> Justice Gray turned to Blackstone to ascertain the meaning > of “Natural Born Subject,” did he not? >> More like the 14th Amendment. Okay, back to Wong Kim Ark v US:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167. In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said: There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. So now you’re saying the 14th Amendment was ratified when the Constitution was ratified in 1789? You’re making no sense now, Non-Seq. |
It might help if you read stuff like this. Google some.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/uflr3&div=43&id=&page=
parsy, who is suffering for you
And stuff like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
Or, you could always say something like, “I don’t understand how this works—can somebody help me-—”——and then ask your question. Or, you can continue to explain these cases to the rest of us.
parsy, who says you can learn a lot off the internet