What you are doing is STUPID. It is also a RED FLAG about pseudolaw. Which you can google.
This is not ME assuming stuff. I looked to see what a REAL court, not a pretend Internet lawyer, said:
[14] We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial.
Know what "immaterial" means??? UNIMPORTANT.IRRELEVANT. (Except to you and other Vattle Birthers)
Plus, your very own "Super Case", Minor versus Happersett, uses at least five or six different terms to describe the same thing: native born, native, natural born, citizen, native women, citizen by birth.
Plus, your Super case also contradicts you. Here is what it says:
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
Then, what do the Minor judges call people who are citizens by birth:
"it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens<.em> also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
And this is the case you swear proves everything for you. You are really way off into some major craziness the way you read some stuff, then ignore other stuff, then mis-read something else. You read minor grammar inconsistencies and make them the most important stuff in your goofy theory at the same time you just ignore the stuff that is written in plain English in the case and quoted in the case. Like:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
Wrong. I've already pointed it out more times than you've expressed an original thought.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration thatall persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.
Do you understand?? "Citizenship by birth" defined by the Constitution ... through the 14th amendment. Contrast that with natural-born citizenship.
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."
When "construing" the 14th amendment, Natural-born citizens are NOT defined in the Constution. This is plain and simple English that even YOU should be able to understand and be honest enough to admit.
Know what "immaterial" means??? UNIMPORTANT.IRRELEVANT.
Sorry, but this footnote from Ankeny claiming the issue is immaterial is undermined not only by judicial incompetence, but by only providing circular logic and personal opinion to support the claim. Read the whole footnote.
For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.
The court pretends that this so-called "dichotomy" only matters if you happen to be the president. That rule isn't there to protect the president. It's there to protect "We the People of the United States." Second, this hillbilly court ignores that the Minor definition, also cited in Wong Kim Ark, was explicitly written to satisfy the meaning of the term "natural-born Citizen" in Article II, Section I. IOW, the dichotomy was NOT immaterial to the Wong Kim Ark case, because the court used the defintion, but as I've shown avoided declaring Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen. The stupidity doesn't stop there.
The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States.
... AND on the basis of whether or not he was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States since he was the child of foreign national subjects. The IAC said Minor left open the question of whether child of a U.S. citizen and a foreign national could be a natural born citizen, but as I've shown, this is wrong because Wong Kim Ark immediately closed any imagined loophole. The definition for NBC, according to Wong Kim Ark, is NOT defined by the 14th amendment, which means NO child other than those born to citizen parents can be NBCs. Whatever guidance the hoosier court thought they had was explicitly contradicted by this pronouncement in WKA.
Plus, your Super case also contradicts you. Here is what it says:
No it doesn't. I'll show you why.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization.
Context matters. Waite is talking about who could become citizens after the Constitution was adopted. The persons who were born citizens were ONLY those who were born to citizens.
Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.
- - -
To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.
Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States,"
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.
Are you following?? This establishes who the original citizens are. Those who could be added by birth were those persons born to the original citizens, which is supported in the next paragraph that cites the language of Art II Sec I.
Plus, your very own "Super Case", Minor versus Happersett, uses at least five or six different terms to describe the same thing: native born, native, natural born, citizen, native women, citizen by birth.
Well, no it doesn't use "native born" and you're ignoring that these terms are controlled specifically in this decision by having citizen parents - specifically for "natives" or "natural-born citizens."
Then, what do the Minor judges call people who are citizens by birth:
It calls them natives or natural born citizens by virtue of being born in the country to citizen parents. What you don't see in the Minor decision is the use of the term "citizenship by birth" that Gray used for 14th amendment citizenship.
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.
Sorry, squeezy, but under this rule, Obama was a natural-born subject, not a natural-born citizen. Obama's father did NOT adhere to the United States. Further, he was kicked out like a dog and Obama should have been sent packing along with him.