[Lmo56]

Nothing in your posting of Dicey contradicts what I wrote. In fact it repeatedly recognizes that under British common law, "a person born beyond the limits of the British dominions does not at his birth owe allegiance to the Crown" and makes no effort to contradict that.

You are nothing but a liar who cannot accept the fact that you are wrong.

Here is the link for the digital copy of Dicey's book for all to see:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Gz0yAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=digest+of+the+law+of+england+dicey&source=bl&ots=DVXRWTsEzi&sig=Y755-yMwEW7h8iV5vfUYXV6-n_I&hl=en&ei=_Jp9S6eUKtXSlAeHr8jTBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Punch in page 168 in the window above the cover. Pages 168-170 contain the relevent information about children born abroad being natural born subjects.

And, since you are SO enamored with the Ark decision, here is what Ark said:

" ... By the statute of 7 Anne (1708) c. 5, 3, 'the children of all natural-born subjects, born out of the ligeance of her majesty, her heirs and successors,'-explained by the statute of 4 Geo. II. (1731) c. 21, to mean all children born out of the ligeance of the crown of England, 'whose fathers were or shall be natural-born subjects of the crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children respectively,'-'shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural-born subjects of this kingdom, to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever."

[EnderWiggins]

"You are nothing but a liar who cannot accept the fact that you are wrong."

Wow!!! With such powerful and compelling arguments as those, how is it that you have not yet chased Obama right into Leavenworth prison?

I will be here waiting for those other arguments, though. You know the ones. The ones that actually have substance.