One of those cases was Slaughterhouse because it lumped "consuls" into the exceptions of the subject clause, while Gray says they shouldn't be excepted ... only foreign ministers.
When he gets to Elk v. Wilkins (a decision that HE wrote himself), he says the 14th amendment only excluded Indians from the subject clause because they had a "peculiar" relationship with the "National Government" that wasn't recognized by the common law. This is a little strange since the British empire included several places that had indigenous peoples within them.
But moving ahead, when Gray gets to the Minor argument, he does NOT challenge the exclusion of NBCs from the 14th amendment, but instead upholds it. The reason is that NBCs are not excluded by the subject clause, but they are excluded by an extraconstitutional definition of natural citizenship.
NBCs are certainly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and would fit within the 14th amendment's subject clause, so much so, that it begs the question as to why Gray did not make U.S. citizenship of either parent one of the criteria for satisfying the subject clause. Instead, U.S. citizenship is treated as an irrelevant criteria ignored in favor of permanent residence and domicil.
Neither of Obama's parents had permanent residence and domicil, so even if he was born in the U.S., he does NOT meet the terms of the subject clause. SAD's U.S. citizenship is irrelevant because it was excluded from being a criteria that satisfies the subject clause. If Gray was going to be comprehensive, why did he NOT include citizenship?? Well, partly because of THIS quote:
The object of the Fourteenth Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship.
- - -
The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens.
It doesn't get much clearer than that. Children born in this country of parents who were NOT citizens were previously not subject to the jurisdiction and therefore they were not citizens — especially not natural-born citizens — anymore than the children of slaves. And to be clear, when Gray gives his conclusion on the 14th amendment, the children of citizens are conspicuously absent; it's only the children of persons who are permanently domiciled in the U.S.
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.
Read it closely, Gray ONLY applies the 14th amendment to children of resident aliens ... or "every citizen or subject of another country while domiciled here" ... this covers slaves and permanent immigrants who have not yet naturalized. Gray reserves Minor's NBC definition for children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Obama is not a natural-born citizen. He is not a 14th amendment citizen. He MIGHT be a statutory citizen under the collective naturalization statute on Hawaii, contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 ... if the Kenyan coward was ever brave enough to provide legal evidence in a court of law.
To me he falls under @USC 8 (Aliens and Nationality), Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, Section 1401.
(or the relevant similar statutes in effect at USC 8 at the time of his birth)
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
Son of an alien (@USC 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter I, Section 1101 (a) As used in this chapter - (3) The term "alien" means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.) father and a US citizen mother.
The simple fact that his father, if he had chosen to immigrate to the US instead of just coming here to study (@http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VII/1301 § 1301 No visa (student or otherwise apparently) shall be issued to any alien seeking to enter the United States until such alien has been registered in accordance with section 1201(b) of this title.), shows that he would automatically fall under Congress' naturalization powers and should be the first sign that any child he sired could not be a natural born citizen as they too would fall under USC 8. And it's well known that his father had a student visa and never naturalized.
How can it be anything else? His father had to have been given a student visa under USC 8 just to get into the country to begin with and was automatically recognized by our laws as being an alien! An alien simply can't pass down citizenship they never possessed.
And if one were to follow the exact "letter of the law", even insofar as to the usage of "citizen" and "natural born citizen" and the necessity of Congress and the Courts, to use exacting wording in constructing and enacting legislation, or making rulings/decision/opinions for the latter, then being born in Hawaii is covered by Congressional enactment as well, to wit...
@8 U.S.C. § 1405 : US Code - Section 1405: Persons born in Hawaii
A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.
That section of the law doesn't say "A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a natural born citizen of the United States at birth." as Congress can't make such a law as it isn't in their Constitutional powers. Congress wrote the law under their authorized powers.
A concise and exacting reading would mean that nobody born in Hawaii has ever been a natural born citizen.
Exactly. Obama is NOT a natural born citizen.
Great find! That is a TACIT admission by the Gray court that "The white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens" were NOT "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States "by reason of their birth here."
In other words, the Children of Transient Aliens WERE NOT "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and therefore NOT CITIZENS. He puts them in the same legal citizenship status as "slaves", which means NONE.
Again, well spotted!