You're right. It's been defined, and if adhered to strictly, would invalidate any claim of Obama's being a natural born citizen.
And you sure can’t in the Indiana case.
The Indiana case is a mess. It seems to lazily denigrate the plaintiffs case, "Plaintiffs do not provide pinpoint citations to the congressional debate quotations to which they cite." Pinpoint citations?? What the hell is that supposed to mean. I noticed they selectively OMIT the part about the parents being permanent immigrants form their citation of Wong: "whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China . . . becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment." Leaving that out completely changes the legal context. They include this quote: "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." So, Obama is a natural born subject AND a natural born citizen?? Obama has apparently claimed the former not the latter. And then this final part, pure comedy: "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." Yet in the footnote on the same page of the citation, they admit that Wong Kim Ark did not pronounce the plaintiff a natural born citizen. "The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States." So, wait, this acknowledge that WKA didn't really say that being born within the borders of the United States made anyone a natural born citizen. How stupid is that??
Thank you so much for reading the case!
They include this quote: “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.” So, Obama is a natural born subject AND a natural born citizen??
No. The English courts used “subjects” because they had a king. Since we based the meaning on English law, for the point that where you were born is what mattered and not who your parents were, “the concept crossed the Atlantic”, and we put in “citizen” for “subject”.
The court is saying that so everybody Knows it means the same thing.
“Yet in the footnote on the same page of the citation, they admit that Wong Kim Ark did not pronounce the plaintiff a natural born citizen.”
This is true because the Wong court did not directly say it. BUT, it is contained in the analysis of the law by the Wong course.
This might be confusing because when you cite a case, in another case, you don’t just put in the conclusion. That doesn’t explain anything. So in Indiana, if the Indiana court had said just, “Since Wong was a citizen, Obama is a citizen” —nobody would have a frigging clue what they were talking about. The language and reasoning from the prior case is what has to come over to the new case.
Look at the Indiana case and read where they bring over some of the old English cases from Wong into the current case. That is so the decision makes sense. A reader can tell how the court is deciding something,
Well, in all that old English stuff in Wong, is where you find the conclusion that being born here makes you a NBC. They don’t say it again at the bottom, but it is smeared all over the place throughout Wong.
When a court relies on, affirms, or adopts language or reasoning from an older case, and sets it forth in the current case, the older stuff is incorporated in the newer. That is how we maintain a conservative legal system.
Look at the beauty of it. There is a line of reasoning that runs from at least 1608 in England to November 2009, and beyond into 2010. That is stable. That is predictable. That is conservative.
That is one reason why I keep gigging bp2 on “Blackstone”. There are other reasons, but one is that Blackstone is one of the most conservative legal people of all time. When you attack Blackstone, you attack some of the very core concept roots of conservatism. Now Jefferson wasn’t fond of Blackstone, but it was because Blackstone was too conservative for him.
Remember we were born as a nation in change. Jefferson was part of that change. Back then, if you were a conservative, you would probably remained loyal to England. So it is kind of funny/sad to watch people trash Blackstone, and they don’t even know what they’re trashing. They’re trashing conservative roots to get get Obama. Just amazing.
parsy