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.
You are a very fun Vattle Birther. It is interesting to watch and see how you will twist something simple around to make it absurd and usually backwards of what it is. Let's see if your "there's no question [edge919] is right" holds up.First, the words of the 14th Amendment says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
The words of edge919 say:
Some persons born here are citizens of the United States, but not ALL. All definitely means SOME, as I, edge919, have proven.
The words of Minor Happersett say:
For the purposes of this case it is NOT necessary to solve these doubts.
The words of edge919 say:
Yippee, we win!!! They solved the doubts and agreed with us, and I proved it!!!
The words of edge919:
Oh, the Minor Happersett case is just the most importantest citizenship case ever, and solves all doubts about NBC!!! (see above)
Meanwhile, your earth-shattering Citizenship case is seen in 1876 by the American Law Review, which is a encyclopedia of law stuff as a voting rights case, and they entirely miss all the defining of NBC they you are jumping up and down over.:
Sooo, yes you have proved stuff IF you can make words read backwards, IF you can butcher quotes, and IF you can ignore 99.9% of the stuff in cases...and IF yo can ignore all evidence to the contrary, then yes, you just have a wonderful theory. Which just somehow happens to be the opposite of what most people read the law as, and makes them say mean stuff like Mark Levin does, that you are IRRATIONAL.. Oh, I wonder how YOU ended up in that spot???