That, in my opinion is the bottom line. A proper analysis of NBC as that term appears in the Constitution would necessarily include a determination of the meaning the drafters and ratifiers likely intended when they used the term.
The historical record and contemporaneous writings of those individuals strongly suggests they intended that the commander-in-chief of our nation's military have an allegiance to the new country that came from a American bloodline.
George Washington who served as the commander during the very precarious times of our American Revolution emphasized this point on several occasions in connection with the government sending him general officers, and he is no doubt one who insisted on its application.
If this is not true, there was no need to go to the additional effort of specifying anything beyond "citizen" as was done for senators and representatives, as a qualification for the CinC. Nor did the Congress need to go to the later effort to correct an oversight by an amendment extending the NBC requirement to, but only to, the VP as well.
Most on this thread agree on the meaning of NBC, the dispute rages over whether Minor, in its own words, conclusively defines NBC and whether, if it does, it sets out a binding holding.
As Sherman points out above, the USSC may not rule the way conservative’s desire. Minor may be helpful in any litigation on the point, but it also presents a risk. And that risk is found in the two possible interpretations of its language as pointed out upthread. Even further, a court as sharply politically divided as the current court (4-4-?)could also seize on the statement: Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents.
Imagine the result a liberal court could reach with that statement. We have sorted out that the "no doubt" language does not apply to NBC, but if the court decides two citizen parents are not required to be NBC and embraces the authority expressed in this later sentence, then it is an open field. For that reason, I am somewhat certain that opponents of NBC find value in our using Minor. The degree of that certainty is further supported by the amateurish attempt to alter Minor or even eradicate it from our body of national knowledge; perhaps done so only to heighten our sense of its value.
I've asked this question in regards to Minor several times. Maybe you can answer. What point does it serve for the Minor court to say ANYTHING about the citizenship of the parents if not for how it relates to the definition of NBC?? It's a narrower definition of citizenship than is required for determining voting rights, which they admit here:
If the right of suffrage is one of the necessary privileges of a citizen of the United States, then the constitution and laws of Missouri confining it to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, as amended, and consequently void. The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters.
Why does the court emphasize citizenship by way of being born to citizen parents?? And why is that affirmed in the Wong Kim Ark definition when it gives the holding in Minor?? Nowhere in Minor does it specifically say that Virignia Minor was born to citizen parents, but it is definitely understood by Gray:
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.
Why emphasize this??? The direct question is if ALL citizens are voters, so why go to all the trouble of narrowing the criteria in regards to Virginia Minor if not for defining NBC??
We have sorted out that the "no doubt" language does not apply to NBC, ...
Really. Where exactly do you think this was sorted out at???
For that reason, I am somewhat certain that opponents of NBC find value in our using Minor. The degree of that certainty is further supported by the amateurish attempt to alter Minor or even eradicate it from our body of national knowledge; perhaps done so only to heighten our sense of its value.
This is nonsense. For the longest time, most Obama skeptics were only citing Vattel's definition of natural citizenship, not Minor. In Ankney v. Daniels, the court said the plaintiffs did not cite to authority (meaning the Supreme Court), so some of us got wise and understood we needed to specifically reference the Court using a definition of natural-born citizen that matches Vattel's. The best instance is in Minor, but it is not the ONLY one. Wong Kim Ark also cited the Minor definition and affirmed it, and went further and emphasized that a) the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens and b) that the court was committed to the view that NBCs are excluded from the birth clause of the 14th amendment. Whether anyone has to alter or eradicate Minor is an irrelevant sideshow. Minor provides an inconvenient, yet authoritative and conclusive definition of NBC. It is given specifically to satisfy the clause in Article II. The only response has been weak spin, such as what you claim about the "no doubt" language being "sorted out" and not applying or whatever. It's demonstrably wrong.