges did not say so in either the syllabus or the decision???

3. What gives YOU the right, as a single solitary person, who is not a lawyer or judge, to tell people here about a legal theory which says that Mark Rubio and Bobby Jindal are NOT eligible to run for president or VP, WITHOUT TELLING EVERYBODY HERE, that this is just your theory, and maybe they should get a second opinion from a real lawyer, because courts disagree with you??? Because that sounds reasonable to me, that you should tell people this.

Here is the syllabus FROM THE MINOR COURT to make it easier for you about what they did decide:

1. The word "citizen" is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.

2. In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since.

3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had.

4. At the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the States; nor was it at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

5. Neither the Constitution nor the fourteenth amendment made all citizens voters.

6. A provision in a State constitution which confines the right of voting to "male citizens of the United States," is no violation of the Federal Constitution. In such a State women have no right to vote.

Where are the numbers 7 and 8 or more you think are there??? Wouldn't they be there if they ruled it, because those same Minor Judges believe:

So important a change in the condition of citizenship as it actually existed, if intended, would have been expressly declared.

1. The did reach the issue. The children of foreigners were either recognized by some authorities as citizens (with doubts) or they were naturalized under the Naturalization Act of 1790, which it talks about.

2. The syllabus recognizes that Minor’s decision was in part due to being born to citizen parents. Did you not read the syllabus before you posted it?? Second, where does it say the 14th amendment makes a “New class” of citizenship??

3. I’m only pointing out what the cases say. You need to argue against the citations not against the messenger.

4. You need to read the syllabus you posted. Items No 1. and No. 2 show that this case was about citizenship as well as voting rights. Further, it says in No. 2 that NBCs have always been considered citizens as much SINCE the adoption of the 14th amendment as before its adoption. IOW, the 14th amendment is irrelevant to the citizenship of NBCs. Thanks for helping me prove the point yet again. By now, it’s really time for you to admit you’re understanding was wrong. You’ve helped me to prove it.

I wanted to add something. The Ankeny decision helped me to focus on what makes this issue compelling. They said:

The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief;

I don't have access to the brief that was filed by the Plaintiffs. I don't know if the Indiana Appeals Court is accurately characterizing the argument made by the plaintiffs, although they certainly did mischaracterize it in at least one glaring aspect. That aside, this made me realize that, while Vattel is clearly a compelling authority on natural law of nations, in order to make a strong case in court, the focus needs to be on what the Supreme Court has said instead of Vattel or anyone else.

The other thing is that the more I read WKA and noticed it didn't declare the defendant to be an NBC that I started to notice how influential the Minor decision was. I had only seen the main quote from Minor, so upon further inspection, that was when I noticed that Minor rejected the 14th amendment citizenship clause for NBCs. Then, with that context, it starts making the overkill-of-a-case make sense that Gray laid out.

Under the principle of stare decisis, the Supreme Court shows great legal deference to previous decisions. This is for practical reasons. The law becomes very messy if the court frequently overturns previous decisions. It could lead to lawlessness and contempt for the judicial system. This happens enough with lower courts, so it has to be minimized by the SCOTUS.

Second, it's very difficult to justify overturning a unanimous decision. On one hand, there's a relatively well-established tradition of citizenship at birth on the basis of jus soli, but on the other hand, we have a court decision that made a point of rejecting the scope of citizenship as pertains to a Constitutional amendment. The court's reasoning in Minor contradicts the alleged common-law tradition.

The challenge then is how to uphold this so-called tradition and simultaneously NOT overturn a unanimous decision. This is why Gray goes to great lengths to look at common law, look at early citizenship cases, look at post-14th amendment citizenship cases and then look at post-14th amendment cases involving Chinese subjects.

The dissent in WKA rejected citizenship for a child born to Chinese subjects because of a treaty with the Chinese. If Gray was going to override that treaty, he couldn't do it with an arbitrary and oversimplified definition of citizenship, and he had to be careful not to overturn previous cases. Thus, he started creating shades of Gray with different terms of citizenship. NBC is reserved for those person as defined in Minor. The subject clause is refined from the Slaghterhouse, Minor and Elk cases. The treaty with China is superceded by establishing an "ancient and fundamental" rule that gives teeth to the Constitution, in particular the 14th amendment to be able to override a treaty despite the fact that the Constitution puts treaties on the same legal level as the Constitution and laws arising under the Constitution. There would be no clear supremacy of the 14th amendment, UNLESS the rule in effect is larger than the Constitution. That's what Gray tried to invoke, but in the process he left NBC untouched. He did NOT need it and he did NOT use the term in any way, shape or form to describe Ark or any person whose citizenship is dependent on the 14th amendment.

Of course, I read the syllabus, and it does not say anything about kids of foreigners because that was NOT relevant to the case. Maybe this person, who is a lawyer, and with who I don't agree with everything, she or he is right about Minor, and maybe this will get through your mental road blocks: This same person had a Vattle Birther calling him names, and in the comments, this is how he answered him:

[To the Vattle Birther]:You still don’t get it. The SCOTUS in Minor did not seek to formulate a definition of citizenship, whether NBC or otherwise; it did not “find” or “hold” an NBC has 2 citizen parents; nor did its ruling depend on such definition. (Remember, we had citizens BEFORE the 14th Amendment, even without any Constitutional definition as to what “citizen” means.) Rather, the Minor court merely sought to ascertain from empirical evidence, in the absence of any Constitutional definition, whether people in Ms. Minor’s circumstances historically were considered to be citizens. Because if she was considered a citizen (of whatever kind) before the 14th Amendment then, the word citizen in that amendment applied to her and, as a result, she is entitled to the “privileges and immunities” of her fellow citizens.

Know what’s funny? No 14th Amendment jurisprudence in the past 100+ years, coming from recognized expert legal theorists; has adopted [L's] viewpoint as to what that citizenship clause means, or what Minor means. I am not saying, [L] must be wrong because he is the only one reaching this conclusion. However, having done a couple of searches to see who is promoting what I am describing as this baseless interpretation throughout the blogosphere; it appears to me, they are zealously clinging to this tripe because such beliefs have spawned a cottage industry that depends on accepting the false premise, the court has ruled, without 2 citizen parents, one cannot be said to be natural born. And that, therefore, Obama cannot be said to be natural born. And this false theory appeals to those people who hate Obama so much they have lost all reason to discern fact from fiction, and patriots from charlatans, however well intentioned they may be.

Which is pretty obvious to me from the case. BUT answer my questions. How do YOU find things in the case, that the judges themselves don't say is there.

Plus, the syllabus does not use the term natural born citizen, so under the Edge919 rules of how to read law stuff, this means maybe she is now a 4th kind of imaginary citizen. Right??? Because the syllabus just says citizens. (These are YOUR rules on how to read stuff, not mine.)

Sooo, answer the questions I asked. How come all these significant things YOU say the Minor judges did, IS NOT in their syllabus or in their decision???

Why isn't there a No.7 that says "The 14th Amendment citizenship stuff does NOT apply to people born here of two citizen parents. Why isn't there a No. 8 that says, NBC means people born here of citizen parents, and nobody else if one or both of their parents are foreigners. These are legitimate questions.

I am not "shooting the messenger", first because you have admitted you are NOT just the messenger but also the writer of this message (theory) and I don't think it is asking too much for the writer/messenger to give intelligent rational answers why come his theories don't seem to be shared by the judges he is quoting.

Your alleged lawyer friend misses the point. The court didn't have to consider whether people in V. Minor's "circumstances" historically were considered to be citizens to resolve her petition. All the court had to do was accept the argument that she was a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment. The court rejected it, not just because it would have required trying to decipher how the subject clause would be applied (and resolve doubts), but because there was a natural law definition of natural-born citizen that was simple and could help address women as a class. The court said:

The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters.

IOW, they didn't need to define citizenship at all for the "direct question." The direct question would apply to all citizens whether natural-born, naturalized or through statutory/judicial authority. The fact that they DID define natural-born citizenship is because Minor presented an argument based on being a 14th amendment citizen as was expressed for women as a class. If women were going to have a right to vote, it wasn't an inherent part of citizenship that SUDDENLY materialized by virtue of the 14th amendment.

Plus, the syllabus does not use the term natural born citizen, so under the Edge919 rules of how to read law stuff, this means maybe she is now a 4th kind of imaginary citizen.

The syllabus isn't legally binding nor does it serve as precedent. What YOU can't explain away is that it clearly cites citizen parents as a criteria in direct exception to the 14th amdendment, which simply coincides with the decision where NBC is used.

How do YOU find things in the case, that the judges themselves don't say is there.

What judges?? I read the case and presented the direct quotes. You can read it yourself. The things I quoted ARE there.

How come all these significant things YOU say the Minor judges did, IS NOT in their syllabus or in their decision??? Why isn't there a No.7 that says "The 14th Amendment citizenship stuff does NOT apply to people born here of two citizen parents. Why isn't there a No. 8 that says, NBC means people born here of citizen parents, and nobody else if one or both of their parents are foreigners. These are legitimate questions.

1. "A syllabus of an opinion, or a summary under Rules 6(C) and 10(C) of these rules by a court other than the Supreme Court, is not the controlling statement of the points of law decided, but is merely a research and indexing aid."

2. The things about the 14th amendment not applying to persons born in the country of citizen parents IS there. It says they have been considered citizen as much SINCE the adoption of the 14th amendment as before. IOW, nothing changed in regards to the status of NBCs SINCE the adoption of the 14th amendment. This means NBCs are excluded. It explains why Gray said they were excluded many years later. The text in the decision makes the specific point by saying the 14th amendment was not needed for the citizenship of such women. The syllabus doesn't mention children of foreigners because THIS decision didn't include them as NBCs. It does say the citizenship of people born in the country without reference to citizenship is doubted. That doubt is addressed in Elk v. Wilkins and in WKA, the latter of which resolved doubts by applying the permanent residence and domicil criteria to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment. If children of foreigners were INSTEAD born to citizens, they would fit the NBC definition in Minor and the syllabus would be pertinent to those persons. Hope this helps. I've answered your questions and solved your misconceptions.

I know syllabuses are NOT complete, which is why I said syllabuses OR decision. The syllabus was to make it easier for you since they listed all the stuff in this one. They don't in all of them. Then, you said: Your alleged lawyer friend misses the point. The court didn't have to consider whether people in V. Minor's "circumstances" historically were considered to be citizens to resolve her petition. All the court had to do was accept the argument that she was a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment. The court rejected it, not just because it would have required trying to decipher how the subject clause would be applied (and resolve doubts), but because there was a natural law definition of natural-born citizen that was simple and could help address women as a class.

More CONCLUSIONS by you. Here is what the lawyer, who I don't know, (this is NOT my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer, who can't stand all this stuff.) says is why they did it they way they did, which makes sense, and is what I already said basically:

[To The Vattle Birther] The legal case you mention – Minor v. Happersett – does not rest on defining what is meant by the term “natural born citizen.” Indeed, the case is not at all concerned with distinguishing from among “natural born citizen”; or “native citizen”; or “naturalized citizen.” Rather, this is a (state) voting rights case to determine only whether MO law can rightly prohibit women from voting, brought under the “rights and privileges” clause of the 14th Amendment. In other words, is suffrage a “right” or “privilege” that now must be protected for female citizens otherwise prohibited under state law from voting on account of their gender? But as a threshold matter, the court must first determine whether the word “citizen” as this is used in the 14th Amendment; means women, too.

Thus, the court conducts an extensive analysis (non-binding dicta) of the legal posture of historical authorities, both in common law, statutes, and state constitutions, with respect to the meaning of citizen, as this applies generically. It acknowledges, these authorities have always been consistent in saying, the child born in this jurisdiction, of citizen parents is a natural born native citizen; but inconsistent on whether the same can be said of children born here of non-citizen parents. Both of Ms. Minor’s parents were citizens at the time of her birth. The court wrote, therefore, there was no need to “reach” the question as to whether she would still be a native natural born citizen if her parents were not citizens.

Then, having determined, Ms. Minor is by all other means, a citizen; the court similarly conducts an extensive analysis (non-binding dicta) of the legal posture of historical authorities, both in common law, statutes, and state constitutions, with respect to the meaning of citizen, as this applies to women. And, it concludes, women were always historically considered citizens (who satisfied the uniformly accepted threshold requirement of birth in this jurisdiction to citizen parents). Thus, the word “citizen” in the 14th Amendment as this relates to the “privileges and immunities” clause, means, women, too. (The court makes clear that, as she is a natural born native citizen, her citizenship, and impliedly the citizenship of all women and men similarly situated, (though not necessarily the citizenship of people born here to non-citizen parents, or who achieved citizenship through naturalization because, as the court had already pointed out, the authorities had heretofore been mixed as to whether these were citizens and, it would not resolve that issue here) was not newly conferred by the 14th Amendment but only newly codified as entitling them as citizens to the same “privileges and immunities” as all citizens of the several states. That is, the 14th Amendment does not create a new definition of citizen.

Then, having determined, Ms. Minor is by all other means, a citizen; and that, citizen means, women; the court similarly conducts an extensive analysis (non-binding dicta) of the legal posture of historical authorities, both in common law, statutes, and state constitutions, with respect to whether suffrage can be said to be a “right” or “privilege” under the 14th Amendment. And that’s where Ms. Minor’s case fails. Because voting in the several states had always been largely exclusive to men. Even when it was not exclusive to citizens.

Besides this, citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote. The same provision is to be found in the constitutions of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas. Id.

In other words, Ms. Minor was entitled to all of the privileges and immunities of all citizens; and voting wasn’t one of those privileges and immunities.

Which this GOOD RATIONAL way of looking at this shows why come Minor has NOT been quoted for resolving the NBC issue except by Vattle Birthers, why the 14th Amendment DID NOT create a new class of citizenship, and why there is no mention of Vattel or natural law in any of this. Plus, this confirms what even the dissent in WKA (which I just read!)says that Minor did not resolve the issue, or even say that Minor says any of the things YOU theorize they did.

Sooo, you can keep on repeating your stuff, but you can't say enough words to change "not resolving doubts" into "resolved the doubts" and you can keep on pretending that Minor is something more than a Missouri woman's voting rights case, but it won't work. I bet some Vattle Birthers sue again over this, and some more courts are going to say the same thing, "Uh, sorry but the Minor case does not define natural born citizenship."

Plus, I am working on a new exciting Internet Article about the Minor case, Missouri, and a talking mule that says "show me."

I know syllabuses are NOT complete, which is why I said syllabuses OR decision. The syllabus was to make it easier for you since they listed all the stuff in this one. They don't in all of them.

No problem. It only shows you're wrong in both instances.

More CONCLUSIONS by you.

Based on what is written in the decision. Does it or does it not say that the 14th amendment was not needed to give women the position of citizenship??

The legal case you mention – Minor v. Happersett – does not rest on defining what is meant by the term “natural born citizen.”

It defines it. Period. The very same definition was quoted in Wong Kim Ark and observed that V. Minor was a citizen by virtue of BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis. Both factors constitute NBC.

Indeed, the case is not at all concerned with distinguishing from among “natural born citizen”; or “native citizen”; or “naturalized citizen.”

... which is nonsense since half the decision explains the differences.

But as a threshold matter, the court must first determine whether the word “citizen” as this is used in the 14th Amendment; means women, too.

If this is what this person believes, cite the languages that says this.

Thus, the court conducts an extensive analysis (non-binding dicta) of the legal posture of historical authorities, both in common law, statutes, and state constitutions, with respect to the meaning of citizen, as this applies generically

I have to stop this nonsense here and now. Until you can provide the actual citations that support any of this, it's bunch of garbage. Where in Minor was there an extensive analysis of historical authorities??? Squeegy, this is why you don't rely on OTHER people to do your thinking for you. You already noted that they didn't cite any other cases. What "historical authorities" were cited??? This alleged person you reference is an idiot and hasn't even read the decision.

Let's take one point for now, which is illustrative. This lawyer said:

[To The Vattle Birther] The legal case you mention – Minor v. Happersett – does not rest on defining what is meant by the term “natural born citizen.” Indeed, the case is not at all concerned with distinguishing from among “natural born citizen”; or “native citizen”; or “naturalized citizen.” Rather, this is a (state) voting rights case to determine only whether MO law can rightly prohibit women from voting, brought under the “rights and privileges” clause of the 14th Amendment. In other words, is suffrage a “right” or “privilege” that now must be protected for female citizens otherwise prohibited under state law from voting on account of their gender? But as a threshold matter, the court must first determine whether the word “citizen” as this is used in the 14th Amendment; means women, too.

Thus, the court conducts an extensive analysis (non-binding dicta) of the legal posture of historical authorities, both in common law, statutes, and state constitutions, with respect to the meaning of citizen, as this applies generically. It acknowledges, these authorities have always been consistent in saying, the child born in this jurisdiction, of citizen parents is a natural born native citizen; but inconsistent on whether the same can be said of children born here of non-citizen parents. Both of Ms. Minor’s parents were citizens at the time of her birth. The court wrote, therefore, there was no need to “reach” the question as to whether she would still be a native natural born citizen if her parents were not citizens.

Then, having determined, Ms. Minor is by all other means, a citizen, etc. etc.. . .

; The lawyer explained his position on what the Minor judges were doing, and why. Now, lets look at your response:

It defines it. Period. The very same definition was quoted in Wong Kim Ark and observed that V. Minor was a citizen by virtue of BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis. Both factors constitute NBC.

See, you don't explain what kind of case this is,or why the judges are doing what they are doing. The lawyer's explanation explains why the Minor judges didn't bother with kids of foreigners. What you said does not explain this BIG HOLE in the Minor case.

The lawyer goes on to explain what the court did, and why, and what the result is. With that explanation, a person can understand what this case is about, why it doesn't talk about kids of foreigners, and why it isn't quoted anywhere for its definition of citizenship. This would also explain why conservative Republican lawyers didn't go around hollering Minor Happersett!!! Minor Happersett!!! when Obama was running, and why Rush Limbaugh and FOX News aren't doing stories on Minor Happersett and Obama. You don't have to ignore all those cases in WKA that say just the opposite.

But to accept it the way you read it, you have to ignore the "doubts" that weren't resolved by the Minor judges - - - you have to wonder why nobody was hollering Minor Happersett!!! Minor Happersett!!! in 2008 - - -you have to wonder why Jerome Corsi didn't mention it in his book ObamaNation, which trust me if you have not read it, just slams the crap out of Obama. (I have a First Edition!!!)You have to try to reconcile the Minor case to all the contradictory cases listed in WKA. And, you have to wonder why this case isn't quoted to define NBC anywhere.

You see, you are just picking up stray bits of sentences here and there, and trying to make it into some kind of a theory, which is nothing wrong with that, but then the theory you put together ignores everything that is out there. WKA was like 60 pages maybe, and 99.9% of it, you have not even made an attempt to explain what it means.

I think that you are like people who start out as normal Christians, like Baptists and Catholics, and Lutherans, and then start obsessing about language in the Bible and end up believing that you have to pick up snakes like King Cobras and Black Mambas, and then don't go to a doctor or E.R. when the snake bites the crap out of you. Those people can show you right in the Bible where you are supposed to do it, and quote stuff all day long at you, but most people don't believe that is what being a Christian is all about, and just kind of avoid these people and let them die off when the snakes bite them. Sooo, this is my thoughts on your techniques of explaining stuff, and how you need to do a better job explaining this if you can. Which, given what you have to work with in the cases, you can't.

See, you don't explain what kind of case this is,or why the judges are doing what they are doing.

You're not even being honest. Read the thread again. Everything has been covered several times and you're simply ignorning it.

Well, I have been VERY busy researching and guess what??? You are just plain wrong because I went to the 1898 American law Review, and they say that Minor vs. Happersett was NOT the case that decided the issue, it was Wong Kim Ark!!!

WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES? WONG KIM ARK CASE — INTERPRETATION OF CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

The Wong Kim Ark case, decided by the United States Supreme Court on March 28, 1898,1 decides, for the first time in that tribunal, the question whether a person born in the United States of foreign parents is a citizen of the United States under the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision holds, substantially, that the language used in the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution is declaratory of the common-law doctrine, and not of the international law doctrine, and that, therefore, a person born in the United States is a citizen thereof, irrespective of the nationality or political status of his parents. While the question has arisen before and has been referred to in some of the decisions of the Supreme Court, still it cannot be said to have been directly involved and squarely decided until the present decision in the Wong Kim Ark case. This case settles, once for all, the question of the citizenship of children born within the United States, whose parents are foreign subjects or citizens.

Sooo, this means that you have to quit being a Vattle Birther!!! That stuff is NOT the law of our country. Just like I have been telling YOU, and think of all the time you would have saved if you had just listened to me. I just did a new Internet Article on this with all 8 pages of the 1898 article.

Well, I have been VERY busy researching and guess what??? You are just plain wrong because I went to the 1898 American law Review, and they say that Minor vs. Happersett was NOT the case that decided the issue, it was Wong Kim Ark!!!

Stop. Making. Me. Laugh. You're just getting more and more pathetically desperate and each time you post, you're proving me further correct. Your citation says WKA is an interpretation of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. I've already talked about this and NOTED that WKA said that NBC was EXCLUDED from that clause. That exclusion is noted by Gray at least twice:

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."

"Does not say" = EXCLUDED from the citizenship clause.

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

Children born of citizen are excluded from the citizenship clause. Children born of foreign States was limited to children of native Americans; children of other foreigners were allowed under the citizenship clause if the parents had permanent residence and domicile to satisfy the subject clause.

Your own citation fails you because it says:

This case settles, once for all, the question of the citizenship of children born within the United States, whose parents are foreign subjects or citizens.

Guess what. There is no question about the citizenship of children born with the United States whose parents are citizens of the United States. Do you know why?? Because "These are the natives, or natural born citizens." Thanks again for proving me right and thanks for the laughs. I hope you don't have this much trouble crossing the street.

You are a very fun Vattle Birther. It is interesting to watch and see how you will twist something simple around to make it absurd and usually backwards of what it is. Let's see if your "there's no question [edge919] is right" holds up.First, the words of the 14th Amendment says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

The words of edge919 say:

Some persons born here are citizens of the United States, but not ALL. All definitely means SOME, as I, edge919, have proven.

The words of Minor Happersett say:

For the purposes of this case it is NOT necessary to solve these doubts.

The words of edge919 say:

Yippee, we win!!! They solved the doubts and agreed with us, and I proved it!!!

The words of edge919:

Oh, the Minor Happersett case is just the most importantest citizenship case ever, and solves all doubts about NBC!!! (see above)

Meanwhile, your earth-shattering Citizenship case is seen in 1876 by the American Law Review, which is a encyclopedia of law stuff as a voting rights case, and they entirely miss all the defining of NBC they you are jumping up and down over.:

Sooo, yes you have proved stuff IF you can make words read backwards, IF you can butcher quotes, and IF you can ignore 99.9% of the stuff in cases...and IF yo can ignore all evidence to the contrary, then yes, you just have a wonderful theory. Which just somehow happens to be the opposite of what most people read the law as, and makes them say mean stuff like Mark Levin does, that you are IRRATIONAL.. Oh, I wonder how YOU ended up in that spot???

squealy, you really shouldn't be typing with an exploded head. I understand you're frustrated and don't have anything to hang onto. You're simply misplacing your frustration on the messenger. The SCOTUS said what it said:

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."

These ARE Gray's words, not mine. If you have a problem with his holding that the 14th amendment doesn't say who NBCs are, you need to take it out on his descendants.

As for the Minor decsion, the court said it is not necessary to solve doubts about CITIZENSHIP of people who are not born to citizen parents. If they were born to citizen parents, then they are NBCs and there would be no doubts. Thanks once more for helping to prove this point.

As to an American Law Review entry on Minor, it neither disproves nor supercedes that Justice Gray cited and affirmed the Minor definition of NBC in the WKA decision. Gray's words are self-explanatory:

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, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),

reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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 [p680] 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. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.

First, I am not frustrated with you, because I have always known what you are doing, which is playing sophistry word games and silly sentence construction stuff. I am like Clarice, and you are either Dr. Lecter, or the guy who ate his own brains. I am not sure which. Either way, nothing I say is going to change your mind. But, I get to learn about twisted up logic and stuff.Here is, AGAIN, the MENTAL THINKING that keeps you messing up. You said:

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."

Then you stop. Why don't you go to "elsewhere: and see WHERE elsewhere is. And at ELSEWHERE, what the judges find. Then see what they say about what they find, and how it related to the case and the issue. But you don't. You just skip down 50 pages, find a sentence with some language you like and take it out of context to support your theory.

That is why YOUR theory does not seem to be shared by anybody but a few other Vattle Birthers and why the wonderful case you think decides what NBC is, gets less than 2 lines in the book from 1876, under women not having a right to vote. It is why Jerome Corsi didn't say a word about the two citizen parent stuff in his 2008 book,Obama Nation. Because the whole theory was made up AFTER that date. It is recycled losing cases from 1844 and 1898. so, that is why the case that this whole thread is about, the immigration case posted by YOU, has federal judges calling the kids of illegal aliens "natural born citizens." Not to mention a whole lot of other problems.

Sooo, maybe you don't think people notice these holes in your theory, but I bet a lot do. If you are the guy who is eating your own brains, then stop now, and quit being a Vattle Birther.

Why don't you go to "elsewhere: and see WHERE elsewhere is.

Elsewhere was explained in Post #237.

Now, I challenged you earlier, because Gray says Minor used common law as an aid in the construction of the citizenship provision of the 14th amendment. Show us the common law that Minor cited and how it was applied to the citizenship provision. Hop to. The heart of your misconception relies on you being able to find the common law citation(s) from the Minor court. Get to it.

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, natural-born citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”

Wow. That was hard. The court is telling what the common law was.

Now your turn. Go to WKA and tell us about where the court went when it went elsewhere, and what it said, and don’t skip down 50 pages past all the stuff you don’t want to admit to. Hop to it now!

Wow. That was hard. The court is telling what the common law was

Do you not know what the word "citation" means?? The definition here, as has been shown, matches the natural law of nations, not English common law. There's no citatin of English common law ANYWHERE in the passage you quoted. You're supporting my argument AGAIN. Thank.

Further, this isn't the part Gray was talking about. He said Waite used common law when construing the birth provision of the 14th amendment. This isn't about the birth provision, but about NBC which is found outside the Constitution. Again, the challenge to YOU is to find ANY citations of English common law that were used to construe the birth provision in the 14th amendment. You've failed.

Birthers cite an 1875 Supreme Court case, Minor vs. Happersett, in which the court used the term “natural-born citizen” to refer to people born in the United States born to U.S.-citizen parents.

“The arguments aren’t crazy,” said Georgetown law Professor Lawrence Solum. But, he added, “The much stronger argument suggests that if you were born on American soil that you would be considered a natural-born citizen.”

Did you read the thread?? Minor v. Happersett isn’t the only court case that used the term “natural-born citizen” to refer to people born in the United States born to U.S.-citizen parents. There is NO stronger argument than that.

The Minor judge did not “cite” any cases. He just said what he thought was common law was. Which it why he said people did not need the 14th Amendment to give them citizenship. My goodness there had been a country for 80 years BEFORE the 14th Amendment and there were citizens. Which, if you had actually read the thingy I put here from the lawyer, you would figure out maybe cases were not cited because the Minor court was not dealing with what constitutes citizenship, but whether citizens automatically had voting rights. You ding-a-ling!

If somebody wanted to define “natural born citizenship” today, they would still have to go outside the Constitution, and read Wong Kim Ark, where they would discover that it is the same thing as a 14th Amendment citizen if it is one born inside the United States.

The WORDS may be different, but the words,in the AMERICAN legal system, are describing the same thing about people born in America. Which is why YOU refuse my numerous requests that YOU go to Wong Kim Ark and see where the Wong Kim Ark judges go to define natural born citizenship, and what it is. Because YOU know when you do, your legal theory is sunk.

Natural born citizenship is simply being born in America under the allegiance or jurisdiction of America.(The court says allegiance and jurisdiction are the same thing and mean not a kid of a diplomat or invading soldier basically.)14th Amendment citizens by birth, are born in America and under its jurisdiction. Same thing.

YOU get hung up on the WORDS, and miss the meanings of those words. Which is exactly what taking stuff our of context is all about. And why some people who read the Bible pick up snakes and don’t go to doctors.

Take this example, about me, Squeeky.

(1) I love the house I grew up in!!! Squeeky quote.

(2) I learned a lot about life when I lived at 1313 Mockingbird Lane. Squeeky quote

Vattle Birther (You): There is a difference between “the house she grew up in” and “1313 Mockingbird Lane.” They are different things!!!

The Official Autobigraphy of Squeeky: I was brought home from the hospital delivery room to 1313 Mockingbird Lane, and I never lived anywhere else but there until I graduated college. I did all my growing up in that house.

Vattle Birther (You): See, that proves I am right! She said “I did all my growing up in “that house”!!! She didn’t say “I did all my growing up in “The House at 1313 Mockingbird Lane”!!! OH, there is a difference and I just proved it!!!

That is what you are doing when YOU ignore what the Wong Kim Ark judges said:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”