Until then, the definitions above suit you to a tee.
Evidence from the founding era written or spoken by one of the founding fathers or framers.
I did. You can find a whole bunch of it in Wong. Most of the Wong case is cites to that law for the purpose of determining original intent. I have already laid much of it on you. The Indiana case is a shorter case and it brings over the most relevant parts of Wong into it, all the way back to at least 1608.
It may go back further but I have not tried to date the old English stuff.
In 1898, the Wong court was reaching back at least 300 years to determine original intent. That is another reason why I have thumped on WKA so much.
The original intent stuff was circa 1789—the old cases at least back to 1608 or about 200 years prior. If a modern court uses original intent to determine the meaning of NBC-—none of those old cases are going to change. They done been decided. All a modern court has to do is read Wong and cut and paste.
That’s not just my arbitrary opinion. A court in November 2009 did exactly that. As probably most likely any other court would do.
And sadly, most of the people clamoring for Vattel over Blackstone have no idea that they are dissing on of the most conservative lawyers to walk the earth. The Eagle Forum knows.
parsy
I went back and grabbed this from WKA. This is about 3/4 of the way down the opinion or more, and after like 9 million cites and cases. The word “affirm” means that the NBC stuff is not CREATED by the 14th——but that it has been there all along, since the founding:
The words by themselves: “the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory”
Then the whole excerpt:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: 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, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides — seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher’s Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,
independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger [p694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.
Wong is like the “Rodney King Beatdown” of legal cases. They hit the cites and cases and background like cops working over Rodney King. On and on and on, page after page, they lay it out. I have never seen a case that had so much of a foundation laid on the prior law.
parsy