Apparently you are not up to speed. Leo Donofrio argues that Minor v Happersett is a supreme court precedent where the court rules that the fact of Minor having two citizen parents and born in the United States makes her a "Natural Born Citizen." He further argues that they did not invoke the 14th amendment to make this ruling (as they did in Wong Kim Ark) and therefore it is based on original law. To sum it up, it proves what the Supreme Courts understanding of original law was, and it conforms to the two citizen parent born on the soil position.
Read this link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2742400/posts
Clearer thinking than this is required here.
Clear thinking is indeed required, but without accurate facts it will still lead you astray. The Minor v. Happersett decision provides some of those accurate facts.
Rogers v. Bellei provides another fact. In that case, the Supreme court ruled that being the child of one American Citizen isn't enough to be a "Natural born citizen." Bellei LOST his citizenship because he didn't reside in the United States long enough. A "Natural born citizen" could NOT lose his citizenship through inaction.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mind Bender26 is very proud of his reasoning abilities.
By the way...Please read my post #21 in response to Mind Bender26’s rationalizations. Mind *Bender* was a good choice for a posting name. Do you think? .
Law decided by precedent is no law at all, it is tyranny piled upon tyranny.
“Rogers v. Bellei provides another fact. In that case, the Supreme court ruled that being the child of one American Citizen isn’t enough to be a ‘Natural born citizen.’ Bellei LOST his citizenship because he didn’t reside in the United States long enough. A ‘Natural born citizen’ could NOT lose his citizenship through inaction.”
Did you even read that case? The issue was that Bellei “does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizens as those ‘born or naturalized in the United States’”. Where did the Court say Bellei is not a “natural-born citizen”? Where do they say being a natural-born citizen depends upon parentage?
The term “natural-born citizen” appears twice in the decision. First, it appears in a quote of the Naturalization Act of 1790. Second, it appears in:
“Apart from the passing reference to the ‘natural born Citizen’ in the Constitution’s Art. II, § 1, cl. 5, we have, in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, the first statutory recognition and concomitant formal definition of the citizenship status of the native born”.
Got that? The first recognition of the citizenship status of the native born is the “passing reference to the ‘natural born Citizen’ in the Constitution’s Art. II, § 1, cl. 5”.