Ankney is a "birther website"?? It says the interpretation of Waite's decision is correct because it points out the question of whether children born in the country to TWO citizen parents are natural-born citizens was answered in the affirmative. Such a question for the children of aliens, Ankeny posits, was NOT answered by Minor (which isn't true), so they cite Wong Kim Ark for dicta to create an answer that Ark didn't actually provide, which they admit by way of footnote. But then, Ankeny never declared Obama to be a natural-born citizen, nor did they even declare Obama to be born in the United States, so they covered themselves legally only by saying they made a conclusion that had no legal precedent behind it.
There is your problem in all its simplicity and glory.
When the judge says:
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
And you think it means:
"It says the interpretation of Waite's decision is correct"
Then there is a serious cognitive disconnect going on.
And the funny thing is that the plaintiffs didn't even use your interpretation of Minor in their case:
"The bases of the Plaintiffs‟ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.11
The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim."
One court twists what another court says, and we are supposed to be impressed? Modern courts twisting things far away from their original meaning is a basic axiom of conservative thought. You are obviously unfamiliar with it.
Roe v Wade asserts that the 14th amendment (created to grant citizenship for freed slaves, and incorporate the states into defending the bill of rights) somehow asserts that women (who could not even vote or buy property in 1868) have a right to murder their own Children.
What the silly bastards don't realize is that just after the Civil war, all the former Abolitionists turned their attention to outlawing abortion, and successfully eradicated it by 1900. (It was revived by the efforts of a Eugenicist Communist, who was specifically TRYING to kill off Members of the Black race, by convincing them to kill their own children. )
Obviously, the 1868 congress had no intention of making abortion legal, that was just @ssholes on the court imposing their own personal opinions on the rest of us. That it had the slightest thing to do with actual constitutional law is laughable.
Sorry, I thought I was replying to Harlan1196.