From http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=88&invol=162 (the text of Minor v Happersett):
“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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. “
“This class” (as to which there have been doubts) is “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”.
What does that mean, if not people born within the jurisdiction, regardless of their parents’ citizenship?
Either you have reading comprehension in the lowest 10th percentile, or you are a troll. Which is it?
Either you have reading comprehension in the lowest 10th percentile, or you are a troll. Which is it?
No, I'm in some percentile -- which is apparently above yours -- which understands how our legal system works. This case does not rule on the exact meaning of NBC and it says so quite plainly in the text you quoted.
It like you're a defense attorney holding up a picture of your client committing a murder and saying, "This picture proves my client didn't do it because he would never hold a knife like that."
The highest court to rule on this, to date, is the Indiana Court of Appeals and their ruling would make Obama a NBC. This post-dates Minor v Happersett by a more than a century and is the prevailing precedent until the SCOTUS overrules it. And they haven't.
As I said, you can't be proven wrong because conspiracy theories can never be proven wrong. For a conspiracy theorist, lack of evidence is proof and counter-evidence is just proof of the conspiracy. The only reason I'm responding to you at all is for the benefit of anyone else who is following this and actually wants to know the facts. So please go ahead and put me on your enemies list. For the record, I don't want to be on your enemies list because I believe you are a committed patriot who wants to move our country back in the right direction, but I'm not going to stop disagreeing with you.