The Supreme Court has FAINTLY hinted on two occasions that I can think of offhand.
Once was The Venus. Except that wasn't about citizenship, it was about domicile. Marshall did not attempt to claim at all that natural born citizenship required citizen parents. That simply wasn't the purpose he cited Vattel for.
The other was Minor v. Happersett. The comment was 2 sentences of CLEAR dicta (because it was unsupported by any argument or authority whatsoever and the status of persons born of alien parents was absolutely irrelevant to the case). And the Court specifically said they weren't going to decide that issue.
Again, the Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark issued a definitive ruling that encompassed natural born citizenship, as an exhaustive examination of natural born subjecthood/ citizenship was the entire core rationale of the case.
DOZENS of pages.
Birthers strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Two citizens of clear dicta supposedly rule; dozens of pages of on-target, in-depth legal analysis count for nothing.
It's what birthers do all the time. They do it because they WANT particular results, and no proper approach to evidence or history will give them those results.
This isn't controversial in any court of law or in any legal circles. It is entirely settled law that citizen parents are NOT required for natural born citizenship, at least for those born on US soil.
You're wasting your life to claim otherwise. Of course, it's your life. But you're also harming conservatism.
Sorry. Meant two sentences of dicta, obviously. Lol.
Right, as long as YOU qualify as "faintly," then that should make it so??
Once was The Venus. Except that wasn't about citizenship, it was about domicile. Marshall did not attempt to claim at all that natural born citizenship required citizen parents. That simply wasn't the purpose he cited Vattel for.
What was the purpose?? Was it to restrict ALL birth citizenship as being due to citizen parents?? Why cite a passage about birth to citizen parents if the issue is about domicile??
The other was Minor v. Happersett. The comment was 2 sentences of CLEAR dicta (because it was unsupported by any argument or authority whatsoever and the status of persons born of alien parents was absolutely irrelevant to the case). And the Court specifically said they weren't going to decide that issue.
It wasn't "dicta" at all. Wong Kim Ark gave the holding as making Minor's citizenship due to being born to citizen parents instead of being born subject to the 14th amendment. And Luria v. United States cited Minor as a precedent on presidential eligibility and NOT about voting rights. In some decisions, there are multiple precedents that are established. NBC was used by Minor to reject part of the argument presented before them.
Again, the Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark issued a definitive ruling that encompassed natural born citizenship, as an exhaustive examination of natural born subjecthood/ citizenship was the entire core rationale of the case.
No, they gave an exhaustive ruling on 14th amendment citizenship by birth after they noted the holding in Minor said that the 14th amendment does not say who shall be natural-born citizens. Reading is fundamental, jeff.
But you're also harming conservatism.
Nothing about upholding the Constutition and respecting Supreme Court precedent harms conservatism. This is just one of those ad hominem insults you were just hypocritically whining about.