No, he didn't leave the question open at all. He chose a definition for which there was no doubt and left it clear that other definitions are doubtful. Second, he makes a clear distinction between alien women and children as opposed to native women and children (adhering to his definition of no doubt of natives being born in the country to parents who are citizens). And then he rejects the 14th amendment as being needed to establish citizenship for those born under the no-doubt conditions of natural born citizenship. This is why Justice Gray could not and DID NOT declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen.
Minor did NOT suggest just that a NBC might need citizen parents, but any degree of citizenship might.
Then under those conditions, you are admitting that Obama cannot be a citizen. I can't argue against that. The thing that changed this in WKA is not your errant connect-unconnected-dots talking point about 'the meaning of NBC.' Gray used Waite's same definition and did not offer to resolve any doubts. He cited a lower court ruling that said, "... when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship ..." and followed that with a statement that the 14th amendment affirms a principle of citizenship "including all children here born of resident aliens." He repeats the need for residence or domicile here, "The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States." Again, Obama does not fit this definition since Barak Sr. had his permanent domicile in Kenya.
Please also note that Minor, like WKA, considered subject and citizen to be words addressing the same condition, only under different forms of government.
Except that BOTH Minor and WKA used the same no-doubt definition of natural born citizenship. They both made the same distinction between natural born citizenship and citizenship dependent on the 14th amendment. No amount of spin is going to change this.
“He chose a definition for which there was no doubt and left it clear that other definitions are doubtful.”
Actually, he wrote, “there have been doubts...For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts”. He doesn’t state his thoughts on it either way, just notes that doubts exist. And he leaves it an open question.
“And then he rejects the 14th amendment as being needed to establish citizenship for those born under the no-doubt conditions of natural born citizenship.”
He was dealing with the question of citizenship for a woman born in the US of citizen parents. The question is if sex affects citizenship, and he denies it totally.
“Other proof of like character might be found, but certainly more cannot be necessary to establish the fact that sex has never been made one of the elements of citizenship in the United States. In this respect men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws precisely apply to both. The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.”
“This is why Justice Gray could not and DID NOT declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen.”
Saying sex had no impact on citizenship is not in any way answering the question of who is a NBC. The plaintiff undoubtedly met the qualifications for a NBC. Others with different circumstances might as well, but he didn’t need to determine that. As he said earlier, “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts”. He simply punted.
WKA could not punt. The question involved, not sex, but was a person born of alien parents born a citizen. And WKA replied yes, and used BOTH the NBC clause and the 14th to justify their decision. And while I disagree with their basis, my side lost and it is now established law.
“Except that BOTH Minor and WKA used the same no-doubt definition of natural born citizenship.”
No. WKA spent pages discussing WHY a person born of alien parents met the criteria for NBC. I know you don’t believe me, and we could shout “Yes they did!” vs “No they didn’t!” forever. Goodness knows, we have done so many times now. So I propose that at this point, we agree that we disagree and that neither is likely to convince the other. We’ve posted our arguments. Others can decide for themselves. I with you well, but I still disagree with your legal analysis. But the links are posted and anyone who wants can read them and decide.
WKA:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Minor:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html