Again I will say that my point is not that Scots would want to live in England, it's that they would greatly resent being told they have no right to own land in England because they aren't Subjects of England even though they are subjects of her King.
This had no applicability to the common Scot at the time. It only pertained the landed gentry who had been bestowed ownership of English land by the King of England. Scots were subjects of the King of Scotland, not the King of England. One person can be king of multiple kingdoms, each with its own laws, and he rules each separately by the laws of each. English and Scottish owed allegiance to the same person, but not the same king, as royal things go. James was James I or James VI, depending on who was counting.
It had nothing whatever to do with Scottish law.
Why would the law of Scotland have any effect on the ownership of English lands?
It wouldn't, just as the law of England would not have any effect on the English ownership of Scottish lands. The effect of two kings and one person with a crown affects things royal such as bequeathing royal patents for his land.
Technically, the owner of all the public land in Canada is the Queen of Canada.
It has not a single damn thing to do with the right of the United States to define its citizenship in any way it finds to its liking.
It is relevant to how such things came to be the way they are. Clearly, had Calvin's case gone the other way, Jus Soli would not be the established idea that it is now.
I have already dated the law of jus soli and jus sanguinis back to the 13th century.
"Dating as far back as the thirteenth century, the ‘subject’, as position and identity, was legally defined through a complicated mixture of both ‘soil and blood’." See my #37.
The previously cited De Natis Ultra Mare (Status of Children Born Abroad Act of 1350) 25 Edw III. Stat. 2. was from the 25th year of the reign of King Edward III. Apparently, it remains if effect in England. That is jus sanguinis in England in 1350.
I say again, and again, United States citizenship, as with the citizenship of every nation on earth, is a domestic determination relying solely on its own domestic laws. People running around before there was a United States did not decide what law would be used in the United States.
You are not expressing the law. You are expressing a personal disagreement with the actual law, or the results of the actual law.
You may make believe your personal opinion overrides Supreme Court opinions, but it doesn't. The law is neither good nor bad. It is not a statement of waht is moral nor immoral. It is whatever it says it is, as interpreted by the courts. The law can be as dumb as a post and it is still the law. The Fugitive Slave Clause was once the law of the land. It was never a statement of morality, but it was undeniably constitutional law.
At the time the 14th Amendment was being adopted, Chinese persons were ineligible for naturalization. They had no pathway to citizenship. The exclusion act was not repealed until 1943. And yet, it is an incontrovertible fact that Chinese children, born in the United States of foreign parents ineligible to be naturalized, were natural born United States citizens. In debate, this was certified as the deliberate intent of the proposed Amendment, and later the U.S. Supreme Court held this was the effect of the adopted Amendment.
You must appeal to old foreign laws, or claims of laws, because you know absolutely that United States law is contrary to your desired result. Birther arguments, presented to courts, ended with predictable results.
In Kerchner et al v. Obama et al, D.N.J. 1:09-CV-00253, the case was dismissed by the District Court and Complainant appealed to the 3rd Circuit court. The 3rd Circuit court affirmed the lower court and in judgment assessed costs against Appellant. The U.S. Supreme court denied cert.
On page 7 of 3rd Circuit precedential opinion, [emphasis added]
Because we have decided that this appeal is frivolous, we will order counsel for Appellants to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed.
And, in the Judgment, the Court assessed costs against Appellants.
JUDGMENT This cause came on to be considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and was submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on June 29, 2010.
On consideration whereof, it is now hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court entered October 21, 2009, be and the same is hereby affirmed. Costs taxed against Appellants. All of the above in accordance with the opinion of this Court.
This had no applicability to the common Scot at the time. It only pertained the landed gentry who had been bestowed ownership of English land by the King of England. It would have eaten on the landed gentry, and it would have eaten on the commoner as a perception that Scots are regarded as lesser than Englishmen.
It has not a single damn thing to do with the right of the United States to define its citizenship in any way it finds to its liking.
I think it has quite a lot to do with why English Common law is perceived to be jus soli, and from thence, why people believe the same ideas were incorporated into American law.
The rooting of Jus Soli in English common law is not so solid as many would have us believe and appears to have been done in an effort to avoid a severe crises of Union.
The two dissenting Judges (In defiance of the King adamantly wanting this specific outcome) is telling, and it implies the rest went along for reasons other than this being their understanding of the law.
Law was politicized back then too.
Were there legal claims for the contrary opinion? It seems there was.
I say again, and again, United States citizenship, as with the citizenship of every nation on earth, is a domestic determination relying solely on its own domestic laws. People running around before there was a United States did not decide what law would be used in the United States.
Well now, I am told that the US follows English Common law regarding the matter of citizenship. It would seem then that whatever English common law says on the matter is what American law adopted. (If the theory is correct that we adopted English law regarding "citizenship." )
You may make believe your personal opinion overrides Supreme Court opinions, but it doesn't.
Don't make this about me. I'm just an observer. And if I observe that the Supreme Court is in error, it is usually because I have some facts at my disposal that demonstrate them to be in error.
They do not speak "ex cathedra" because they have power. People in power can be factually wrong too. There power does not give them infallibility.
And yet, it is an incontrovertible fact that Chinese children, born in the United States of foreign parents ineligible to be naturalized, were natural born United States citizens.
For various meanings of the term, but we see men being called "women" today, but it still isn't true.
You must appeal to old foreign laws, or claims of laws, because you know absolutely that United States law is contrary to your desired result.
Much of what we call law nowadays is nonsensical crap that is at odds with reality. That it is "the law" does not make it true, it simply means the powers will force people to pretend it is true.
Again, I draw a distinction between reality and subjective opinion.
In Kerchner et al v. Obama et al
I have absolutely no respect for modern court decisions. Modern courts are a joke, and nothing they say can be accepted as real without checking the background facts yourself.
The answer to this question of what the Founders meant by "natural born citizen" does not lie in the 21rst century, it lies in the 18th century.
*That* is where the facts can be found, not in modern clown courts.