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.
Yeah, *I'M* the one who isn't getting this.
Unlike the states, the United States does not proceed from a prior government. It is a new frame of government.
It is a new government founded on new ideas that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.
The foundational ideas of the United States are completely different from and incompatible with the ideas of England.
Instructions To Virginia Senators, January 11, 1800.There you have it - “Our dearest rights and our most important interests are threatened by the idea that the common law of England is in force under the government of the United States.The House proceeded to consider the instructions from the General Assembly of Virginia, to STEPHENS THOMPSON MASON and WILSON GARY NICHOLAS, senators from the state of Virginia, in the Congress of the United States. The instructions are as follows:
The General Assembly of the commonwealth of Virginia, though it entertains no doubt of your punctual performance of your duty, or of your faithful adherence to the great principles of constitutional law, and national policy, deems it incumbent on it to communicate its opinions, formed after the most mature deliberation, on certain subjects essentially connected, as it solemnly believes, with the dearest rights, and most important interests of the people.
...The General Assembly of Virginia would consider themselves unfaithful to the trust reposed in them, were they to remain silent, whilst a doctrine has been publicly advanced, novel in its principle and tremendous in its consequences: That the common law of England is in force under the government of the United States.
...Deeply impressed with these opinions, the general assembly of Virginia instruct the senators, and request the representatives from this State, in Congress, to use their best efforts —
To oppose the passing of any law, founded on, or recognising the, principle lately advanced, ‘that the common law of England is in force under the government of the United States,’ excepting from such opposition such particular parts of the common law as may have a sanction from the Constitution, so far as they are necessarily comprehended in the technical phrases which express the powers delegated to the government; .... and excepting, also, such other parts thereof as may be adopted by Congress as necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers expressly delegated.”
This audacious, barefaced and sweeping pretension to a system of law for the United States, a system not adopted by the legislature, a system beyond judicial power to adopt, would make judges into legislators since they would decide what parts of the common law would, and what would not, be properly applicable to the circumstances of the United States.”
This was affirmed by none other than James Madison, member of the General Assembly of Virginia, who voted in the affirmative.