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.
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, ....
Which is from the part in WKA about the 14th Amendment, which YOU say does NOT apply to kids born in the U.S. of two citizen parents. Sooo, you ignore the first part of that paragraph:
That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment. . .
Which goes on to say they were NOT excluded as you claim, sooo YOU ignore that part of the quote. Then, to try to make Minor a "citizenship" case, you quote the same section you deny, when it is just about how WKA tied the 14th Amendment into natural born citizenship law. Then while you quote WKA quoting Minor on that part, you ignore them when they say:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he [the Minor Happersett Judge]proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167
This is because if the Minor judges used common law, then you are going to lose again because of stuff like what the Lynch Judge said.
So, no. Like I said before, you are just picking and choosing sentences out of context, and pulling every SOPHISTRY trick you can so that people won't look at the actual law. Which think about it, even if Minor did say everything you have been busily misrepresenting they did say, that case was in 1874, and everybody knows a 1898 case would overrule it. Which it didn't have to overrule, because Minor didn't really didn't say anything except that the 14th Amendment didn't apply to Virginia Minor being able to vote, (and Minor NEVER said that the 14th Amendment did not apply to people born here of citizen parents--that is just your sophistry at work)you had to go to common law to figure out what the term meant, which WKA did, and said:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens. . .
Which is why YOU and other Vattle Birthers keep trying to make the Minor case say a lot of stuff it doesn't say. As I said in a very good Internet Article I wrote:
Now, to most people, it reads like the Minor Judges did not make any ruling on whether or not children of foreigners were natural born citizens if born here. And, to the rest of The Free World, when a court says in a particular case that “it is not necessary to solve these doubts” , well, uh. . . it means they are not going to solve the doubts. BUT, the Vattle Birthers have a little reading comprehension problem caused by the fact that later court cases, like Wong Kim Ark , in 1898, do go on to resolve these doubts, and NOT in a way the Vattle Birthers like. Sooo, Minor vs. Happersett 1874 is like a retreat to the womb for the Vattle Birthers. It is a place to be warm, and safe, and not have to deal with that troublesome Big Kid known as REALITY. They can lay there, all comfy cozy in a fetal position, thumbs in their mouths, and pretend away those bolded words above.
What is even more ironic, is that 24 years later, the Wong Kim Ark judges did quote the Minor case, but not for any supposed definition of natural born citizens. They quoted it to show that the Court had to resort to common law to determine what natural born citizen meant, and that there were only two kinds of citizen, people born citizens and people naturalized as citizens.
Sooo, I guess you are good for something, after all. You are a good, and even GREAT example of how NOT to read cases and interpret them. Tee Hee!!!