Replies

You seem to be ignoring the clear fact that the Wong Kim Ark decision told us explicitly that the 14th amendment does NOT say who natural-born citizens are. Whether the 14th amendment affirmed a common law rule of citizenship at birth, it specifically exempted natural born citizenship from this particular rule:

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."

Why do you keep LYING about this??? I have corrected you several times on this very point. The Minor stuff quote is talking about when the Constitution was being framed, and was about the history of natural born citizenship. And I quote:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar. . .

The Wong Kim Ark judges were doing the same thing, tracing the history of stuff.

Here is how they go into that history right after quoting the Minor stuff:

The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. 124 U.S. 478. II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection.

Why are you doing all this mangling and butchering of law to convince people NOT to vote for Rubio and Jindal if they run??? Why are getting stuff from the LOSING SIDE of a 167 year old case to try to fool the people here???

You continue to slice and dice paragraphs to take your questionable quotes out of context. In addition to that, you just ignore any part of an opinion that does not support your completely discredited theory for nbc.

When referring to nbc in the WKA opinion, SCOTUS states ‘The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, eitherby way of inclusion or by exclusion, EXCEPT insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “All persons born or naturalizedin the United States,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The quoted language by Scotus is only found in the 14th Amendment.

I also direct you to the 3rd paragragh of the opinon where SCOTUS states the the issue before the court is whether WKA, whose parents were non citzen subjects of China, became at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States BY VIRTUE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

You lose once again. Have you found a single case yet since 1898 that uses the Minor definition of born on soil of 2 citizen parents for nbc? It doesn't exist because there is not a single court, or legislative body that subscribes to your crazy, discredited theory.