[Squeeky]

Well, I have been VERY busy researching and guess what??? You are just plain wrong because I went to the 1898 American law Review, and they say that Minor vs. Happersett was NOT the case that decided the issue, it was Wong Kim Ark!!!

WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES? WONG KIM ARK CASE — INTERPRETATION OF CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

The Wong Kim Ark case, decided by the United States Supreme Court on March 28, 1898,1 decides, for the first time in that tribunal, the question whether a person born in the United States of foreign parents is a citizen of the United States under the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision holds, substantially, that the language used in the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution is declaratory of the common-law doctrine, and not of the international law doctrine, and that, therefore, a person born in the United States is a citizen thereof, irrespective of the nationality or political status of his parents. While the question has arisen before and has been referred to in some of the decisions of the Supreme Court, still it cannot be said to have been directly involved and squarely decided until the present decision in the Wong Kim Ark case. This case settles, once for all, the question of the citizenship of children born within the United States, whose parents are foreign subjects or citizens.

Sooo, this means that you have to quit being a Vattle Birther!!! That stuff is NOT the law of our country. Just like I have been telling YOU, and think of all the time you would have saved if you had just listened to me. I just did a new Internet Article on this with all 8 pages of the 1898 article.

[edge919]

Well, I have been VERY busy researching and guess what??? You are just plain wrong because I went to the 1898 American law Review, and they say that Minor vs. Happersett was NOT the case that decided the issue, it was Wong Kim Ark!!!

Stop. Making. Me. Laugh. You're just getting more and more pathetically desperate and each time you post, you're proving me further correct. Your citation says WKA is an interpretation of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. I've already talked about this and NOTED that WKA said that NBC was EXCLUDED from that clause. That exclusion is noted by Gray at least twice:

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."

"Does not say" = EXCLUDED from the citizenship clause.

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 is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court

Children born of citizen are excluded from the citizenship clause. Children born of foreign States was limited to children of native Americans; children of other foreigners were allowed under the citizenship clause if the parents had permanent residence and domicile to satisfy the subject clause.

Your own citation fails you because it says:

This case settles, once for all, the question of the citizenship of children born within the United States, whose parents are foreign subjects or citizens.

Guess what. There is no question about the citizenship of children born with the United States whose parents are citizens of the United States. Do you know why?? Because "These are the natives, or natural born citizens." Thanks again for proving me right and thanks for the laughs. I hope you don't have this much trouble crossing the street.