Children sub potestate parentis follow the condition of the father; or, if no father, of the mother. If of full age, and emancipated, they are subject to the same rules as any adult person.
Secretary of the Navy. Papers on Naturalization and Expatriation, p. 45. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C, 1873.
Irrelevant. Note the date. Pre-Wong.
parsy, who ducked that spear, spun and...bzzz....bzzz....
And now that I have answered all the pings... You are missing the part where WONG Court has decided what the language meant. Read Wong again. SCOTUS trumps the Dept. of the Navy on constitutional interp.
This is what I meant in my fair and balanced and completely neutral analysis when i said the thing about a “silver ball in a pin ball machine caroming around”
You can find all sort of language that says what you want it to say. You can even find it in Wong. But unless you study up on the context, you are going to come up with all kinds of wrong conclusions.
Like when you said something about “no Federal or national common law” something like that. True. Strictly speaking there is no federal common law kinda, but there kinda is. By necessity. Whatever, the Wong court and God knows how many other federal courts have relied upon English common law for “original intent” like from the beginning.
And when federal courts got involved in state case law, for whatever reason, the feds had to use English common law for a lot of things. You are still THIS VERY DAY living under English common law in ways you would never believe. This is a good and beautiful thing.
As good and beautiful as puppies, kittens, rainbows, Louisiana shrimp....
parsy, who is wondering why he said that....