The Supreme Court did in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and in modern times, the Indiana Appeals Court admitted that Minor defined NBC.
In fact, the US Supreme Court itself quoted that passage in Minor for the express purpose of showing that that particular Court WAS NOT committed to the view that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents were not born citizens:
You need to learn to read. That's not what that passage says. It was pointing out that the Slaughterhouse exclusions to the subject clause were not comprehensive exclusions to the 14th amendment because two years later, Minor unanimously excluded children born of citizen parents. That's why it gives the full citation of Minor's definiton of NBC and follows by giving the holding in Minor as being a citizen due to birth in the country to citizen parents.
But Minor never gave a "definition" of natural born citizen, they only observed that if you were born on US soil to citizen parents, then there was no question you were one.
No, they said if you were born on U.S. soil to citizen parents there was no doubt that you were a citizen. Then they exclusively characterized this group of citizens as natural-born citizens.
Then they expressly said they weren't going to look into the question.
No, they said there was no need to solve the citizenship doubts about people born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents. Since there was doubt about their citizenship, they could NOT be natural-born citizens. In context, "natural born" means with no doubts.
Not exactly. The Court also clearly specifies:
"Precisely analogous" does NOT mean "equal to." And nothing in this passage talks about natural-born citizens. That characterization was reserved as defined by Minor.
Here are some of the major points that the Supreme Court made in that case::
These weren't compelling points. It's describing English law, not U.S. law. If that law had been compelling, there would have been no need for the 14th amendment.
So what is this rule, when applied in the United States? That the children of aliens are "natural born SUBJECTS?"
Right. That rule was in effect for persons born in the U.S. to aliens in some colonies, but not all. The Treaty of 1783 was used to separate natural-born subjects from natural-born citizens, based on the loyalties of the parents.
That is a simple substitution of everything the Court has explicitly told us we can substitute.
Except the court never said anything about making such a substitution and it never made any such substitution. Quit making things up.
First they said the SAME RULE has always applied in England and then in the United States. So if we want to know the rule in the United States, we can take the wording of that rule and substitute "the United States" every place where it originally said "England."
The "rule" applied to the children of British loyalists. IOW, it was possible to be born in the U.S. at the time of the Constitution and be a British subject and NOT a U.S. citizen.
Then they told us that "citizen" was a PRECISE ANALOGUE to "subject." So that means that when writing out the rule as it applies in the United States, we can absolutely substitute the word "citizen" every place where we see the word "subject."
It didn't say any such thing. It was a quote from a North Carolina court. Justice Gray went on to cite several authorities that made similar types of declarations, but in the next section of analysis, he arrives at the Minor decision and affirms its exlcusive definition of natural-born citizens as those born in the country to citizen parents.
This, then, is the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark Court:
NOTHING in Wong Kim Ark says this. You're trying to connect dots that Justice Gray was neither willing nor able to connect because he was compelled to affirm the UNANIMOUS Minor definiton of NBC. That's what happens when there is a legal precedent.
It also explains why courts have repeatedly ruled Barack Obama to be a natural born citizen, and why the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to hear any appeals from any such cases.
No, actually it doesn't, because only a handful of courts have declared Obama to be a natural-born citizen, but they have not been consistent in citing any legal foundation for it.
Some people have argued that since the Supreme Court did not explicitly state in the ruling, "Wong Kim Ark is therefore a natural born citizen of the United States," they "fell short" of finding him a natural born citizen, and only found him to be "a citizen" instead.
The Indiana Appeals Court admitted that Wong Kim Ark was not declared to be a natural-born citizen.
In any Supreme Court case, the core reasoning of a case, thoroughly analyzed, holds just as much precedent-making power as the final statement.
Yes, and in Wong Kim Ark, the core reasoning was that Ark was a 14th amendment citizen by birth because he was born in the country to parents with permanent residence and domicil. Cruz doesn't meet this definition nor has Obama and of course both do not satisfy the Ark definition of NBC as cited from Minor.
In other words, they don't have to restate a conclusion in the final statement, if they have thoroughly argued it during the reasoning of the case, and if it is central to the final conclusion. That is the case here.
The conclusion you've come to was never stated in Ark, much less "restated."
That case contains roughly TWO SENTENCES of side commentary which they think supports their claim. These TWO SENTENCES are not in the final summing up statement of the case. And the status of people born to non-citizens is COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to the resolution of that case, because nobody EVER suggested that Virginia Minor was the child of non-citizen parents.
You need to worry about speaking for yourself instead of trying to misstate the position of so-called "birthers." You also don't understand the Minor decision. Virginia Minor claimed she had a right to vote by citing her citizenship under the 14th amendment. The SCOTUS rejected this argument and they did so by citing Article II and then by defining natural-born citizen. This was affirmed in Wong Kim Ark in two ways. One was a negative declaration that said:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
The second was a positive declaration that NBCs are born to citizen parents.
Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),
reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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 [p680] 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. ...
Next, Wong Kim Ark restated the holding in Minor to be based on birth to citizen parents, which was NOT the same argument presented by Virginia Minor.
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ...
This is the last point in Wong Kim Ark where the term "natural-born citizen" is used. Gray opts for a different term through the rest of the decision, "citizenship by birth," which is only defined by the 14th amendment — but as noted, the 14th amendment does not say who shall be natural-born citizens.
Meanwhile, they claim that the dozens and dozens of pages of careful analysis in US v. Wong Kim Ark, although absolutely core to the case's final disposition, are entirely irrelevant.
Nonsense. The dozens and dozens of pages of careful analysis affirmed that NBC is defined as birth to citizen parents and that the 14th amendment does not define natural-born citizenship. The rest of the analysis was used to justify a separate type of citizenship by birth that was legally strong enough to justify superceding an international treaty to the contrary. But this type of citizenship was never called natural-born citizenship.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the BS claim that it takes birth on US soil plus two citizen parents for a person to be a natural born citizen. It's still absolute, total, complete BS.
The only BS is what you just posted.
You go to great lengths to deny what I just said, which is 100% accurate.
If you think you have a case, argue it in the courts. You’ll get thrown out on your @ss. There is not a single real Constitutional authority - conservative, liberal or in between - in the entire country who agrees with you.
Not one.