a) The only "writer" who matters is Justice Gray who cited and affirmed the Minor definition of NBC more than 20 years later. b) There aren't any inconsistencies and there's no theory. The court was very clear: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens ... THESE were the natural-born citizens.
I want you to explain why only 6 years Minor, Chester Arthur ran for office and nobody hollered Minor Happersett!!!
As far as they knew, he was born in the country to a citizen father. Even under YOUR common law theory, he meets a criteria that Obama fails, because Arthur's father adhered to the United States, while Obama's father didn't. Third, even under a 14th amendment theory, Arthur still meets the criteria that Obama fails, because his father had a permanent residence and domicile in the United States unlike Barak Sr. That's three strikes, squeegy. You're out.
Out of context on Gray quoting Waite. YOU provide the context of the statement, please, if you are able. I know where it is, and I can, but it is time for you to prove you know how to read, and comprehend, not me. Plus, this is YOUR theory, sooo YOU start proving it with something besides conclusions.
There was a controversy over where Chester Arthur was born. The election was only 5 years after Minor Happersett, so YOU please explain why YOUR citizenship case of the ages was ignored. People were certainly aware his father was from Ireland. If you need help, look up A.P. Hinman.
Please also explain how a lawyer, A.P.Hinman was apparently unaware of the two citizen parent theory when it was only 5 years old, by YOUR theory. Please explain on what basis Hinman objected to Arthur.
Also please explain why Judge Waite, who YOU claim just decided that NBC required two citizen parents, swore in 5-ish years later Chester Arthur who had but one citizen parent.
Please also provide the analysis of Wong Kim Ark that I previously asked for, by section. Explaining for each section what the section was about, with representative language, and how that language tied in to the rest of the decision.
WKA has 19,464 words in it, and to date you have tried to characterize it by maybe 20 or so words. Or 1% of 1%. Please explain the other 99.99% please as I have asked above. YOU are the one with a minority theory, and it is time for YOU to start doing some homework on it.
Haven’t you noticed on this thread how YOU are constantly being provided a ton of information and cites by people, which you ignore. That needs to change. This is YOUR theory, so YOU need to start doing the explanatory work on it. YOU explain the inconsistencies. YOU explain the contradictions. YOU have been spoiled. Maybe that which you obtained too easily, you esteem too lightly.