|
> Except America doesn’t recognize paternal citizenship as a binding obligation... Now, come on Mr Rogers. The legal standard used by the SCOTUS to determine Constitutional meaning are laws at the time of the Framing, not Modern-Day Law. Wong Kim Ark v. US tells you this quite clearly ...
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”So ... FROM WHERE would "Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that" come? Certainly NOT 19th or 20th Century immigration law. That's not how the Constitution is interpreted ... certainly not by today's Roberts SCOTUS Court. Furthermore, there was no Federal requirement for an Oath of Abjuration until the Naturalization Act of 1795 — seven years after the Constitution (and Art II, § 1, Clause 5) was penned. "Paternal citizenship", as you call it, was very binding, as the Framers would have had serious doubts as to whom you were loyal ... the King or the USA. Because under common law, it was understood that an infant could not defend itself without the father, who in turn was protected by the King. As the British were in the "business" of foreign colonization, it mattered not WHERE in the world you were born — as a British subject, this was (and is) your birth right. The King owed you his protection; you owed the Crown your eternal loyalty. At the time of the Framing, this concept of "paternal citizenship" (and a man's honor) was tied to the FATHER, not the mother ... as seen in the United States Naturalization Act of 1790:
|
