Firstly, my apologies for taking so long to get back to you on this. I just went through a very unpleasant week with a norovirus and was unable to do much of anything. I finally started getting over it this last Saturday, and by Monday I was able to resume doing stuff.
You dismiss the courts.
I dismiss "argumentum ad verecundiam."
But regarding Modern courts especially, they have shown themselves to be morons and liars, and why any thinking man who's aware of their logical/factual gymnastics might still have respect for them is a mystery to me.
You dismiss court precedent which has repeatedly been reaffirmed and has stood for well over a century.
"Precedent" is the belief that someone at the beginning of the chain got something right, but other than "respect" for "authority", it offers nothing in the way of proof of correctness.
Your misstatements of the English common law, and misconstruing of Calvin's Case are egregious errors.
I'm not sure what "misstatements" I have made regarding English common law, and I didn't misconstrue anything about Calvin's case, I merely point out what I consider very good evidence that it appears likely it was decided specifically to do what the King needed done rather than as an objective interpretation of what the English law was understood to be in that era.
Your understanding of the law is bass ackwards. The 14th Amendment has controlled the citizenship of all born in the United States since its adoption. It is all prior crap which is irrelevant because anything inconsistent with the 14th Amendment was rendered null and void. No other law can change any provision in the Constitution.
My recollection is that you admitted the 14th has nothing to do with "natural born citizen" and I agreed with you about that. My point is why try to understand "natural born citizen" by initiating an argument based on 14th amendment man made citizenship?
Citizens are members of, and owe allegiance to, a political community whose members are the sovereign.
And where/when did that idea get established?
As you reject the application of United States law to United States domestic affairs,
Now that is a strawman statement. I said no such thing.
In everything you wrote after your last quote, all I see from you are excerpts for things that didn't happen in 1776-1787 time period, so they don't have any bearing on what the founders meant when they wrote "natural born citizen."
I'm interested in root causes, not precedents. You need to go to the roots, not the leaves and flowers.
You should start with John Jay's letter to Washington. Actually you should start with our first official document. Why is "subject" changed to "citizen"?
Where did this word "citizen" creep into the English language? The dictionaries of the era say it mean "person who lived in a city/town."
No indication that it means member of a nation.
A dictionary of the English language. by Samuel Johnson, 1768.
You dismiss the courts.
I dismiss "argumentum ad verecundiam."
Argumentum ad Verecundiam (argument from inappropriate authority) is an appeal to the testimony of an authority outside of the authority's special field of expertise.
The U.S. Supreme Court is NOT an inappropriate authority for the interpretation of United States laws.
YOUR OPINIONS, contrary to the official opinions of the Courts, are the argument of an authority outside the authority's special field of expertise. You are arguing YOUR OPINIONS, and dismissing the Constitution, laws and court opinions contrary to YOUR OPINIONS. I am not here to argue your opinions are not your opinions. You are free to have any opinion, but the Supreme Court opinion in Wong Kim Ark is an expression of the law, and your opinion is not.
[DiogenesLamp #49] 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. [DiogenesLamp #49] I have absolutely no respect for modern court decisions. Modern courts are a joke
[DiogenesLamp #50] I give no credence to the opinions of modern courts,
[DiogenesLamp #50] We have seen courts putting out one ridiculous opinion after another, and as a consequence they have lost credibility with rational thinking people
[DiogenesLamp #50] United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Ah yes, the Plessey v Ferguson court. Well they certainly wouldn't have gotten anything else wrong, would they?
You may consider the Supreme Court to be in error, think it is a joke, give it no credence, and see their opinions as ridiculous. That does not change the fact that their opinions state what the law is. Roe says abortion is lawful and constitutional. You may hold that the court is wrong, but look about, and abortion is legal in all fifty states.
The Constitution states that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Nothing prior to 14A, inconsistent with 14A, can exert any legal force in the United States. Citizenship is a matter of Federal jurisdiction. English common law does not apply. No foreign law applies.
There are two classes of citizen, and two only — naturalized, and natural born citizens.
Federal law states who, born outside the United States, is born a citizen of the United States. It is not a recent concept.
The Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103) provided:
And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
As you reject the application of United States law to United States domestic affairs,
Now that is a strawman statement. I said no such thing.
You have been given the law. You do not agree with the law. You have dismissed the law and the courts. You have interposed your opinion.
I will argue the law. I will not argue that your opinion is not your opinion. I will argue that your opinion is not the law.
You have yet to argue UNITED STATES law. United States citizenship is determined solely and exclusively by UNITED STATES law.