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.
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.
Second, the JUDGES on the HILLBILLY Court, as you call them, went to law school, were real lawyers and real judges, not pretend lawyers/Gurus on the Internet. When the Vattle Birthers tried using YOUR legal theory, and said in their lawsuit:
[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship. . .
The HILLBILLIES said:
The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority [Wong Kim Ark] in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true. . .
Then the HILLBILLIES said that the 14th Amendment and the NBC stuff in the Constitution WERE the same:
The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions[14th Amendment and natural born citizen] in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
The HILLBILLIES also 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 Constitutions Article II language is immaterial.
SOOO, for me, I believe the HILLBILLIES, not YOU. If you ever find a legal case that backs up what you say, which I am betting you can't, then let me know. I don't trust YOUR way of looking at cases. YOU get stuff backwards, YOU don't think the 14th Amendment applies to people born here in the U. S. to citizen parents, LIKE ME, and pretty much all you do is read sentences in some weird way to make them say weird stuff, while YOU ignore the important stuff in cases that contradicts you. I do not think you could read a "See Spot run!" book and get it right.
The last thing you should be doing is giving conservatives here legal advice about Mark Rubio and Bobby Jindal. I hope, on a human level, that you eventually break free of the cult.