Here us the relevant quote and their definitive statement is the 3rd and 4th sentences (in plain English):
“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.”
They also say that there is no doubt about that first statement, only about other definitions of citizenship, yet here comes you claiming that I may be a fool even when I provide their exact intent in the ruling!! BTW, I also provided this to you in a private posting which you apparently ignored as you continue your obfuscation of the issue here - in public! Adios again and good riddance!! SHEEESH
JC
Because you are trying to flim flam or you are an idiot:
This sentence:
“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.”
There were NOT deciding about whether there is more than one definition because it was not necessary as to the facts of the case before them.
Why can you not understand this???
They were ONLY deciding as was relevant to THIS case.
Had the facts been one that resolving it was necessary to issue a decision THEN they would have discussed it.
Because it wasn’t important to THIS CASE - they declined to discuss it AND INDICATED SUCH.
NOTICE THAT THEY DIDN’T go through the machinations of discussing the ins and outs of that partiular issue.
I am SERIOUS when I say crap like this makes Conservatives look ridiculous. It is staring you right in the face and you refuse to acknowlege it.