“Your misreading what WKA says.”
Odd, then, that every court agrees with me, and none with you. Odd, too, that they spent half the decision discussing something they then supposedly said had no impact.
Why did WKA quote from Minor? Because they wanted to show the Slaughterhouse case was wrong.
Thus they wrote:
“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.”
Please note they did NOT, in any way, write what YOU claim - that “NBC, it says, was excluded from the 14th amendment in a unanimous decision.”
On the contrary. They argued that the Slaughterhouse case was wrong when they wrote: “The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
You can see the connection between the 14th & the NBC clause. The 14th phrasing excluded “from its operation children of ministers, consuls” - IAW the understood meaning of a natural born subject/citizen. But Slaughterhouse expanded that to include children of “subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
If true, that would have excluded WKA from both the NBC clause and the 14th - but the WKA court rejected that phrase, saying:
“In weighing a remark uttered under such circumstances, it is well to bear in mind the often quoted words of Chief Justice Marshall:
It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated.”
The birthers set up a false dichotomy between the NBC clause & the 14th, but the WKA court says the phrasing of the 14th was meant to mirror the understanding of the NBC clause.
They wrote:
“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”
NBS = NBC = “the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country” = exceptions include “the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions”
Let me repeat:
“”The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words...the two classes of cases...[that] had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”
Exceptions based first on the meaning of natural born subject in English common law (”by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America”), and then the SAME exceptions based on the 14th “by the addition ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’”.
If birthers would just READ WKA instead of ignoring it, the conclusion is inescapable. And the courts CAN read, and do, and they understand what the Supreme Court has ordered. And the courts follow the dicta of the Supreme Court, not Vattel.
Birthers COULD argue in court that WKA excludes Obama Jr because Obama Sr was here as a representative of his government, and because Obama Sr never intended to stay in the USA. It isn’t a very strong argument, but it is one. It could also be argued, and should be, that the original intent covered those here, in the words of WKA, “in amity” with the US government, and thus all illegal aliens are excluded from both the NBC clause & the 14th - which, per WKA, are two ways of saying the same thing.
Minor doesn't show the Slaughterhouse case was wrong. NBCs aren't excluded because of the subject clause.
Please note they did NOT, in any way, write what YOU claim - that “NBC, it says, was excluded from the 14th amendment in a unanimous decision.”
It exactly what it says "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." Learn to read. I can wait.
On the contrary. They argued that the Slaughterhouse case was wrong when they wrote: “The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
The only thing Gray disputed was about consuls being included in that list.
it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse [p679] with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministersThe birthers set up a false dichotomy between the NBC clause & the 14th, but the WKA court says the phrasing of the 14th was meant to mirror the understanding of the NBC clause.
Sorry, but the only false dichotomy is yours. There is NOTHING in the Ark decsion that says the phrasing of the 14th was meant to mirror the understanding of the NBC clause. The quote you provide doesn't even use the term NBC at all.
If birthers would just READ WKA instead of ignoring it, the conclusion is inescapable.
A) You misspelled Obots. B) I'm not ignoring WKA. It declares that NBCs = all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. It's there in black and white. Gray cited a legal precedent from the Supreme Court of New Jersey that completely undermines your errant belief:
The object of the Fourteenth Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship. It, however, gave to the colored people no right superior to that granted to the white race. The ancestors of all the colored people then in the United States were of foreign birth, and could not have been naturalized or in any way have become entitled to 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.
This says the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens were NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, the same as slaves were NOT subject to the jurisdiction and were not entitled to citizenship at birth. They were made so after the passage of the 14th amendment because subject to the jurisdiction, according to Gray, means having permanent residence and domicil. This definition EXCLUDES Obama from being both a 14th amendment citizen and a natural-born citizen all in one swipe. I'm not ignoring WKA. I'm rubbing it in your face, Rogers. It clearly says that Obama is not and cannot be a natural-born citizen. Let that sink in to your head. Read it. Learn it. Comprehend it.