[edge919]

You have just cut and pasted some more gibberish that does NOT have anything to do with you goofy theory that the 14th Amendment does not apply to most Americans.

What does it mean then when Minor says it does not need this amendment to give women the position of being citizens???

If you say the 14th Amendment does NOT provide citizenship to people in America who are born of citizen parents, then what is the source of out citizenship???

The same source that existed PRIOR to the 14th amendment: natural law. That's what the law of nations describes.

[Squeeky]

You answered:

Squeeky: If you say the 14th Amendment does NOT provide citizenship to people in America who are born of citizen parents, then what is the source of out citizenship???

Edge919: The same source that existed PRIOR to the 14th amendment: natural law. That's what the law of nations describes.

Now, prove that was the source of the law by showing what cases your theory was in. Also, explain what YOUR favorite case, Minor Happersett, said, about looking to common law, and why those judges never mentioned natural law or Vattel.:

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, it was never doubted that 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.