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.
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."
---------------
Yes.
There has been an enormous disinformation campaign mounted by Obama supporters, but they simply cannot change the actual facts. There is a plethora of actual archived historical evidence that indisputably proves Obama is NOT a natural born citizen.
Had Obama actually been vetted and that fact exposed, it would have saved everyone a lot of aggravation and grief ...with the added benefit of increasing the general population's knowledge of U.S. History and Civics.
“There is NOTHING in the Ark decsion that says the phrasing of the 14th was meant to mirror the understanding of the NBC clause.”
Here is what it says:
“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.”
Let’s go thru that:
It says there is a principle “citizenship by birth within the country”. It says the exceptions to that rule are:
“the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State” and “children of members of the Indian tribes”.
It says their discussion has shown that those exceptions were driven “by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America” - referring to the common law NBS, and the US NBC.
It says the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is intended “to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words” those exceptions discussed, that were true in the colonies as NBS, and in the US prior to the 14th as NBC.
Thus you have A & B, where the set of all A is identical to the set of all B, thus A = B. Or in this case, A = B = C:
“citizenship by birth within the country”, excepting “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State” and “children of members of the Indian tribes”, and that was true in the colonies under NBS, true after the Constitution under NBC, and true under the 14th by intent of the writers in saying “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”.
Some here make a big deal about slaves not being citizens, but slaves were considered property under Dred Scott, and thus not capable of being citizens. And since so many people thought the Dred Scott case was an obscene rejection of “citizenship by birth within the country”, Congress and the states passed an amendment declaring, inescapably, what they believed had always been true under the NBC clause:
“citizenship by birth within the country”.
That is why birthers get their butts handed to them in court, even when the other side doesn’t show up. YOU HAVE NO CASE!