Yes.
In Minor v. Happersett Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court, which included a definition of natural-born citizens based on the common-law...
No, he does not. Chief Justice Waite acknowledges that some do not believe that those born of non-citizen parents are not natural-born citizens. However he does not clarify the situation by saying whether they are right or wrong. He leaves the question unanswered. So there is no defintion, in Happersett or any other decision.
It would seem that if Chief Justice Waite were on this forum he would be called a "birther" for indicating that such a birth as Obama's is fraught with doubt as to his (Obama's)Natural/Native Born status.
No, he would not. Not based on his Happersett decision.
“He leaves the question unanswered”
He leaves the question of children born to a foreign national — being NATURAL/NATIVE born — in a state of DOUBT.
Birthers are also in a state of DOUBT as to Obamas Natural Born Citizen status as he TOO was born with a foreign National for a father.
THEREFORE: ‘BIRTHERS’ PLEAD THAT OBAMA AND OR THE COURTS REMOVE THOSE DOUBTS.
VERY SIMPLE LOGIC.
HAVE A NICE DAY!
STE=Q
By the way, when the founders use the word “natural” they do so in a very special way.
As you know many of the founders were Masons who believe in a grand “architect” of the universe (God)— although they left it up to the individual to worship/conceive of this grand creator in their own way
They had studied natural law and believed — by extension — that the natural or “nature” proceeded from this source.
They, therefore, attempted to cooperate rather than be at odds with nature.
It is Natural that citizenship — including acculturation and all that implies — to be passed from the parents to the child.
Therefore, it would appear and be reasonable that the term Natural Born — as used by the founders — implied two citizen parents(PLURAL)and, of course: born in the country of/by citizen parents.
Also, although the words Native and Natural may be interchangeable today, they didn’t, necessarily, mean the same thing to the founders in THEIR day and time.
The meanings of words do change and a word that means one thing today, may acquire — even over a short time — the exact OPPOSITE meaning!
Translations of words from other languages can complicate the matter of understanding the intent of the author of same even more. (see post #466)
STE=Q