|
If you are going to bring up US v. Wong Kim Ark, you should mention that the majority opinion actually implies that Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States (assuming he was born here) ... "It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present ... " Just as the 2008 DC v. Heller SCOTUS Opinion on “to keep and bear arms” overturned nearly 70 years of Lower Court Opinions and Local/State laws stemming from the badly-written and incomplete 1939 US v Miller SCOTUS Opinion, a future SCOTUS Opinion will clarify Justice Gray's 1898 US vs. Kim Wong Ark Opinion and his historical analysis therein. See, the quote you offered, "It thus clearly appears that by the law of England ..." was first published in the unrefined 1896 First Edition of A.W. Dicey's "Conflict of Law." Justice Gray used the two-year-old First Edition version of Dicey's book in his 1898 US vs. Kim Wong Ark analysis (Gray used other weak references to make his point in his 1898 US v. Ark Opinion, too, like Binney's 1853 "Alienigenae of the United States" ... a pamphlet, LOL). However, in Dicey's Second Edition of "Conflict of Law" published in 1908 and subsequent editions, you will NOT find that quote from Dicey. Dicey "corrected" himself later ... which is likely why Dicey’s “Conflict of Laws” has only been referenced EIGHT times in ALL of the searchable US Supreme Court Opinions on record. You'll find that Dicey, after further analysis, said THIS in his 1908 Second Edition of “Conflict of Laws”:
"A child whose father's father (paternal grandfather) was born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject, even though the child's father and the child himself were not born within the British dominions." (This DIRECT IMPACTS Obama and his lineage to his British father). In 1932, an older and wiser A. W. Dicey wrote: “To any critic of Blackstone, as to any student of English law, I unhesitatingly give this advice: Begin your study by reading Blackstone's Commentaries. Keep in mind that the book describes English law as it stood towards the end of the eighteenth century.” This methodology has been re-affirmed by the SCOTUS and Constitutional expert time and time again to determine the Framer's Original Intent. As attorney and law expert John W. Guendelsberger pointed out in 1992 regarding US v Wong Kim Ark (169 U.S. at 653): “In particular, the Court noted the Constitution's requirement that the President be a “natural-born citizen,” a condition whose meaning could be derived only by reference to English common law in existence at the time” – see US v Wong Kim Ark (1898), referencing Minor v. Happersett (1874). Blackstone has been referenced thousands of times by the US Supreme Court to define the Framer's Original Intent. Blackstone's Commentaries has stood the test of time.
So ... what does Blackstone say about British subjects and Allegiance?
|
