[sourcery]

In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that: The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.

Nice. Stealing it.

[bushpilot1]

I’m always stealing from edge919.

[DiogenesLamp]

In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that: The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.

Nice. Stealing it.

Beat you too it. I stole that Several weeks back. :)

I tend to rephrase it as specifying the 14th amendment.

In Minor, the Court said "(the 14th amendment) does NOT say who shall be "natural born citizens."

I do this because I hope the Obots will call me on it and be forced to LOOK at the fact the court was DISCUSSING the 14th amendment when they said this. Obviously they couldn't have overlooked the meaning of the 14th if that is what it meant. They are explicitly saying that the 14th amendment does not define natural born citizens.

The implication is that since the 14th amendment DOES say who shall be born citizens, but not who shall be "natural born citizens" a "born citizen" is therefore explicitly different than a "natural born citizens."