Replies

The Luria v. U.S. case is about a naturalized citizen and NBC is not an issue in the case.

Sorry, but it contains a direct citation regarding presidential eligiblity satisified with a specific mention of Minor v. Happersett. If I wanted to watch bad dancing, I'd turn on Dancing with the Stars.

In addition, the language you quote from Minor supports the fact that the Jus Soli doctrine applies to NBC. A native, one born in this country, is a NBC. The Jus Soli Doctrine!!

You're missing half the doctrine. I've given multiple quotes which specifically include having citizen parents. It's not just solely (pun intended) jus soli. Justice Gray mentioned the jus sanguinis criteria specifically in reference to Virginia Minor.

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 ...

Wong Kim Ark was NOT born to citizen parents so it makes perfect sense as to why Wong Kim Ark was NOT declared to be a natural born citizen. He wasn't. He couldn't be. These decisions speak for themselves: all children born in the country TO PARENTS WHO WERE IT CITIZENS. These are the natives, or natural born citizens ...

You wrote:

“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 ...”

Sooo, I want to pretend to be YOU for a minute and say, “But they didn’t declare her a natural born citizen!!! They just called her a “citizen” which means women can’t ever be President.

Which, NOW, that I am back to being ME, this is where you end up at when you read stuff the way a Vattle Birther does. Not to mention the fact that all the other stuff you said is just mangled up pieces of law you have crammed together. Again.

Minor v Happersett has never cited to define nbc in a citizenship case in the past 100 years. The quote you keep using absolutely shows that the jus soli citizenship (a native) is all that is necessary to be a nbc. You obviously have not read the entire WKA decision. The issue in WKA was whether WKA was a citizen. The court in it's opinion, used language showing that WKA was not only a citizen but also a nbc. This language was NOT dicta because it was relevant to and used to justify the holding in the case.

SCOTUS ruled that way even knowing that both of WKA’s parents were non-citizens. The dissent in WKA even recognizes that the majority opinion in WKA makes WKA a nbc and eligible to be president. All courts since WKA have taken the same legal position, that if a person is born in the US sovereign territory, you are a nbc, no matter the citizenship of the parents. Again, since WKA, you cannot show one case that uses the bogus Vattel theory to define nbc.