1 - Birthers claim a native citizen means one born of alien parents in the USA. They know it does NOT require citizen parents. In reality, NBC and native citizen are interchangeable, but you are the first birther I’ve seen admit it.
2 - WKA goes into great detail on NBC, because it says NBC = natural born subject. I know you do not understand that, but pretty much everyone else who reads it does.
3 - Minor is NOT legal precedent on citizenship. It is persuasive precedent for the idea that there are two types of citizenship - native & naturalized. As they wrote here in Minor:
“Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.
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.
To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.
Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by “the people of the United States,” [n3] and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, [n4] and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of “the United States of America,” entered into a firm league of [p167] friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever. [n5]
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen — a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
Minor then goes on and specifically refuses to define NBC, other than to say that no one disputes the idea that someone born in the USA of citizen parents is one. However:
“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.”
I know you don’t understand what Minor wrote, which has always been persuasive precedent only. Minor held:
“Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.”
Sorry, but this is gobbledygook. NBC and native were "equated" by the Minor court to mean "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." Obots, like YOU, are the ones who claim "native citizen" means one born of alien parents ... but that is NOT the same as natural-born, which you know, but won't admit.
2 - WKA goes into great detail on NBC, because it says NBC = natural born subject.
No, actually it does no such thing. Mr. Rogers goes into great detail trying to pretend this is what is said in WKA, but there is absolutely NOTHING in WKA that says this. Period.
3 - Minor is NOT legal precedent on citizenship.
This is absolutely false and you know it. Minor was quoted on citizenship in WKA, as "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens" followed by the holding which WKA said, "The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States," .... Minor was affirmed as a citizenship case in Ex Parte Reynolds AND in Luria v. United States, when the latter specifically tied the citizenship holding to Art. II presidential eligibility. You're simply in ignorant denial.
It is persuasive precedent for the idea that there are two types of citizenship - native & naturalized.
You're showing one more time that you can't read very well. Minor is "persuasive precedent" for the idea that there are MORE THAN two types of citizenship, and your own citation shows this VERY CLEARLY:
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen
Okay, which type of citizen is that?? Naturalized or native?? Next, Minor says:
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
This shows there are two classes of citizens based on who was born in the United States, but only ONE of these classes could be called citizens without any doubts ... and that class was EXCLUSIVELY characterized as "natives" and "natural-born citizens." The other class was not and could not be because doubts have to be resolved. This creates a FOURTH type of citizenship which is due to satisfying the subject clause of the 14th amendment. That's what WKA discussed in detail and they used their review of natural-born subjects to resolve doubts for this fourth type of citizen.
I know you don’t understand what Minor wrote, which has always been persuasive precedent only.
Sorry, but I've already given the ways that the SCOTUS recognized that Minor was a precedent in defining NBC. This is made very clear in WKA as it cites Minor's citizenship being due to birth in the country to citizen parents, which was NOT enough to give her voting rights. Unlike Ark AND Obama, the court held that Minor's citizenship made her eligible to run for president. It's time to acknowledge the truth and quit spreading ignorance and misdirection. all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.P