You said: “. What happened after the founding era is IRRELEVANT to what were the meanings of concepts ratified in the founding era. Subsequent legal history is inconsequential regarding articles of the Constitution. Unless they are SPECIFICALLY repealed, Articles of the Document which CREATED THE COURTS are still in effect. Subsequent judges cannot rule them void, the articles have higher legal authority than does the judges. Congress cannot vote them void, the Document has higher legal authority than Congress.”
Again, this is proof you Vattle Birthers do not have a CLUE what you are talking about. Even that case that you are sooo proud of, the Minor people. . .even they said that courts have to do stuff to figure out what the Founding people meant by stuff.
Plus, the Wong people and the Indiana judges DID NOT “over-rule” the Constitution or the Founders. They just explained what the words meant.
Oh, I guess what you are trying sooo hard not to see and admit is, from the Supreme Court:
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 day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
Plus, you Vattle Birther’s inability to understand these few simple words is why conservative intellectuals are telling you to “shut up.” Maybe you should listen to them!!!
What you quoted is not the decision of SCOTUS. It is a citation from “Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.”
Who is this “Dicey” and what authority does he have in the US courts? Why should he be believed any more than somebody like Donofrio, for instance? If the court had cited Leo Donofrio, what weight would you give that citation in their decision?
The WKA decision introduces Dicey’s work thusly:
“Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:”
Propositions. Just like Leo Donofrio has offered propositions.
See, the Wong Kim Ark decision quotes everybody as if they all had the same weight, lived at the same time, were addressing the same issues, etc. Just sorting out the quotes and putting them in order of date, authority, and direct relevance could take me weeks.
I wonder what Mr Dicey has to say about both Britain and the US denying citizenship to Blacks born on their soil, subject to their jurisdiction - since he claims that citizenship has always for the last 3 centuries been automatic for anybody born on the soil of a particular country.