First, The LYNCH judges DID apply common law and you are misrepresenting what was said. You are leaving off the context again, that the LYNCH judge asked "do we apply common law, or is there some national public law that applies." He went through both IN DETAIL, and picked common law. Which point you are trying to hide and misrepresent to the people here. No surprise.
On Minor Happersett, here is how you practice Edge919 Pretend law:
1. Ignore the 1898 case that has all those troubling quotes and stuff in it.
2. Instead, take a 1874 women's voting rights case and try to turn it into a citizenship case (Minor)
3. Even when citizenship is NOT disputed in the case.
4. Then, pretend when the Minor judges say they are NOT going to resolve any doubts about kids of foreigners being NBC.
5. That it means they decided kid of foreigners are NOT NBC.
6.Then, when the Minor judges talk about "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,"
7.Pretend they are NOT talking about "common law" because they didn't quote any cases.
8.Then pretend the Minor judges ARE talking about Vattel and natural law.
9. Even though they DO NOT quote Vattel or even mention "natural law."
10. All so that you can distract people away from the 1898 case with the troubling law in it.
Which to sum it up, is how you get the "Edge919 Way To Practice Pretend Law On The Internet" , namely,:
Ignore what the judges SAY in the case, and make up stuff based on what the judges DIDN'T SAY, and you can make a case say whatever you want it to!!!
Now, aren't you ASHAMED of yourself???
The challenge wasn't about Lynch. Here it is again. Read it this time:
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.
Where does it say antyhing about Lynch??
You are leaving off the context again, that the LYNCH judge asked "do we apply common law, or is there some national public law that applies."
The so-called context doesn't change the FACT that there was a legal precedent that the chancellor simply ignored out of inconvenience. The claim he made was contradicted by the SCOTUS. Is it in YOUR mind that lower court's are NOT supposed to follow legal precedent from the Supreme Court???
1. Ignore the 1898 case that has all those troubling quotes and stuff in it.
You're describing what YOU do, not me. I've cited the 1898 case along with several quotes that YOU find troubling; one in particular that clearly says: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. These were the natives or natural born citizens ...
2. Instead, take a 1874 women's voting rights case and try to turn it into a citizenship case (Minor)
No one changed the case from voting rights, but only correctly pointed out that citizenship is a part of the question and decision. The 1898 case agrees with me:
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ....3. Even when citizenship is NOT disputed in the case.
Citizenship was part of the argument. Read it. Learn.
The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States ...4. Then, pretend when the Minor judges say they are NOT going to resolve any doubts about kids of foreigners being NBC.
Sorry, but it only says doubts they are citizens. There's are NO DOUBTS about how NBC is defined.
As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
The first class are NBCs. The second class are children born without reference to the citizenship of the parents. There are NO doubts about the citizenship of NBCs. There are only DOUBTS that must be resolved for the persons who are NOT NBCs.
5. That it means they decided kid of foreigners are NOT NBC.
... when the foreigner is NOT naturalized. The definition is self-limiting ... as distinguished from foreigners and aliens. A naturalized foreigner is a citizen, not a foreigner, thus his child would be an NBC. An unnaturalized foreigner's kid; not an NBC.
6.Then, when the Minor judges talk about "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar," 7.Pretend they are NOT talking about "common law" because they didn't quote any cases.
Nice counting problem. You make a No. 6 that doesn't even make a point. This always a good sign of an Obot head that has exploded. Second, I challenged you to find in Minor ANY common law that was used to define the provision of the 14th amendment. You admitted there was none and we've already CLEARLY established that NBC is NOT defined by common law. You've been shown several times now, so you know it's true.
8.Then pretend the Minor judges ARE talking about Vattel and natural law.
There's no pretend. Below is the Vattel definition with all the parts used by Waite in defining NBC.
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.9. Even though they DO NOT quote Vattel or even mention "natural law."
See No. 8. The Vattel definition is used verbatim. No citation or mention of natural law is needed since that's how Vattel categorized the law of nations. Waite could have been successfully sued for plagiarism.
10. All so that you can distract people away from the 1898 case with the troubling law in it.
Sorry, but there's no troubling law in the 1898 cases, only misinterpretations from troubled minds like yours. You pretend that the parts that trouble you are only "pretend," yet as you can see, I've provided several direct quotes. The childish taunts you resort to about being "ashamed" is only a case of you projecting your own insecurities because you know I'm 100 percent right and it tears you up inside.