Replies

The Constitution of the State of New York in 1777 explicitly defines English Common Law as the basis for the State’s jurisprudence. Habeaus corpus, jury trials, etc. were all elements of English Common Law.

The Ark case in fact would argue that Rubio is a natural born citizen, because in fact it found that Ark was a natural born citizen.

Ark was born in the U.S. to Chinese parents who left the U.S. to go back to China when he was a young child. When he tried to get back into the U.S., during a period where there was strict limits on Chinese immigration, he argued that since he was born in the U.S. he was a U.S. citizen by birth.

The Supreme Court agreed with him. And in that case, the Supreme Court established that there are two, and two only, ways to be a U.S. citizen: you are born a citizen, or you are naturalized a citizen.

Wonderful. That's one state. If we'd lived in the United States of New York, you might have a meaningful point. The Supreme Court used a case in New York however to explain that the United States relies elsewhere for citizenship.

The facts disclosed in this case, then, lead irresistibly to the conclusion that it was the fixed determination of Charles Inglis the father, at the declaration of independence, to adhere to his native allegiance. And John Inglis the son must be deemed to have followed the condition of his father, and the character of a British subject attached to and fastened on him also, which he has never attempted to throw off by any act disaffirming the choice made for him by his father.

- - -

If born after the 4th of July 1776, and before the 15th of September of the same year, when the British took possession of New York, his infancy incapacitated him from making any election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his father, subject to the right of disaffirmance in a reasonable time after the termination of his minority; which never having been done, he remains a British subject, and disabled from inheriting the land in question.

The Ark case in fact would argue that Rubio is a natural born citizen, because in fact it found that Ark was a natural born citizen.

No, actually it didn't. The Ark case only found Ark to be a citizen of the United States. The Ark court relied on Minor for its definition of NBC: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. That's why it affirms that the holding in Minor is based on both jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria.

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ...

You misunderstand the decision. It says there are only two ways to become citizens UNDER the 14th amendment. This court ruled that the 14th amendment only applied to former slaves and to resident aliens. It said the 14th amendment did NOT define natural-born citizenship. It noted that because of Minor's decision, the Supreme Court was " committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment ..."