If only I had linked the decision in the comment that you replied to. Oh wait, I did.
But just in case you forgot how to click a link - The decision was US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Also Minor vs Happersett does not define citizenship. It only states that citizenship does not guarantee the right to vote. So it is irrelevant here.
The Wong Kim Ark case specifically defines citizenship regarding people born inside US borders. The opinion of the majority Justice Horace Gray in part states "The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens"
You cannot get much more explicit than that. We are wasting our efforts trying to pull this shit. She is unfortunately, eligible to be VP and/or President.
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
You are referencing the case you cited. The subsequent case clarified the court's position on the matter. As another reference, here are two paragraphs taken from the majority's opinion in the 1898 case (emphasis mine):
23
In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: 'All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.' 'We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.' 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.
26
That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than 50 years after the adoption of the constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the court of chancery of New York, and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clarke (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.
Tell me you aren't actually reading what I wrote without telling me you aren't actually reading what I wrote.
Read this. Directly from Paragraph 23 of the Majority Opinion:
all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens...We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States
It literally says exactly - natural born citizens.
23 In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: 'All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.' 'We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.' 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.
If only I had linked the decision in the comment that you replied to. Oh wait, I did.
But just in case you forgot how to click a link - The decision was US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Also Minor vs Happersett does not define citizenship. It only states that citizenship does not guarantee the right to vote. So it is irrelevant here.
The Wong Kim Ark case specifically defines citizenship regarding people born inside US borders. The opinion of the majority Justice Horace Gray in part states "The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens"
You cannot get much more explicit than that. We are wasting our efforts trying to pull this shit. She is unfortunately, eligible to be VP and/or President.
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
You are referencing the case you cited. The subsequent case clarified the court's position on the matter. As another reference, here are two paragraphs taken from the majority's opinion in the 1898 case (emphasis mine):
23 In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: 'All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.' 'We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.' 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.
26 That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than 50 years after the adoption of the constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the court of chancery of New York, and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clarke (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.
Citizens. . .not Natural Born Citizens. There are different types of citizens.
Tell me you aren't actually reading what I wrote without telling me you aren't actually reading what I wrote.
Read this. Directly from Paragraph 23 of the Majority Opinion:
all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens...We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States
It literally says exactly - natural born citizens.
But where is that applied to the term "natural born citizen"? It seems like it only addresses citizenship in general...
In paragraph 23 of the court majority's opinion:
23 In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: 'All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.' 'We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.' 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.