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.
squeezy, that's NOT what the Hillbillies said. They said "written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that" ... whether it was six years or 60 years after the 14th amendment, it is still part of the Constitution. The court in Minor said that Virginia Minnor argued she was a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment, but they rejected this argument because NBC, which she fit, is NOT defined by the Constitution and under the definition they used, it's clearly NOT defined by the 14th amendment. Compare"
Justice Waite: "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens"
14th Amendment: "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
HINT: These are NOT the same definitions. The conclusion stands. The Constitution, specially the 14th amendment, does NOT define natural born citizen, just as Ankeny unwittingly admitted.
What part of BEFORE and AFTER the 14th Amendment are YOU not getting???
The parts where Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark says that children born in the country to citizen parents are EXCLUDED from the 14th amendment and the part in Minor where Waite says women did NOT need the 14th amendment to confer their citizenship. You're trying to create a time element that somehow changes the term natural-born citizen into being defined by the 14th amendment, but there's absolutely NO passage in Minor or Wong Kim Ark that says this. NONE.