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???
squealy, you really shouldn't be typing with an exploded head. I understand you're frustrated and don't have anything to hang onto. You're simply misplacing your frustration on the messenger. The SCOTUS said what it said:
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. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."
These ARE Gray's words, not mine. If you have a problem with his holding that the 14th amendment doesn't say who NBCs are, you need to take it out on his descendants.
As for the Minor decsion, the court said it is not necessary to solve doubts about CITIZENSHIP of people who are not born to citizen parents. If they were born to citizen parents, then they are NBCs and there would be no doubts. Thanks once more for helping to prove this point.
As to an American Law Review entry on Minor, it neither disproves nor supercedes that Justice Gray cited and affirmed the Minor definition of NBC in the WKA decision. Gray's words are self-explanatory:
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 is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),
reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
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, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.