1. The did reach the issue. The children of foreigners were either recognized by some authorities as citizens (with doubts) or they were naturalized under the Naturalization Act of 1790, which it talks about.
2. The syllabus recognizes that Minor’s decision was in part due to being born to citizen parents. Did you not read the syllabus before you posted it?? Second, where does it say the 14th amendment makes a “New class” of citizenship??
3. I’m only pointing out what the cases say. You need to argue against the citations not against the messenger.
4. You need to read the syllabus you posted. Items No 1. and No. 2 show that this case was about citizenship as well as voting rights. Further, it says in No. 2 that NBCs have always been considered citizens as much SINCE the adoption of the 14th amendment as before its adoption. IOW, the 14th amendment is irrelevant to the citizenship of NBCs. Thanks for helping me prove the point yet again. By now, it’s really time for you to admit you’re understanding was wrong. You’ve helped me to prove it.
[To the Vattle Birther]:You still don’t get it. The SCOTUS in Minor did not seek to formulate a definition of citizenship, whether NBC or otherwise; it did not “find” or “hold” an NBC has 2 citizen parents; nor did its ruling depend on such definition. (Remember, we had citizens BEFORE the 14th Amendment, even without any Constitutional definition as to what “citizen” means.) Rather, the Minor court merely sought to ascertain from empirical evidence, in the absence of any Constitutional definition, whether people in Ms. Minor’s circumstances historically were considered to be citizens. Because if she was considered a citizen (of whatever kind) before the 14th Amendment then, the word citizen in that amendment applied to her and, as a result, she is entitled to the “privileges and immunities” of her fellow citizens.
Know what’s funny? No 14th Amendment jurisprudence in the past 100+ years, coming from recognized expert legal theorists; has adopted [L's] viewpoint as to what that citizenship clause means, or what Minor means. I am not saying, [L] must be wrong because he is the only one reaching this conclusion. However, having done a couple of searches to see who is promoting what I am describing as this baseless interpretation throughout the blogosphere; it appears to me, they are zealously clinging to this tripe because such beliefs have spawned a cottage industry that depends on accepting the false premise, the court has ruled, without 2 citizen parents, one cannot be said to be natural born. And that, therefore, Obama cannot be said to be natural born. And this false theory appeals to those people who hate Obama so much they have lost all reason to discern fact from fiction, and patriots from charlatans, however well intentioned they may be.
Which is pretty obvious to me from the case. BUT answer my questions. How do YOU find things in the case, that the judges themselves don't say is there.
Plus, the syllabus does not use the term natural born citizen, so under the Edge919 rules of how to read law stuff, this means maybe she is now a 4th kind of imaginary citizen. Right??? Because the syllabus just says citizens. (These are YOUR rules on how to read stuff, not mine.)
Sooo, answer the questions I asked. How come all these significant things YOU say the Minor judges did, IS NOT in their syllabus or in their decision???
Why isn't there a No.7 that says "The 14th Amendment citizenship stuff does NOT apply to people born here of two citizen parents. Why isn't there a No. 8 that says, NBC means people born here of citizen parents, and nobody else if one or both of their parents are foreigners. These are legitimate questions.
I am not "shooting the messenger", first because you have admitted you are NOT just the messenger but also the writer of this message (theory) and I don't think it is asking too much for the writer/messenger to give intelligent rational answers why come his theories don't seem to be shared by the judges he is quoting.