There's no "intermediate step." The quote I provided is an exact quote. "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.""
Second, the context of the Minor quote is consistent. Justice Waite rejected the 14th amendment as being needed for conferring citizenship on women who were born in the country to parents who were its citizens. The Constitution does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens ... which includes the 14th amendment ... not necessary for natural-born citizens = does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens.
And ... here's another challenge, ez squeezy. Justice Gray said that Waite " ... proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision." Notice he doesn't say that Waite resorted to common law as an aid in saying who shall be natural-born citizens. It was aid in the construction of this "provision" ... "provision" is referring to the 14th amendment: "the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question" ... soooooooooooooo the challenge is to go to the Minor decision and find where Waite used common law to aid in the construction of the birth provision of the 14th amendment. He didn't use common law to define NBC. That, as I have shown, is a verbatim match of the law of nations quote.
Like if they read something and come to the conclusion that the 14th Amendment does NOT apply to most of the nation, then they would start questioning their ability to read and comprehend.
Sorry, but this is an ignorant strawman. Nobody said the 14th amendment does NOT apply to most of the nation. You're overreacting. I've only pointed out that Waite rejected the citizen clause for NBCs. The rest of the 14th amendment is still applicable. Citizenship is NOT the only thing the 14th amendment deals with.
1) The Indiana court is wrong and they are all Hillbilly Hoosiers.
You ignore that I showed several contradictions including the killer contradiction where the Hillbillies admit that WKA didn't declare WKA to be a natural-born citizen. Only Hillbilly Hoosiers ... and apparently people like you ... can be stupid enough to think a decision defines something it didn't do.
2)The Lynch Clarke judge is wrong.
And again, you ignore that I showed this court burying its head in the sand regarding a very clear SCOTUS case that said children naturally follow the condition of their fathers. This decision undermines Lynch's rationale on common-law. The Lynch judge cited the decision but said he read it differently, even though there's a direct quote that contradicts this judge's belief.
3)The Wong Kim Ark judges are wrong, or they didn't really say what every body think they said.
Wow, you're struggling to articulate your whine. Obviously you know that I haven't said the Wong Kim Ark judges are wrong. I've cited Wong Kim Ark repeatedly to show that YOU are wrong. The words are clear. The only confusion is on YOUR part.
4)The Minor judges defined NBC, and the "doubts" and "we aren't dealing with this" don't count, when everybody else is asking, "Gee, why wouldn't "doubts" and "we aren't dealing with this" mean they didn't do it.
You're getting less and less coherent squeezy. Yes, Minor defined NBC: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. The court said some authorities go farther and declare some persons to be citizens (NOT natural-born citizens, just citizens) without reference to the citizenship of the parents. For this class there are doubts. That's WHY people like Julia Lynch and Wong Kim Ark went to court ... to resolve the doubts about their citizenship.
5)Thinking all the conservative judges and lawyers are in on a conspiracy.
Never said this. Now you're just making up stuff.
6)The Indiana court didn't say Obama was eligible.
It didn't. You were challenged to find a direct quote from this court saying Obama is eligible. You have failed. Why won't you be honest and admit your failure?? I'm right about this and you know it. It's time to quit pretending otherwise.
My father used to ask me, when I blamed someone or something else for my screw ups, "If you stick your tongue in a light socket are you going to blame electricity for what happens???"
How come you didn't learn this lesson?? You blame me for YOUR screw-ups. You have failed at the simple challenges I have given you. You've shown that you cannot read. You've invented fictitious gripes about conspiracies and "intermediate steps." You've acted like a child (which was clearly illustrated in post #503). Like I said, I'm here to help.
There's no "intermediate step." The quote I provided is an exact quote. "
You are NOT reading what I wrote. You could teach a monkey to use the cut and paste function. The monkey would get the words right. They just wouldn't mean anything, Same with you.
You QUOTE the words but you BUTCHER the meaning. That is why people call you a QUOTE BUTCHER. Not because you get the words wrong, but you screw up the meaning. Your explanations are divorced from the reality of what is being said.
You do that by taking stuff of context, and by ignoring the parts of the case which contradict you (which is the whole case usually.) And by reading what you want to read into the words. More than one person here tries to help you, but you are either not able or not willing to understand.
And yes, I do think you may be part of a Obot punking plot, because I saw that at the old gretawire forum before greta had to shut it down. Teams of Obots came in to screw up the website, and then bragged about it after they shut it down. And, if you are not a Obot or agent of some other group, and really honestly are this OBTUSE (which means STUPID), then I feel sorry for you. You need brain help fast.
1. "apparently people like you ... can be stupid enough to think a decision defines something it didn't do." Look at yourself in the mirror next time you say Minor Happersett fully defines NBC.
2. The Indiana people DID define NBC. They said the WKA court not using the EXACT TERM natural born citizen was IMMATERIAL. Because as they explained in the rest of the case, which YOU ignore, how it was the same thing as what the 14th said--born in the United States, under the jurisdiction.
You are NOT analyzing the cases and the reasoning. You are too busy analyzing the GRAMMAR and looking for stupid ways to misinterpret the cases. Why???