“free Denizens and naturall Subjects”.
As is pointed out by those who claim KWArk doesn't say what it says - subjects are not citizens. ;)
The 14th Amendment doesn't invent a third category - there is not third category - before the 14th and after one was either born a citizen with natural allegiance or one needed to be “naturalized”.
Sorry, but the conjunction is irrelevant, particularly when we look at how denizens were defined (from the William Blackstone commentaries):
A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them.
It's a separate term. This shows that those who are denizens or subjects and going to born denizens or subjects. Since they are separate entities, the "and" is not being used to combine the denizens and subjects as single characteristic.
As is pointed out by those who claim KWArk doesn't say what it says - subjects are not citizens. ;)
Right, and denizens are not subjects, so what exactly is your point?? I'm simply showing that you can be born as part of the dominion and not be natural born.
The 14th Amendment doesn't invent a third category - there is not third category - before the 14th and after one was either born a citizen with natural allegiance or one needed to be “naturalized”.
Sorry, but it is a third category. Justice Gray called it "citizenship by birth." He had to invent this third category because he admitted at least twice in the WKA decision that NBCs are not defined by the 14th amendment.
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."
When construing the 14th amendment, it (the Constituton) does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. The means that those who are citizens via the birth clause of the 14th amendment are NOT NBCs.