[Mr Rogers]

“No where did it say that natural born is other than born with both parents citizens at the time of that birth.”

Then you need to reread it. Every state & every court says it is there. The dissent to WKA says it is there. Every member of Congress says it is there.

To every court & every state, it says NBS = NBC = 14th Amendment. The formal, one sentence ruling does not, just as the formal ruling in Minor makes no mention of NBC. But the argument made - the dicta, which is the same stuff folks waive around with Minor - says NBS = NBC.

I can’t make anyone ‘see’ it. But if all the world says your ‘facts’ are not true, who is right? If someone claims to be Emperor of the World and no one believes him, how many orders get obeyed?

[PA-RIVER]

WKA uses nbs to rationalize the 14th.
it never equates them as to being the same.

A citizen is entirly different. They simply associate that it is tradition to claim as a subject people born in a kingdom, and the 14 does a similar thing by granting citizenship. Never do they call kwa an nbc.

[PA-RIVER]

The same principle was used in granting Obama Indonesian citizenship. This is why Ann Dunham removed Obama from her American passport. This is why our president pledged allegiance to Indonesia everyday in school as a child. This is why he calls Kenya his home country. Each of these countries lay claim to him, similar to nbs tradition.

[philman_36]

But the argument made - the dicta, which is the same stuff folks waive around with Minor - says NBS = NBC.

Well there you go again, screwing things up about dicta in your normal manner. Do you need a refresher?
@#191

You, Mr Rogers, are in italics...

For example, Minor did not rule that “The word “citizen “ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.”
And yet what do we find in the full decision?

For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words 'subject,' 'inhabitant,' and 'citizen' have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.

That's what the syllabus says but only in fewer words, right?
1. The word "citizen " is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.