As are so many others, you seem to be confused by the language used in Minor v. Happersett. The Court was discussing CITIZENSHIP itself and the various types of CITIZEN, NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP and the various types of NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. The "one example" you cite is the ONE EXAMPLE of CITIZENSHIP that happens to be those who are born in the country to citizen parents, also known as natives or NATURAL BORN CITIZENS,ie. the "natural born citizenship" mentioned in Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the US Constitution and required for Presidential eligibility. The Court was NOT discussing the various types of NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP. It simply DEFINED it and contrasted it with OTHER examples of possible CITIZENSHIP. Mrs. Minor wasn't running for President. The Court first needed to determine if she was a CITIZEN before it could move on to the voting issue. It found an elegant means of determining that she was a CITIZEN (without the necessity of defining the parameters of citizenship) by finding that she was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, and THEREFORE, of course, a CITIZEN.
PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - real grass roots
Are you with POT or a PET (people embracing tyranny)?
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The conte