First, Wong Kim Ark v. United States ONLY declared that Ark was a citizen.
Second, it is abundantly clear in Ark that Justice Gray was promoting HIS interpretation of "natural born citizen", as he found from English Common Law - to the extent that he bastardized, exagerated, and even flat out lied about the citations. He obviously felt that Ark WAS natural born, but lacked the votes to get that opinion - so he settled for citizen under the 14th Amendment.
NOW, lets see what Calvin's Case 1608, the seminal case on British subjectship, [cited in Ark] REALLY said:
"... 3. There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king. 2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other ..."
Actual obedience meant permanent allegiance [or permanent ligeance], and not just temporary obedience due by aliens to the sovreign while they resided in the country.
Furthermore, [although cited, but trivialized in Ark], Dicey's "A Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws" stated:
(1) "British subject" means any person who owes permanent allegiance [See Note 1] to the Crown.
(2) "Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.
(3) "Naturalized British subject" means any British subject who is not a natural-born British subject.
Note 1: "Permanent" allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes " temporary " allegiance to the Crown.
Additionally, Ark quoted Blackstone [which is a commentary on English Law - and NOT the law itself], but did NOT expound further on the following:
" ... The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such ...
Notice that Blackstone qualifies their status be writing "generally speaking". He does not state it to specifically exclude the children of aliens who are claimed as natural born subjects of their fathers' country, but he STRONGLY implies it further on by also stating that no subject can owe two [2] allegiances to two [2] different sovreigns.
NOW, your own words betray you ... "You need to look at the law in effect at the time, and as decided in court cases during the years since.
The Founding Fathers had been British subjects - and were, thus, brought up under British Law.
They were also aware of the British Nationality Act of 1730 [which governed British citizenship at the time of the American Revolution] that stated:
" ... the Children of all natural-born Subjects, born out of the Ligeance of her said late Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, should be deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural-born ... May it please your most Excellent Majesty that it may be declared and enacted, and be it declared and enacted by the Children of natural-born Subjects born out of the Allegiance of the Crown, declared to be natural-born ... That all Children born out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such Ligeance, 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 and may, by virtue of the said recited Clause in the said Act of the seventh Year of the Reign of her said late Majesty, and of this present Act, be adjudged and taken to be, and all such Children are hereby declared to be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever ..."
Furthermore, there is John Jay's letter to George Washington in 1787, stating:
"... Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen ..."
There was NOT MUCH “American Statute Law” in place at the time. When the separation from Great Britain was complete, ALMOST ALL of the law used in the United States was British Law [except that which we disagreed with].
The lawyers amongst the Founding Fathers were trained either at English Law Schools, American Universities [which taught English Law], or studied under established attornies [who, themselves, were trained at English or American Universities that taught English Law].
Therefore, a "natural born citizen" is born within the dominion of the United States and owes a single, permanent allegiance to the United States at the moment of his birth. That single, permanent allegiance is conveyed through the parents. The only way the parents could convey such allegince was for them to be citizens [natural born or naturalized] themselves.
Since the British Nationality Act of 1730 [and subsequent British Nationality Act of 1948] conferred natural born subject status upon children born outside of the British dominion - there IS NO WAY the Founding Fathers would consider Obama to be natural born - citizen, yes ... natural born, no.
Given this, in tota, there is only one reasonable definition that the Founding Fathers intended and that is: A natural born citizen is born within the dominion of the United States AND of two [2] citizen parents, who each owe a single allegiance to the United States.
BTW: There is no SCOTUS case law that defines "natural born citizen". The fact that an Indiana Court did is moot - that court is subserviant to SCOTUS and SCOTUS has never ruled on it ...
“BTW: There is no SCOTUS case law that defines “natural born citizen”. The fact that an Indiana Court did is moot - that court is subserviant to SCOTUS and SCOTUS has never ruled on it ...”
Doesn’t the USSC in Perkins v Elg back into the NBC definition by declaring Elizabth Elg not only a citizen because of her birth in the US, but also a Natural Born Citizen because both her parents were US (naturalized) citizens? (1933)
You are correct in that the SCOTUS has never ruled on NBC as applied to the Requirements for POTUS.....still there are many instances where they refered to the term and gave some understanding as to what NBC should mean....
Your comment?
“Since the British Nationality Act of 1730 [and subsequent British Nationality Act of 1948] conferred natural born subject status upon children born outside of the British dominion - there IS NO WAY the Founding Fathers would consider Obama to be natural born - citizen, yes ... natural born, no”
By that definition, naturalized Americans and Americans born to parents born in England were British subjects, and could be seized and made to serve in the British Army and Navy. And that was one of the causes of the War of 1812 - the US rejected that approach.
As you quoted, “(2) “Natural-born British subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.”
Anyone born in the USA becomes an American citizen at birth, and by birth owes allegiance to the USA, unless their parents were visiting military or diplomats. Further, the Supreme Court has ruled that no actions taken by your parents can rob you of that citizenship - that once born in the USA, you need to take some positive, deliberate steps to reject citizenship.
If Barry had applied to citizenship in the UK, he could have become a citizen. This ‘automatic citizenship’ crap is crap - we fought a war over it. If a government cannot draft you by right of that ‘automatic citizenship’, then you are not.
If Barry had moved with his parents to Kenya and rejected US citizenship, he would be Kenyan. If they moved to the UK and Barry chose to live there, he could be drafted in the Royal Army. But he didn’t and he can’t. But the issue is where his natural allegiance lies based on birth - and earth to birthers, it is NOT the UK!
And it is not Kenya, since the Kenyan Constitution requires someone like Obama to reject American citizenship as an adult and formally claim Kenyan citizenship.
I know you disagree. That is OK.
But 50 states, the US voters, every member of Congress and every court that has heard a birther case agrees with me. The US Supreme Court refused to block Barry’s certification as President...they didn’t even hear the case.
So at this point, the burden of proof is on you. You need to show the US Constitution, beyond any reasonable doubt, meant to reject NBC for someone born in the USA with one foreigner as a parent.
It isn’t enough to say it is a possible interpretation - I agree with you it is a possible one. You need to show that no reasonable person could believe any other interpretation is reasonable, and thus the election overturned and Barry removed from the office given him by the states, voters, Electoral College and every member of Congress.
Just as your interpretation is possible, so is mine...which isn’t mine at all, but one taken from the courts. And the courts have no business overruling a national election based on “Well, we think this interpretation is a bit stronger than the other one...”
If a reasonable man can accept the Indiana court’s ruling, then you’ve lost. And the ruling IS reasonable. They could have ruled the other way and also been reasonable. There are two reasonable interpretation of the phrase - and you cannot overturn an election based on judicial whim.