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.
More gibberish and law butchering and mangling by you. Vattel is not quoted and his name is not even mentioned in that case.
Wong Kim Ark was a long case because they went over the whole history of common law stuff, then had to answer the LOSING side on their stuff, then had to discuss the 14th Amendment, and all the Chinese law stuff, and then they finished, and toward the bottom wrapped it all together where anybody but a Vattle Birther would get it:
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. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.
Which, you will butcher the quote and mangle the law for sure, but still I wonder WHY??? Are you addicted to being wrong??? Or do you have a hidden reason for misrepresenting stuff here to keep Rubio and Jindal from running???