What the judge wrote was:
“In deciding whether a woman was eligible to vote, the Minor Court merely concluded that children born in a country of parents who were its citizens would qualify as natural born, and this Court agrees. The Minor Court left open the issue of whether a child born within the United States of alien parent(s) is a natural born citizen.”
To repeat for you, since you have missed it repeatedly for years:
“The Minor Court left open the issue of whether a child born within the United States of alien parent(s) is a natural born citizen.”
That means the Minor court accepted that X was part of NBC, but left open if Y was - which means they did not attempt a definition.
“The judge only takes issue with whether it was an exclusive definition, which is actually proven by reading the whole Minor decision and not Ankeny’s misinterpretation.”
What Minor wrote was:
“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.”
That leaves no doubt in any sane person’s mind that Minor did NOT attempt a full and conclusive definition.
“The assistant vice-chancellor in New York ignored Supreme Court precedent from Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbour that disproved his belief. There’s a reason why this case is NOT quoted as precedence.”
Actually, it was cited with approval by the Supreme Court in WKA. Nor did Snug Harbor deal with the issue of a person born in the US with alien parents. It dealt with the American ante nati - those born in disputed territories during the war. That is why a rational person doesn’t apply Snug Harbor to the Obama situation. It simply does not match, as it did not match the situation of Lynch in the 1840s.
“If John Inglis, according to the first supposition under this point, was born before 4 July, 1776, he is an alien unless his remaining in New York during the war changed his character and made him an American citizen. It is universally admitted both in the English courts and in those of our own country that all persons born within the colonies of North America whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain were natural born British subjects, and it must necessarily follow that that character was changed by the separation of the colonies from the parent state and the acknowledgement of their independence.
The rule as to the point of time at which the American ante nati ceased to be British subjects differs in this country and in England as established by the courts of justice in the respective countries.”
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/28/99/case.html
This phrase from Snug Harbor shows the ‘natural born’ wording used at the time was not linked to Vattel or ‘natural law’: “It is universally admitted both in the English courts and in those of our own country that all persons born within the colonies of North America whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain were natural born British subjects...”
Birth created NBS, not parentage. And ‘natural born’ referred to the well known legal phrase used for hundreds of years in english law, not to a book by Vattel.
I hoped Georgia would rule Obama ineligible. However, it seems the birther argument is so weak that it doesn’t even hold up when the other side doesn’t bother to go to court.
What would be your strategy?
The Minor court did NOT say children born in the country to citizen parents were "part" of the NBC definition. He clearly said they WERE the NBCs. Go by the words that are written, not what you want them to say.
That leaves no doubt in any sane person’s mind that Minor did NOT attempt a full and conclusive definition.
... of whether persons born in the country to anyone other than TWO citizen parents could be CITIZENS. There's no doubt they CANNOT be natural-born citizens because that characterization was applied in a self-limiting, self-distinguishing manner. Why did the court emphasize ANYTHING about citizen parents if not for how it defines NBC??? What would be the point??
Actually, it was cited with approval by the Supreme Court in WKA.
You need to read closely. I said "quoted" not cited. I did that for a very specific reason. And the citation was done to illustrate an extreme view of the law, which the SCOTUS did not fully adopt.
Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.Nor did Snug Harbor deal with the issue of a person born in the US with alien parents. It dealt with the American ante nati - those born in disputed territories during the war. That is why a rational person doesn’t apply Snug Harbor to the Obama situation. It simply does not match, as it did not match the situation of Lynch in the 1840s.
Snug Harbor DID deal with a person born of alien parents. Don't lie about the decisions.
If they adhered to the British Crown up to the time of the treaty, they were deemed aliens; ...This phrase from Snug Harbor shows the ‘natural born’ wording used at the time was not linked to Vattel or ‘natural law’:
- - -
If the grand assize shall find that Charles Inglis the father and John Inglis the demandant did in point of fact elect to become and continue British subjects and not American citizens, the demandant is an alien, and disabled from taking real estate by inheritance.
Nonsense. Read the damn decision:
It appears to me that upon principles of public law as well as of the common law, he must if born a British subject, be deemed to adhere to, and retain the national allegiance of his parents at the time of the treaty. Vattel considers the general doctrine to be that children generally acquire the national character of their parents, Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219,
Under this decision, which Ankeny flubbed, Obama is a British subject at the moment of his birth, NOT a natural-born citizen. Judge Malihi used bad law, his own ignorance and the ABSENCE of any legal proof to presume Obama should be on the ballot.