I've already cited this in post #512. I gave you a specific challenge based on this citation. It does NOT back up anything you believe. It claims Waite resorted to common law as an "aid" in the construction of the birth provision of the 14th amendment. It does NOT say that Waite used common law to define NBC. Read it closer. It does NOT say what you think it says. Here's what I posted early in #512. Still waiting for you to respond to this challenge:
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.
I backed myself up with a SCOTUS quote!!! What have you backed yourself up with??? NOTHING. Plus, when something is INDISPUTABLE, maybe the Minor judges did not think it necessary to quote a case:
“It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States. And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States, and indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus. “
Because I noticed, in this case that you think is the answer to everything, the Minor judges did not quote any cases on anything. Maybe that is because it was easy. Virginia Minor was a citizen, before the 14th Amendment was passed, and she didn’t get to vote sooo people could be citizens and not have the right to vote. Sooo, they could still be citizens after the 14th, but they still didn’t get the right to vote.
But this is the case you Vattle Birthers just love, even though it is a voting rights case, not a citizenship case. If you want a case that does quote a lot of cases, maybe you should look at Wong Kim Ark!!! (And quit being a sophist!)
Tee Hee! Tee Hee!