Point to you. Minor has been quoted, a few times at least, since the 19th Amendment. Not many times, and certainly not as a precedent for a "definition" of natural born citizenship. But in this, you are correct. Minor has been quoted.
I didn't quote Dred Scott. Focus, Jeff.
No, but you obliquely referred to it. To be more accurate, you referred to my referral to it, which was not by name. You may not understand the case history well enough to know what we were referring to.
This is a DEFINITION. The STATEMENT is in the sentence immediately following that exclusively says of the definition, "These are the natives, or the natural-born citizens."
NO, IT DOESN'T.
It doesn't say "These are THE natives." It DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY KIND OF RESTRICTIVE DEFINITION. And this is plain, basic English.
Here's the full quote, starting with that sentence:
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 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Note what the Court distinguished natives/natural born citizens FROM: ALIENS OR FOREIGNERS.
There are only two categories here. Either you are a NATIVE, A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, or you are an ALIEN, A FOREIGNER.
There's no middle ground. There isn't the slightest sign or hint of someone who was born a citizen, who isn't a natural born citizen.
And there's not a single judge, or a single credible legal authority in the entire country who understands Minor to say what you and the other birthers claim it says.
There was even a judge who officially RULED that it doesn't say what you claim it says.
It just doesn't provide any DEFINITION for natural born citizen. And this is clear to anybody who can read English, who isn't blinded by their desire for it to say what it clearly does not say.
1) that the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" "must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.", and
Wrong. Wong Kim Ark said this to interpret the 14th amendment, not natural-born citizen. This is the part immediately prior to what you quoted:
Let's give the ENTIRE QUOTE, shall we? Not just pick out the part you want to try and make a false point.
Where you literally ripped out only the last part of the paragraph, and deliberately did not include the two sentences immediately before your quoted text.
The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States." By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been "seven years a citizen of the United States," and every Senator to have been "nine years a citizen of the United States." and "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President." The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,
also declares that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]
It is absolutely clear that the Court is referring to the phrases "natural born Citizen" and "Citizen of the United States." To claim that the Court is here referring to interpreting the wording of the 14th Amendment is absolutely idiotic and impossible, because the make absolutely, 100% clear that they are trying to interpret the words of THE ORIGINAL FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, NOT THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE 14TH AMENDMENT 75 YEARS AFTER THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN.
You claim, therefore, is yet another great example of just how far birthers are willing to go in order to deny the truth and sling bullshit.
2) that the earlier Supreme Court was NOT committed to the view that children born here of alien parents weren't citizens.
That's not what it says. It says the certain members of the court didn't know the court would be committed to the view that all persons born in the country to citizens and born to subjects of foreign states would be EXCLUDED from the birth clause of the 14th amendment. The court is saying this because the earlier decisions only reviewed exclusions via the subject clause of the 14th amendment. When it cites Minor, the definition of NBC is not based on an exclusion of the subject clause. It's based on the idea that natural-born citizens don't need the birth clause of the 14th amendment to be citizens.
Wow. I don't know how you could possibly be more incoherent.
To be fair, I did simplify what the Court was saying a bit. If we're going to go into these woods, we might as well get completely clear on what the Court was saying. Here's the quote:
That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench...
So here's what the Court said.
This is why the Supreme Court quoted Minor.
They quoted Minor here for the purpose of establishing
"...That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Now that's a little bit complicated, but it's not unclear.
The Supreme Court made a SIDE COMMENT - which is known as DICTA and is not authoritative - in The Slaughterhouse Cases that made it seem as if they thought people born in the United States of alien parents weren't citizens.
The 14th Amendment said that everybody born in the United States and subject to United States jurisdiction was a citizen.
The Wong Court quoted Minor v. Happersett to say, look. It's clear that the previous Supreme Court wasn't issuing any kind of ruling that children born here of alien parents are not subject to US jurisdiction (which is the only way they wouldn't be included as born citizens through the language of the 14th Amendment.
WHY was that clear? The Supreme Court cited Minor v. Happersett as EVIDENCE that the previous Supreme Court HAD NOT been committed to the position that children born on US soil of alien parents were outside of the operation of the 14th Amendment.
In other words, the Supreme Court didn't cite Minor for BIRTHER purposes. They cited it as pretty much of an ANTI-BIRTHER case.
So I repeat:
If you want to cite Minor v. Happersett, cite it for what the US Supreme Court actually DID cite the case for.
...then 15 years later the Supreme Court cited it as precedent on Article II eligibility:
Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165;
Again, only to say that the only difference between a naturalized citizen and a NATIVE citizen is that the native citizen is eligible to the Presidency.
And note the use of the language here. Did the Court say "a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the NATURAL BORN CITIZEN in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency?
No, they did not. They used the term "NATIVE citizen" instead of "NATURAL BORN citizen," indicating with absolute clarity that as far as the United States Supreme Court is concerned, a "NATIVE" citizen IS a natural born citizen.
Yes, they did, and they exclusively characterized that class of citizenship as "natural-born,"
No, they didn't. It's clear to anybody who is honest and can read English that the comment was never intended to be an "exclusive" "definition."
So ... one more time, Jeff, WHY would they characterize Virginia Minor's citizenship according to being born to citizen parents ... especially if what you wanted to believe about what Rawle and Bayard or anyone else has said is true??
I have no idea what you're going on about.
The Court wanted to first establish that Virginia Minor, though a woman, was a United States citizen. This was relevant to the case, because if she wasn't a citizen, then she had no right to vote.
If she was a citizen, then maybe she did.
They simply said, in effect, "There's no doubt that she's a citizen. She covers every possible angle and answers every question we can think of that might POSSIBLY make her not a citizen. We don't know about the children of aliens born here. Maybe they're citizens, too, but we're not going to talk about that because it isn't relevant to Virginia Minor's case. So let's move on."
You couldn't possibly come up with a comment that is more clearly dicta. It's just a side comment. And it is CLEARLY that.
And it is very unauthoritative dicta at that. It's simply bullshit to claim that it's any kind of precedent.
First of all, it's bullshit to claim the Court was trying to lay down any kind of complete DEFINITION of "natural born citizen." They weren't. Never did they say that persons born on US soil of non-citizen parents aren't natural born citizens.
Even if they had, the comment was DICTA.
And even if it hadn't been dicta (which it was) it would've been overruled by the comprehensive ruling in Wong Kim Ark.
Why do you waste so much of yours and other people's time arguing and pushing this? It's total, complete, absolute bullshit.
No, but the obvious source that the Court is quoting does. All your left with is an inconsequential objection over the use of an article before the noun.
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.It DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY KIND OF RESTRICTIVE DEFINITION. And this is plain, basic English.
The context makes it restrictive because the Court considered every known way to become a citizen. Only those born to citizens were characterized as natural-born because the Court was fulfilling what the term natural-born means in Article II:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
IOW, they gave an answer to a question.
Note what the Court distinguished natives/natural born citizens FROM: ALIENS OR FOREIGNERS.
Absolutely. This is framed in the perspective of natural law. Those persons who did not meet this definition are natural aliens or foreigners and can only become citizens through other means.
There isn't the slightest sign or hint of someone who was born a citizen, who isn't a natural born citizen.
Yes, there is ... and you quoted it:
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
The "first" was exclusively characterized as natural-born. The second are persons who must have doubts resolved in order to be citizens. Think. Why would the court say there are doubts about this class, especially if they could be considered to be natural-born?? Why not just move the sentence that says "These were natives, or natural-born citizens"???
And there's not a single judge, or a single credible legal authority in the entire country who understands Minor to say what you and the other birthers claim it says.
Wong Kim Ark cited and affirmed this definition. It's why they categorically and completely avoided calling Wong Kim Ark a natural-born citizen. Luria v. United State cites Minor and not Wong Kim Ark as precedent on presidential eligibility. That makes 18 Supreme Court justices who agreed on this idea.
It is absolutely clear that the Court is referring to the phrases "natural born Citizen" and "Citizen of the United States."
Do you even think these things through before you post them. You're trying to salvage an argument about natural-born citizen by saying that "citizen of the United States" must be defined "in the light of the common law"?? Don't be ridiculous. Further, the rest of the quote after this part goes directly into a citation of the Minor decision, which Gray says was "the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question." The only thing that was in question was the citizen provision of the 14th amendment. Natural-born citizen was NOT in question because it was exclusively defined in Minor. And it clearly says that natural-born citizen is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution, thus outside of the 14th amendment.
This means that the Wong Kim Ark decision is acknowledging the exclusive criteria that Minor used to define NBC. If it wasn't exclusive, then the definition of NBC would not have been outside of the Constitution. The only other criteria that could have applied ... you know, the class for which doubts must be resolved ... is categorically rejected from defining NBC.
The Supreme Court made a SIDE COMMENT - which is known as DICTA and is not authoritative - in The Slaughterhouse Cases that made it seem as if they thought people born in the United States of alien parents weren't citizens.
No, the Ark court took issue with Slaughterhouse because it erroneously lumped in consuls with its exclusions to the Subject clause of the 14th amendment. Gray was trying to rough out all the previous precedents regarding the 14th amendment. He's not discussing natural-born citizenship at this point. He's arguing that consuls are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. under the 14th amendment.
consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse [p679] with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdictionThe Wong Court quoted Minor v. Happersett to say, look. It's clear that the previous Supreme Court wasn't issuing any kind of ruling that children born here of alien parents are not subject to US jurisdiction (which is the only way they wouldn't be included as born citizens through the language of the 14th Amendment.
Talk about "incoherent." Certainly the Minor court did NOT rule on the subject clause, but that same court did exclude "all children born in the United States of citizens"... "from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment." The Minor court didn't exclude these children because of the subject clause. It excluded them because it said "there were necessarily such citizens without such provision." Those persons born without such provision were exclusively characterized as natural-born citizens. It was a unanimous decision. Justice Gray could not ignore a unanimous holding. He had to find another means for establishing citizenship for Wong Kim Ark because he could not do it as a natural-born citizen. This is why this part of Wong Kim Ark is the final time that the term natural-born citizen is used, while the decision continues for another 25 pages.
The Court wanted to first establish that Virginia Minor, though a woman, was a United States citizen. This was relevant to the case, because if she wasn't a citizen, then she had no right to vote.
They could have done this by accepting her 14th amendment citizenship argument. They did not. If what you wanted to believe about Rawle and Bayard was true, they didn't need to talk about Minor or anyone being born to citizen parents. But they did.
We don't know about the children of aliens born here. Maybe they're citizens, too, but we're not going to talk about that because it isn't relevant to Virginia Minor's case. So let's move on."
They didn't move on. Have you not read Minor v. Happersett?? The next four paragraphs talk about how aliens, and the children of aliens, can become citizens.
You couldn't possibly come up with a comment that is more clearly dicta. It's just a side comment. And it is CLEARLY that.
It's not a side comment. The Wong Kim Ark decision gave the holding in Minor:
The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ...
There it is again. Born of citizen parents. It's not a side comment. It's part of the holding. And you're STILL not dealing with the question I'm asking. Why do these courts feel compelled to include birth to citizen parents?? The only way that's relevant is because it exclusively satisfies the definition of natural-born.