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???
There's no lie here. I gave the exact words from Gray. The only lie is that Minor gave the "history of natural born citizenship." This is false. He gave a definition which was obviously from the law of nations - a simple, elegant definition consisting of only a couple of sentences. That's it. There was nothing further about history of the concept. Waite did go on and talk about the naturalization act of 1790, but ultimately he explained why the 14th amendment was not needed to make women citizens.
Also, the Gray citation from WKA is not just about when the Constitution was framed. Gray said that Minor was construing the citizenship provision in the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment was not written when the Constitution was framed. You're completely wrong on two counts if not more. Better you should stop while I'm ahead.