OK.
Lets look at the exact quote.
I have not read the full case, so do not know the particulars. But I’m fairly good with the English language.
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. “
What did he say?
First, he does make a reference to common law. Whether it is British common law or American common law, he does not state. So to say that this is an absolute reference to British common law is NOT supported by what he said.
Second.
“it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
OK, we can all agree with that.
Third.
“These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
OK, we can all agree to that.
Fourth. Here comes the monkey bar.
“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”
Hmm. He doesn’t say which authorities. But he does here admit that there is a difference of opinion somewhere. Now he has absolutely said by the third part here that people born in the country of citizen parents WERE INDEED natural born citizens. By his statement saying “it was never doubted” he’s saying the court agrees with at least this part of the interpretation.
Fifth
“As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
Once again he is confirming that persons born of parents who are citizens ARE natural born citizens, he is also repeating that there is a dispute about the second class, “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”
Finally...
“For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
OK. You were just TOLD by the source you CONTINUALLY QUOTE that the court DID NOT RESOLVE THE ISSUE AT THIS TIME.
The court basically said DO NOT DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS about the class of people who are currently the issue, ie children (possibly) born of alien parents.
The entire point of him saying that there was “doubt” shifts the burden of proof, and the court said it was simply not going to deal with it now, and the ball is back in your (or someone elses) court.
... and the entire cite flies in the face of any attempt to classify it as having resulted from any understanding under English common law. I’ve thrown in the towel as far as trying to get this across to our very persistent FRiend.
The English common law would have every individual born in the realm a natural born subject. Waite casts doubt upon the very understanding that our FRiend would have us accept uncritcally as the very foundation of the term of art.
There was and clearly is still an element of heredity involved in natural born citizenship, in addition to birth within the Republic.
Fair enough. I accept this. But to say that it was "something other than English" common law is extremely weak, and to say that "common law" is the "law of nations" is not supported by any of sourcery's sources.
But he does here admit that there is a difference of opinion somewhere.
Absolutely true. de Vattel's "les naturels" and English common law's "natural-born subject" are not defined the same way; there is a conflict.
The entire point of him saying that there was “doubt” shifts the burden of proof, and the court said it was simply not going to deal with it now, and the ball is back in your (or someone elses) court.
Thank for your thoughtful and unbiased commentary. You're right; the ball is back in "my" court. Who do I pass it to? Easy: Justice Gray and Wong Kim Ark. Justice Gray analyzes English common law and concludes that "the same rule was in effect" at the time of ratification. Five other Justices joined his opinion, none of whom was appointed by President Arthur. Wong Kim Ark was never overruled, and Judges from lower courts have cited his analysis to conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural [*29] born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.
The author of the above quote, Judge Brown, was appointed by Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana, the same governor who yesterday defunded Planned Parenthood in his state. Let there be no doubt: Judge Brown is not "protecting" anyone.