Nice trantrum, but that’s all this is. As a realist, explain why the Minor court said anything about being born to citizen parents. What would be the point??
Minor says:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 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.
My response to your question.
For birthers, who pride themselves on relying on the original intent of the Constitution and laws, to ignore the fact that this case was never intended to decide the definition of who was or wasnt a natural born citizen belies both their own agenda and their failure to practice reading comprehension. To borrow some words from Chief Justice Melville Fullers majority opinion, resort must be had elsewhere to come to a conclusive definition of natural born citizen.
I can find at least 30 "elsewheres" and not a one of them require citizen parents UNLESS that person was born overseas! You cannot find ONE to defend your position.