The Minor judge did not “cite” any cases. He just said what he thought was common law was. Which it why he said people did not need the 14th Amendment to give them citizenship. My goodness there had been a country for 80 years BEFORE the 14th Amendment and there were citizens. Which, if you had actually read the thingy I put here from the lawyer, you would figure out maybe cases were not cited because the Minor court was not dealing with what constitutes citizenship, but whether citizens automatically had voting rights. You ding-a-ling!
If somebody wanted to define “natural born citizenship” today, they would still have to go outside the Constitution, and read Wong Kim Ark, where they would discover that it is the same thing as a 14th Amendment citizen if it is one born inside the United States.
The WORDS may be different, but the words,in the AMERICAN legal system, are describing the same thing about people born in America. Which is why YOU refuse my numerous requests that YOU go to Wong Kim Ark and see where the Wong Kim Ark judges go to define natural born citizenship, and what it is. Because YOU know when you do, your legal theory is sunk.
Natural born citizenship is simply being born in America under the allegiance or jurisdiction of America.(The court says allegiance and jurisdiction are the same thing and mean not a kid of a diplomat or invading soldier basically.)14th Amendment citizens by birth, are born in America and under its jurisdiction. Same thing.
YOU get hung up on the WORDS, and miss the meanings of those words. Which is exactly what taking stuff our of context is all about. And why some people who read the Bible pick up snakes and don’t go to doctors.
Take this example, about me, Squeeky.
(1) I love the house I grew up in!!! Squeeky quote.
(2) I learned a lot about life when I lived at 1313 Mockingbird Lane. Squeeky quote
Vattle Birther (You): There is a difference between “the house she grew up in” and “1313 Mockingbird Lane.” They are different things!!!
The Official Autobigraphy of Squeeky: I was brought home from the hospital delivery room to 1313 Mockingbird Lane, and I never lived anywhere else but there until I graduated college. I did all my growing up in that house.
Vattle Birther (You): See, that proves I am right! She said “I did all my growing up in “that house”!!! She didn’t say “I did all my growing up in “The House at 1313 Mockingbird Lane”!!! OH, there is a difference and I just proved it!!!
That is what you are doing when YOU ignore what the Wong Kim Ark judges 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, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
The "common law" used to define NBC is a verbatim match of law of nations, NOT English common law. That he didn't cite any other cases, just shows that Gray seems to have misconstrued the Minor in terms of its alleged use of common law. If you can't find any actual common law in that decision, then it effectively negates the idea that common law was used in WKA to define NBC. It wasn't.
The rest of you post is therefore moot or simply wrong, such as this last part.
That is what you are doing when YOU ignore what the Wong Kim Ark judges said:
I haven't ignored what WKA judges have said. I have cited several passages from that decision, all of which shows that the case affirms the Minor definition of NBC. The passage you're quoting here was addressed in Post #321. IOW, you've ignored that I've addressed it already ... and this was in a post that was a direct reply to you. Digging it up later won't change the fact that it's still doesn't say what you want it to say.