And the WKA court held that NBC = NBS = 14th Amendment. But the comments made in the dicta are not binding, just as the WKA court rejected the Slaughterhouse decision’s comments.
Here is what WKA (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html) 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”.
Wrong. This is only a matter of YOU playing an errant game of connect the dots.
But the comments made in the dicta are not binding, just as the WKA court rejected the Slaughterhouse decision’s comments.
Technically a holding is not binding because it can be rejected or overruled by a later SCOTUS decision. The only thing the WKA court rejected from Slaughterhouse was whether consuls were an exclusion from the subject clause.
It says there is a principle “citizenship by birth within the country”. It says the exceptions to that rule are:
Yes, as specifically pertains to the 14th amendment. The court already noted earlier in the decision that NBCs are excluded from the 14th amendment. And there was NO rejection of this exclusion by the Minor court. If you believe otherwise, find the specific passage where the court says it rejects or disagrees with the Minor definition of NBC or its holding.
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.
You haven't shown anything that connects this with "the US NBC." The rest of your post fails without a direct citation making this connection. It's simply not there.
Dr. Erler testified before the House of Representatives in 1997 regarding the basis of United States citizenship. He most emphatically disagrees that it was based on English Common law.
Just another piece of contradictory evidence for your theory/thinking.