Replies

Plus all that quoted dictum in Minor says is that it is clear that at least someone who was born in the US and has 2 citizen parents is a natural born citizen- something I don’t think anyone is arguing against. It’s where one of those elements is missing that is at issue. And all the court said about it (if you even assume what they said has ANY weight)is “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.” Of course there have been doubts- otherwise the arguments over this issue would not continue. It doesn’t say conclusively, however, one way or the other that they are not natural born. The dicta merely says those who have both are without a doubt natural born.

No, actually the definition that Minor used is self-limiting. "These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." The only way to resolve doubt about the citizenship of those who are born in the country to anyone but citizens is to rely on statutory or Constitutional declarations, such as how Gray had to figure out how to satisfy the subject clause requirement in the Wong Kim Ark decision. Once you do that, you're getting out of the realm of natural citizenship, thus anyone not born to citizen parents is NOT a natural-born citizen.

“Plus all that quoted dictum in Minor says is that it is clear that at least someone who was born in the US and has 2 citizen parents is a natural born citizen- SOMETHING THAT I DON”T THINK ANYONE IS ARGUING AGAINST. It’s where one of those elements is missing that is at issue...”

Aw, but you arguing against it.......!!!!!!! I know, I know you left yourself an out by adding “...that at LEAST someone...” To my mind an intellectually dishonest qualifer.

And the issue is.....(simple) born citizenship, or, as you quote..... “Some authorities go further and include as CITIZENS children born (born citizens?) 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 (where they defined NBCs).”

To repeat...the court is talking about citizenship NOT NBC which they have already defined earlier in the quote.

In other words, the Justice is saying that Natural Born Citizens ie those born in country to citizen parents are undisputably CITIZENS, but there is a question about CITIZENSHIP where the circumstances of being Natural Born are not present.

Again, the decision is talking about citizenship, born citizenship....of which being Natural Born is one of the most common, but questionably not the only form of, born citizenship. The case, because Minor was indeed a citizen, having been born in the US to citizen parents, and therefore a NBC, left questions about other forms of born citizenship for future cases where that would be at issue.......

The 14th Amendment and the USSC Decision Wong Kim Arc resovlved (partially) the issue of born citizenship (no need to naturallize) for persons that were NOT Natural Born (and therefore undisputably) Citizens. The WKA Decision did not declare Mr Arc to be A Natural Born Citizen, as your previous posts would suggest, but did declare him a born citizen...just as the children of former slaves were, per the 14th Amendment.

Re-read your first sentence of your post and compare it to your other posts. They do not jive!

You have left yourself open to charges of being both a liar and a disrupter/Obama appologist......well deserved I might add.