That’s not an accurate reading of Minor vs Happersett. In fact Justice Waite deliberately and explicitly chose not to establish that precedent in his ruling:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens…. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts [the disagreement about what makes a natural-born citizen]. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
That is, Minor was the child of citizens so the court could proceed without taking on the question of the children of non-citizens and that’s what they did.
You did not read far enough; the precedent and definition is further into the case where natural born is discussed as qualification to be POTUS. Nice try or Waite did ramble a bit.
I have read the case through to the end and I'm not seeing it. If you could quote the text that you are referencing, or at least point me to the relevant section of the opinion I would be grateful.
Here you go. . .these paragraphs are in the latter part of the decision but clearly define NBC. . .precedent by unanimous decision: She is not eligible. She might be a citizen; but not a natural born citiizen.
"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 Page 88 U. S. 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea." Source = Justia
That is the exact same section that I quoted, the part where Waite recognizes the open question and then explicitly does not address it as not relevant to this case.
That’s not an accurate reading of Minor vs Happersett. In fact Justice Waite deliberately and explicitly chose not to establish that precedent in his ruling:
That is, Minor was the child of citizens so the court could proceed without taking on the question of the children of non-citizens and that’s what they did.
You did not read far enough; the precedent and definition is further into the case where natural born is discussed as qualification to be POTUS. Nice try or Waite did ramble a bit.
I have read the case through to the end and I'm not seeing it. If you could quote the text that you are referencing, or at least point me to the relevant section of the opinion I would be grateful.
Here you go. . .these paragraphs are in the latter part of the decision but clearly define NBC. . .precedent by unanimous decision: She is not eligible. She might be a citizen; but not a natural born citiizen.
"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 Page 88 U. S. 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea." Source = Justia
That is the exact same section that I quoted, the part where Waite recognizes the open question and then explicitly does not address it as not relevant to this case.