“Waite confirmed no such thing...”
“ who is the delusional one? Waite CONFIRMED at the time the Constitution was written there were 2 types of citizens, born & naturalized”
You must be delusional. This fact is not at issue and is a point I made in comment #100 on this thread a long time back ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2626433/posts?page=100#100
Once again, you make obvious points as if they are novel, and then make novel points that are at odds with basic understanding ...
“What Waite was saying is that under the common law that the framers were familiar with, children follow the nationality of the father”
LOL. I am amazed at how you could so misconstrue what Waite said, and mis-state the common law.
As stated by Tucker ...
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
- St. George Tucker,1803, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.
As James Madison said, it was place, not parenthood that was the primary determination of citizenship at birth in the US:
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”- James Madison, 1789
Certainly the WKA court came to an entirely different conclusion from your claims.
Of course you would HAVE to say that WKA is wrong, since they noted that “every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject”
You say: “You see, you try to use WKA as your source when WKA doesn’t even give the true picture of English subjectship.”
So your argument is with a Supreme Court ruling that has stood as legal precedent for over a century, and you make a claim that contradicts basic and clear statements of the most famous expositor of English common law, Blackstone, by arguing how unimportant the pipsqueak is. Brilliant.
And then this gem...
“We are a Nation built on natural law of “CITIZENDHSIP BY CONSENT” not “CONFERRED SUBJECTSHIP” that only exists in Monarchical, Dictatorships & Totalitarian societies.”
... except for that pesky contradiction to the above, the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment, which grants citizenship, not by consent, but automatically upon being born under the jurisdiction. totalitarian?!?
Meanwhile, nothing in Minor contradicts Wong Kim Ark. The other case, being born to alien parents, “there are doubts” said Minor, not to conclude one way OR THE OTHER.
You are left with pretending that Waite said something he didn’t say, while arguing that James Madison, Justice Swayne and a whole slew of other Justices in the past 150 years have been wrong.
Good luck with that. No wonder birther cases gets tossed out of court. You must as well try repealing the law of gravity.
It might behoove you to actually know who you are quoting. That quote is NOT that of Tucker, the statement comes from his appendix discussing naturalization & was written by a one, George Nicholas, Esq. in reference to the Alien & Sedition Laws and was quoted by Judge Iredel 2 Dallas 373
So basically, you didn't comprehend what you were reading which pertained to the laws of naturalization and 2ndly, you try to use the law of one state, but you don't actually show the text of the law Nicholas was referring to. Virginia's state law, the state of St George Tucker stated:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
Tucker's state adopted the age old common law that children follow the condition of the father and children born to alien fathers were themselves aliens at birth and thus the reason for the language of the Naturalization Act of 1790:
any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States
As far as that lame Madison quote you use. It is merely the 1st sentence of a very long speech on the floor of Congress that includes this statement as further explanation of what the topic was about, that a one, Mr Smith who was born before the revolution, thus his citizenship was not determined by birth, but by loyalty to the local society in which he was born into prior to the formation of the union. Hence, Smith was a native, not a natural born:
Mr. Smith founds his claims upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony...if he were not a minor, he became bound, by his own act, ... if he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature.”
Smith was making his claim that he was a citizen by mere fact of jus soli birthright, however Madison goes on to dispel that claim.
Madison further explains farther into his speech on the floor that Smith being a minor at the time of the Declaration of Independence... Smith's parents died before the revolution was over & the society adopted young Smith, raised him, educated him & sent him overseas to study under Franklin. Ramsay was a fool to try and get him ousted. He was bitter & that is just human nature, but Madison got it right on the law. Smith was a native citizen because the society recognized him as a citizen member of that society at the time of the revolution & his parents death made no change to that status.
So once again, WOSG, you have failed miserably by sheer ignorance to show the entire context of that copy & paste quote mined ignorance.