[edge919]

This is all the more reason why Minor is THE legal precedent as a unanimous decision that defined natural-born citizen in the "nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar ..." Of course, the "nomenclature" is actually the Law of Nations since the definition of NBC is a near verbatim match:

Minor: all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens

Law of Nations: those born in the country, of parents who are citizens

[Save-the-Union]

Let me first say that I believe the framers intended that only children born to 2 citizen parents should be considered natural born.
But to me Minor is not clear enough to be used as precedent...... Minor basically clarifies something we all agree.... That children born of 2 citizen parents are natural born but it leaves open the possibility that others are also
“”””... 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. “””””
Why does it not say ..... as distinguished from (regular citizens)?
Minor never really clarifies the difference between regular citizenship and nbc. This confusion is further reinforced by the following “”””Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. “”””
So from this we can conclude that there is no doubt that children born to 2 citizen parents are Natural Born but there are doubts about everything else? This is all too vague to be considered clear precedent. We need to put pressure on the courts to clarify this matter