It's not an open question. There was only one definition available for which there was no doubt. He doesn't say the doubt can be resolved, but there's no need because he has a definition for which there is no doubt. What you don't seem to understand or want to admit is that it should have been easy to say that the 14th amendment resolves any doubts or changes the definition. Waite says the 14th amendment is NOT needed to establish citizenship of the person in question. Why would he do this if he or anyone else on the coutr thought the 14th amendment resolved the doubts?? Certainly you understand this was the majority opinion and that one of the other justices could have stepped up to say the 14th amendment resolves these doubts. Why bother to talk about natural born citizenship at all when you have a brand spanking new Constitutional amendment that could define citizenship for your plaintiff?? It's obvious: He's and the court are rejecting this amendment as applying to natural born citizenship. IOW, the court in both Minor and WKA are saying that anyone who needs to have their citizenship defined by the 14th amendment (like Obama) CANNOT be a natural born citizen.
WKA spent pages discussing WHY a person born of alien parents met the criteria for NBC.
This is pure delusion. There aren't any pages saying this at all. None. You're trying to connect dots that simply are not connected.
“He doesn’t say the doubt can be resolved,”
Actually, he said he didn’t need to try: “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts”. He leaves OPEN the possibility that someone will need to solve those doubts, which happened then in 1898.
“What you don’t seem to understand or want to admit is that it should have been easy to say that the 14th amendment resolves any doubts or changes the definition” - except that the question before him only needed to know if sex prevented citizenship. And it had no bearing, so he had no need to discuss either provision at length.
“Why bother to talk about natural born citizenship at all when you have a brand spanking new Constitutional amendment that could define citizenship for your plaintiff?”
Because she was already a citizen without regard for any amendment. It simply wasn’t relevant to the facts of the case.
“It’s obvious: He’s and the court are rejecting this amendment as applying to natural born citizenship.”
No, he says it is irrelevant: “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.”
“IOW, the court in both Minor and WKA are saying that anyone who needs to have their citizenship defined by the 14th amendment (like Obama) CANNOT be a natural born citizen. “
No. Neither says that. And while you can reject my explanation, there isn’t any doubt that the rest of the world - every Congressman, every state, every state DA, every state SecState, both political parties, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh - they ALL accept my explanation and reject yours.
Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General wrote, “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”
You can continue to reject my interpretation as I reject yours. What you haven’t been able to do is convince any court any where, or any state, or any Congressman that your interpretation is right.
“This is pure delusion. There aren’t any pages saying this at all. None. “
Good point. The first third of the WKA decision doesn’t exist. It isn’t there. The decision doesn’t start until half-way down. The rest is my imagination.