squeezy, there are NO assumptions. I've given direct citations so that people of limited reading ability like yourself can see what is being said. NOTHING has been ignored. I've explained several times why Gray cited what he cited and how it applied to the different concepts of natural-born citizen (outside the constitution) and HIS concept of citizenship by birth (inside the constitution). The only person making an assumption is YOU in trying to connect dots that Gray NEVER connected. You try to draw a picture of a watermelon while gray drew pictures of apples and oranges.
It's all that natural born citizen stuff they talked about in the case, that went back to 1608. How do I know this???
They didn't go back to 1608 to talk about natural born citizenship. This is YOU imagining something to be there that just isn't there.
(2) The Wong Kim Ark judges said it:
Said what??? The term "natural-born citizen is NOWHERE inside of that passage.
Second, this is talking about the 14th amendment and the court has said in two other places that it does NOT say who natural-born citizens are and that it excludes children born in the country to citizens.
Third, the closest this comes to NBC is when it says "AS MUCH a citizen as the natural-born CHILD OF a citizen." IOW, this still makes a distinction between alien-born and natural-born. Guess what?? An apple is AS MUCH a piece of fruit as is a banana, but a banana is NOT an apple. Under the same analogy, Obama would be a fruit.
Back to this passage: while English statutory law (as cited from Coke's Case) turned Scots into Brits, it didn't specifically turn Kenyans, Hawaiians or Indonesians into Brits. To do that, the aliens had to have what is called "actual obedience" to the crown. Otherwise, they could apply to be legal inhabitants, also called "denizens." Under the denizenship, the children of denizens are NOT natural-born subjects, but instead are just denizens.
(3)Another court said the same thing:
Again, NOTHING here says ANYTHING about natural born citizenship. All is says is that the 14th amendment incorporated common law to make persons born in the country to be citizens. It does NOT say they are natural-born citizens. It's pretty ridiculous for you to comaplain about "assumptions" when that's all you have.
(4) Vattle Birthers tried YOUR silly nonsense and court and LOST:
Wrong. This doesn't cite the SCOTUS. This was what the Hoosier Hillbilly's said in the Ankeny case: "The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief;" Well, I AM citing that authority and proving how ignorant and/or willfully stupid this court was.
(5) The HILLBILLY Court, as you call them, also read the 14th Amendment and NBC as the same thing:
No, what you cited only says that under the NBC clause and the 14th amendment that new citizens may be born or naturalized. It doesn't say ALL persons born in the U.S. are natural-born citizens. And in fact, the Hillbillies clearly contradict themselves in a span of ONE sentence.
In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
Did you catch this?? The Indiana Appeal Court says that in Minor, the court observed that the Constitution (yes, Virgina, the 14th amendment is part of the Constitution) does NOT say who natural-born citizens are. IOW, there's NO way they can claim ANY guidance that persons born in the country are natural-born citizens UNLESS they were born to citizen parents. This court is guilty of what it accused of the plaintiffs: making "conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions."
Game. Set. Match.
In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
Did you catch this?? The Indiana Appeal Court says that in Minor, the court observed that the Constitution (yes, Virgina, the 14th amendment is part of the Constitution) does NOT say who natural-born citizens are.
Yes, I caught it, you MONKEY. YOU did not "catch it." They were talking about the time BEFORE the 14th Amendment.
by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. 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.
AFTER the 14th Amendment, then it was IN THE CONSTITUTION.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
all 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.
What part of BEFORE and AFTER the 14th Amendment are YOU not getting??? Here is logically what you are doing:
Take a sentence, from a history of flight, before the Wright Brothers: Try as they might, men were unable to take to the air in flying machines. Now, take a sentence from a modern day travel magazine: Women frequently fly on airplanes and enjoy the experience. Combine them like a Vattle Birther, and you get: Men can’t fly on airplanes, but Women can. Pretty dumb, huh??? Sadly, pretty typical of Vattle Birther logic. Stuff taken out of context and just glommed together.