Replies

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.

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

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"

Note the second sentence. The doubt was about whether someone who was born to aliens and foreigners within a jurisdiction was not, in fact, also an alien and foreigner, as had been taken for granted up until the point that "some authorities" had started to voice doubt.

Minor says that the court, for the purposes of the case, doesn't need to decide whether a child of a foreigner or alien born in a jurisdiction may be something other than a foreigner or alien, given that Minor was indisputably an America citizen because she was born in America to parents, both of whom were American citizens: "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.

But they DO explicitly reject the 14th amendment as defining "natural born citizen" and therefore the only remaining definition wins by default.

To restate, if you have a choice between this and that, and the court says it cannot be "this" then the only surviving definition is "that." They define it as "that" because they explicitly rejected "this." (the 14th amendment)