Isn't that what we've been saying all along? And now we have Story saying it? Good. Another slap at CpnKook's house of cards.
Indeed it is. I can see justification for both sides of the Snug Harbor case. On one hand, New York changed hands once, then changed back again, leaving a very narrow window for being born on British soil. With Inglis not being certain of when he was born, it muddied the waters rather nicely.
They really had no choice but to find as they did because they couldn't prove he wasn't entitled to become a citizen.
On the other, I can see Story's view, too. If it's one thing the Founders were sticklers for, it was procedure. Intent was used to gauge the action, it wasn't an action in itself.
Inglis had plenty of time to make his intentions for claiming citizenship known, so it was his action to take to be recognized as one. The fact he didn't seem all that interested in it until an inheritance became involved seems rather shady, too....IMO.
No. It's what anti-Birthers have been saying all along. This is simply a recitation of the common law rule of Calvin's Case: persons born within the territory to aliens who are in amity (owning a temporary allegiance) are natural born subjects (citizens). There are classes of persons under the common law not "within the ligeance" of the sovereign: 1) ambassadors and 2) hostile invaders. When the common law was adapted in American a third case was presented: Indian tribes.
And now we have Story saying it?
You do. Oh, you do!!! He says it! I'll support you on that one. And he says right after "This is clear from the whole reasoning in Calvin's Case." Hey, Calvin's Case. You know, that seminal jus soli case, the one Lord Coke predicates heavily on natural law? Here it is, brought into U.S. jurisprudence by one of our most illustrious SCOTUS justices ever. Isn't that great???
Another slap at CpnKook's house of cards.
LOL. Yet, again, there isn't a bit of legal text or opinion you can't manage to misread.