Replies

“That type of citizen cannot possibly be anything but Natural Born. Minor vs Happersett stated such simply and eloquently”

It did not and I don’t understand why people here keep claiming it did.

For those that keep misquoting Minor..here it is again:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 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. 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.
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"

This means that they have indicated one definition but DECLINE to address whether there are other definitions because IT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE PARTICULARS OF THE CASE.

It did not and I don’t understand why people here keep claiming it did.

I would like to point out something that edge919 put me on to the significance of.

In the Middle of a discussion on the 14th amendment, the court said:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."

If you think about this, they are saying that the 14th amendment DOES NOT SAY who shall be "natural born citizens. But what DOES the 14th amendment say? It says anyone born here and subject to our jurisdiction is a "citizen."

I read this as an explicit rejection of the 14th amendment as defining the meaning of "natural born citizen." They are saying that 14th amendment citizenship is NOT THE SAME THING as "natural born citizenship."

Well, our opponents entire argument is that the 14th amendment declares anyone born here is a "natural born citizen." If the court explicitly says that it is NOT, (which I believe it does so above) then that leaves by default a requirement to prove "natural born citizen" status by a different method, of which [Jus Soli & Jus Sanguinus] is the only remaining possibility.