The court didn't leave anything "unsettled." It reviewed every known way to be a citizen, but only one way was characterized as natural-born: birth in the country to citizen parents. The Minor court said there was doubt about the CITIZENSHIP of those born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents but they never suggested such persons, if the doubt was resolved, would be natural-born citizens. For that to be true, all they had to do was accept Virginia Minor's argument of being a citizen via the 14th amendment.
How would you explain this:
The citation of Lynch v. Clarke is not controlling legal precedent. The Wong Kim Ark decision cited it only to say that it was one of a handful of decisions that have " gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law ..." Notice how they did NOT cite the passage you cited. Lynch has some key problems because it ignored some very clear Supreme Court precedents. Second, New York, where Lynch was decided, did have statutes that were generally declaratory of common law, but the issue of Article II eligibility is not based on that common law, as Minor unanimously tells us.
“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application.” Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866):
I'm glad you quoted U.S. v. Rhodes. This passage is actually in reference to a principle cited in the Supreme Court case Shanks v. Dupont, which said that if you were born to parents who adhered to the crown, you were a natural-born subject and if they adhered to the U.S., you were a natural-born citizen. It means you can't be both, and, under this precedent, Obama is a natural-born SUBJECT through his father who adhered to British-Kenyan nationality. Here's the paragraph previous to what you quoted:
In Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. [28 U.S.] 247, the supreme court of the United States said: “During the war each party claimed the allegiance of the natives of the colonies as due exclusively to itself. The Americans insisted upon the allegiance of all born within the states, respectively; and Great Britain asserted an equally exclusive claim. The treaty of 1783 acted upon the state of things as it existed at that period. [**17] It took the actual state of things as its basis. All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states, were virtually absolved from their allegiance to the British crown,and those who then adhered to the British crown, were deemed and held subjects of that crown. The treaty of peace was a treaty operating between the states on each side, and the inhabitants thereof; in the language of the seventh article, it was a ‘firm and perpetual peace between his Britannic majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of one and the citizens of the other.’ Who then were subjects or citizens was to be decided by the state of facts. If they were originally subjects of Great Britain and then adhered to her and were claimed by her as subject, the treaty deemed them such; if they were originally British subjects, but then adhering to the states, the treaty deemed them citizens.”
Notice the part underlined above: natives or otherwise. This means that it includes those born in the United States. If the parents were loyalists, then their children were born British subjects in the United States. This was only a few years prior to the Constitution, and it shows the recognition of native-born persons as foreign subjects. There's no way upon this treaty then that any of the Framers would have presumed that any person born in the U.S. was automatically a U.S. citizen, especially if they were born to British parents. Of course, the loyalists were pretty much driven out of the U.S., which solved this problem, but the principle was never changed.
You’ve worn me out. Good luck on your impossible quest to get someone to believe you. I don’t. You throw around a bunch of stuff that you don’t understand because of your misinterpretation and inadequate comprehension skills; stuff that doesn’t mean anything to any judge or lawmaker or anyone else that can help you change the meaning of what NBC is known to be by sane people.
You, Donofrio and Apuzzo are all a bunch of misguided (*’s).
When Obummer goes unchallenged before the Electoral College we will see where this all got you. Citizenship derives from the Constitution and law. When you find the law that says NBC requires, I say requires, citizen parents to the EXCLUSION of all others, let me know.
In the meantime I will be working on other ways to get our failure-in-chief out of office.
Not that it matters to you but 8 or 9 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were born overseas. Thomas Jefferson’s mother was born in England. I think these men would frown on what you are doing.