The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar. . .
Now let's look at that. First, the Minor judge went to common law in the very next sentence.
SECOND: Look WHO and WHEN they did it "framers of the Constitution" means it was done before it was framed, or signed, which at that time we were under. . .ENGLISH LAW!!! Which included ENGLISH COMMON LAW!!! Even after the constitution American still used and USES UNTIL THIS VERY DAY English Common law. (Which I learned in my 6 hours of Business Law in college)
Plus, I am not sure if I caught you pulling the "but" stuff on one or two threads, sooo if you have only done it once, then just ignore me fussing at you again above.
If you are innocent of that one, then I want to substitute that fussing for this fussing:
I looked at the page numbers where you picked sentences out of context, and the two sentences you put together were not only about two different things, but were 48 PAGES APART in the court case. How could you!!! Have you no shame!!!
The so-called "common law" as I've shown already used Vattel's definition of NBC verbatim. One more time. Here are the TWO definitions side by side:
Justice Waite: "... 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 ..."
Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Both definitions says "natives" and "natural-born citizens." Both definitions are dependent on birth to citizen parents. Do you think that definiton of NBC looks like English common law?? If so, cite the passage that matches the way the Vattel definition matches. I'll wait.