There IS no lack of Law on the matter! There NEVER was! That is the whole myth you are selling.
The fact is, Natural Born Citizenship is NOT law derived from British Common Law any more than it was AMERICAN law!
It stems from NATURAL LAW.
Get it?
There is Natural Law, which is common to ALL countries! A Person being Born in country to PARENTS WHO ARE IT’S citizens! Law of NATURE bub. NATURALLY that kid is a citizen of that nation and can be nothing else! Or are you going to argue that rain is unnatural as well? Care to take on gravity too? Come on, I DOG dare anyone...
Then there is Statutory Law which is individual to what ever nation you are talking about. They are written and designed by men for specific purposes. Yes, I include common law in that.
Natural law is a statement of reality. Statutory Law is a statement of RULES that a given society wants to have and it creates! Like outlawing 100 watt lightbulbs for heavens sake (rolls eyes) Really? Yea, it is just that simple.
This old newspaper article PROVES, (yeah that means go read it) that this subject was WIDELY discussed in the newspapers of the day, and was taking up BIG chunks of the 4 page newspaper at times. It was huge... A big deal! Discussed! This story does not present as a fluffy bunny human interest story here.
Whether lower courts wrote this that or the other law is irrelevant, because SCOTUS would eventually take up a case which SPECIFICALLY defines the term “Natural Born Citizen”, and dozens of cases over 136 years still cite to it. It is standing law today, it set precident. Yeah, Minor v. Happersett.
Curiousier and curiousier said Alice... the naysayers are far quieter than usual (and sadly repetitive in arguments which are getting weaker and more pathetic by the hour...), Agnew, check. Madison, check... next?
:)
The fact is, Natural Born Citizenship is NOT law derived from British Common Law any more than it was AMERICAN law!
It stems from NATURAL LAW.
Get it?
You mistake me. I am not trying to convince anyone that American Citizenship law is based on English Common law. I absolutely believe it is a REJECTION of English "Subject" law. I am saying that the courts who have cited English Common law have done so out of ignorance and habit as opposed to having an actual understanding of the foundation of American law on Citizenship.
I believe those courts (and lawyers such as Rawles) which have made these mistakes, did so out of ignorance, not knowledge. As for James Madison's defense of William Smith, he was referring to a time period prior to the Constitution, so in that Example English Common law was the standard of the time frame.
To sum it up, I am on your side.