Au Contraire, mon frere:
1. common law takes precedence only when there is no STATUTE on the matter.
***
READ Wheaton v. Peters (January Term 1834), Minor v. Happersett (March 29, 1875), Smith v. Alabama (January 30, 1886), and United States v. Wong Kim Ark (March 28, 1898):
SCOTUS has ruled that there IS NO Common Law in the United States, BUT it has ALSO ruled that Common Law ought to be consulted in cases where original intent necessarily needs to be construed.
2. The opinions and wishes of our founders relate only to the law at the time of our founders.
***
BULL HOCKEY !!!
IF this were true, you WOULD NOT have Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona, and more recently the District of Columbia v. Heller.
3. The Constitution does NOT prophibit Congress from setting rules for citizenship, as long as those rules do not conflict with the Constitution.
***
READ Article I, Section VIII of the United States Constitution:
” ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ...”.
Congress CAN ONLY establish NATURALIZATION laws - it CANNOT define natural born citizenship.
It is for SCOTUS to decide what natural born citizenship means, if or when they get around to it. They will have to consult Common Law, the Founding Fathers’ original intnet and common sense in order to arrive at a decision ...
For, in Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137, 1803):
” ... It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178] So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty ...
... If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply ...
... Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
HOWEVER, FWIW, English Common Law had been revised several times to confer natural born citizenship to children born abroad or on the high seas to English citizens who were in service to their Sovreign.
THEREFORE, SCOTUS would MOST LIKELY state that McCain was a natural born citizen ...
THEREFORE, SCOTUS would MOST LIKELY state that McCain was a natural born citizen ...
Assuming that English common law regarding royal subjects inspired men seeking to break from the monarchy, as far as their own citizenship in a new polity that was regarded as a group of rebel colonies by that monrachy, is not logical.
There are ample cites demonstrating a certain reverence among the Framers for de Vattel in several Constitutional matters, and direct quotes from the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, to validate the notion, that the definitive understanding of the term natural born citizen was drawn from The Law Of Nations.
“Natural Born Citizen” means “Citizen at Birth” do seem to keep changing the argument.
I admit that there is some, small argument against my position, but my position is legally and historically sound.
However, there is NO argument that Congress has the ability to pass laws concerning citizenship, both NATURALIZATION and NATURAL BORN!
Your legal opinions are crabbed, twisted and silly.
The Constitution does NOT prohibit Congress from passing laws on the entire matter of citizenship. IMHO, this is PRECISELY why the founders used the term “Natural Born Citizen” -— to make SURE that Congress would never grant RETROACTIVE citizenship to someone that was not, otherwise, qualified for POTUS!
Look at your own post:
” ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ...”.
Congress CAN ONLY establish NATURALIZATION laws - it CANNOT define natural born citizenship.
It is for SCOTUS to decide what natural born citizenship means, if or when they get around to it. They will have to consult Common Law, the Founding Fathers’ original intnet and common sense in order to arrive at a decision ...
That the Constitution Does provide for Congress to make laws concerning Naturalization also, IN NO WAY prohibits Congress from making laws concerning Natural Born Citizen definitions, EITHER!
(The Constitution only prevents RETROACTIVE laws, in this regard!)
Congress is a CO-EQUAL branch of government.
That you give 100% of the power to interpret the Constitution to the Courts is NOT at ALL a conservative position.
The Supreme Court ruled that IT had sole authority to interpret the Constitution?
So what?
The Congress could simply pass a law, by simply majority, telling the Courts that they do NOT have jurisdiction over most of the stuff that the Courts have ruled upon!
You worship at the alter of the Courts.
You ALSO do not seem to care about “unintended consequences”
These traits, of yours, are troubling.
Your traits put you outside of Conservative jurisprudence.