Here is the real story
This Redstate article threw the whole book, the English Common Law equivalent, the pre-John Jay letter Madison presidential requirement, when each state had a different definition of how citizens were made, and each state took just that part of English law it deemed relevent to its sovereign government, and English Common law was further divided into English-Welsh, Irish, and Scottish branches, with each Colony picking and chosing what to recognize. Then he relies on a New York State court decision, Lynch, again and again, rather like state court judges citing the ridiculous Indiana Court Ankeny case for a new definition of who were natural born citizens. That definition is exclusively the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Obama's cadre has turned the law into a circus, perhaps weakening respect for justice and the judiciary intentionally.
The idea is to bury the less patient in enough names and confusion as to sound knowledgeable, and convincing. The sad truth is that we do not have a legal system that honors the Constitution. Federal Judges conform to the political will that appointed each of them. Even Supreme Court justices are now just political pawns who can be counted upon to carry the water of the power that got them each appointed. Roberts was identifiable the moment he accepted the oath of the naturalized citizen Barack Obama. It would have taken courage to refuse to confer legitimacy on the elected candidate, and Roberts was chosen because he was unknown, and not for his qualities as a jurist or his courage in administering constitutionally founded judgements.
Instead of clearly self-inconsistent citations from a potpourri of sources the single clear statement by Chief Justice Morrison Waite is sufficient, and, as has been demonstrated by the twenty five or so cases, including Wong Kim Ark, which cite Minor v. Happersettt when referring to natural born citizens, Minor turned the common law into positive law. The Constitution was written to depend upon our common-law, the ethical rules acceped by most common citizens. Here is the statement which Obots will never acknowledge, because they don't accept the Constitution as our foundation:
“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, 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.”
Here CJ Waite equates “natives” and “natural-born citizens”. He reminds us that the Constitution doesn't contain definitions, relying upon the nomenclature and common-law familiar to its framers, which was not the familiar English Common Law which our framers repudiated for a federal government. “Born in a country of parents who were its citizens” is our law.
To see all these questions dealt with, and it takes lots of patience, read the archives of the Leo Donofrio or Mario Apuzzo blogs. To know the truth, a truth cited as recently as 1939 in Perkins v. Elg decided by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, trust the decision cited above, or, better yet, read the case Minor v. Happersett, which, unlike many of those citing Minor, which were “munged” by Center for American Progress Obama comrades, Minor v. Happersett can be found intact at Cornell Law and several other sites (though Cornell too scrubbed cases citing Minor, including re: Lockwood, of citations confirming that later courts used Minor as precedent - "held" law).
This Redstate article threw the whole book, the English Common Law equivalent, the pre-John Jay letter Madison presidential requirement, when each state had a different definition of how citizens were made, and each state took just that part of English law it deemed relevent to its sovereign government, and English Common law was further divided into English-Welsh, Irish, and Scottish branches, with each Colony picking and chosing what to recognize. Then he relies on a New York State court decision, Lynch, again and again, rather like state court judges citing the ridiculous Indiana Court Ankeny case for a new definition of who were natural born citizens. That definition is exclusively the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Obama's cadre has turned the law into a circus, perhaps weakening respect for justice and the judiciary intentionally.
The idea is to bury the less patient in enough names and confusion as to sound knowledgeable, and convincing. The sad truth is that we do not have a legal system that honors the Constitution. Federal Judges conform to the political will that appointed each of them. Even Supreme Court justices are now just political pawns who can be counted upon to carry the water of the power that got them each appointed. Roberts was identifiable the moment he accepted the oath of the naturalized citizen Barack Obama. It would have taken courage to refuse to confer legitimacy on the elected candidate, and Roberts was chosen because he was unknown, and not for his qualities as a jurist or his courage in administering constitutionally founded judgements.
Instead of clearly self-inconsistent citations from a potpourri of sources the single clear statement by Chief Justice Morrison Waite is sufficient, and, as has been demonstrated by the twenty five or so cases, including Wong Kim Ark, which cite Minor v. Happersettt when referring to natural born citizens, Minor turned the common law into positive law. The Constitution was written to depend upon our common-law, the ethical rules acceped by most common citizens. Here is the statement which Obots will never acknowledge, because they don't accept the Constitution as our foundation:
“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, 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.”
Here CJ Waite equates “natives” and “natural-born citizens”. He reminds us that the Constitution doesn't contain definitions, relying upon the nomenclature and common-law familiar to its framers, which was not the familiar English Common Law which our framers repudiated for a federal government. “Born in a country of parents who were its citizens” is our law.
To see all these questions dealt with, and it takes lots of patience, read the archives of the Leo Donofrio or Mario Apuzzo blogs. To know the truth, a truth cited as recently as 1939 in Perkins v. Elg decided by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, trust the decision cited above, or, better yet, read the case Minor v. Happersett, which, unlike many of those citing Minor, which were “munged” by Center for American Progress Obama comrades, Minor v. Happersett can be found intact at Cornell Law and several other sites (though Cornell too scrubbed cases citing Minor, including re: Lockwood, of citations confirming that later courts used Minor as precedent - "held" law).