It's in the Minor case. Did you not read it??
To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the [14th] amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.
Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States," ...
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," [n7] and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
Do you understand this?? Take your time and read it slowly. Read it again until you understand. The persons who associated themselves to form the Constitution as members were the original citizens. He said citizens could be added by birth which is apparent from the NBC clause. Then he defined the NBC clause: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
Also, explain what YOUR favorite case, Minor Happersett, said, about looking to common law, and why those judges never mentioned natural law or Vattel.:
1. It didn't say it was "looking to common law" ... the phrase is "at common law" ... "with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar" ... the "nomenclature" comes from law of nations. Here's the law of nations definition of NBC. I've underlined each of the parts of the NBC definition that Waite used verbatim:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
As you can see, Waite used ALL of that definition. Waite didn't have to say "natural law" because his definition, in the nomenclature of the founders, matches the law of nations definition ... which comes from natural law. Here's what it says:
There certainly exists a natural law of nations, since the obligations of the law of nature are no less binding on states, on men united in political society, than on individuals. But, to acquire an exact knowledge of that law, it is not sufficient to know what the law of nature prescribes to the individuals of the human race. The application of a rule to various subjects, can no otherwise be made than in a manner agreeable to the nature of each subject. Hence, it follows, that the natural law of nations is a particular science, consisting in a just and rational application of the law of nature to the affairs and conduct of nations or sovereigns.
- - -
It is a settled point with writers on the natural law, that all men inherit from nature a perfect liberty and independence, of which they cannot be deprived without their own consent.
Noooooow, weezy, I've noticed you punted my challenge from a few posts back. Show me any actual citations of English common law from the Minor decision. The words "at common law" is not an English common law citation, particularly when it is followed IMMEDIATELY by a law of nations citizenship definition. This will be the THIRD challenge you have failed on. How many failures will it take before you admit that you're wrong??? I've backed up EVERYTHING I've posted. And I challenged you to find the things that would be necessary to support your belief, yet you have punted every time. At some point, reality should be sinking into your head.
It didn't say it was "looking to common law" ... the phrase is "at common law"
And, bad for you, a LATER CASE, backs me up!!!
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. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he [Waite, in case you want to pretend you don't get it!!!] proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
Sooo, obviously that is where Waite got his definition, from common law, and NOT natural law or Vattel, and I HAVE A SCOTUS Case that says so!!!
Plus, since you will claim you don't know what sophisms are, here is a definition from a very good and exciting new Internet Article about a Vattle Birther who can't understand "See Spot run!!!"
A sophism is a derogatory term, and means a specious argument or verbal trick used for deception. It might be crafted to appear logical while actually representing a falsehood, or it might use obscure words and use complicated sentence constructions in order to fool people and misrepresent the truth. And, before you ask, specious means superficially plausible, but actually wrong.
So There!!!