You gotta be crazy to think the founders intended this.

Yup. Nor would we have needed the 14th amendment. According to Jeff, the 14th amendment is redundant because the law ALWAYS meant what the 14th amendment says.

That's true, except for the fact that SOME people tried to deny the rights of citizenship to those to whom they legally belonged.

Black people. The freed slaves.

Or do you not understand the entire point of the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment?

Probably not.

In any event, the members of Congress who passed both stated on MULTIPLE occasions that, according to their understanding, they weren't creating any new law on citizenship. They were passing a law that was SIMPLY DECLARATIVE OF THE LAW AS IT ALREADY WAS.

The fact that there were SOME people - people like YOU, in fact - who denied and refused to honor the law AS IT ALREADY WAS, is why Congress passed laws making things so crystal-clear that people couldn't get away with denying and twisting the law.

And yet... here we are. A hundred and fifty years later. And we have YOU as a poster child for the extreme lengths that some people will go to, making literally dozens of fallacious arguments, in order to claim the law is something it is not and never was.

That's true, except for the fact that SOME people tried to deny the rights of citizenship to those to whom they legally belonged.

If it is already the law, how is making it the law going to help?

Or do you not understand the entire point of the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment?

It was intended to create Anchor babies and birth tourism, right?

And yet... here we are. A hundred and fifty years later. And we have YOU as a poster child for the extreme lengths that some people will go to, making literally dozens of fallacious arguments, in order to claim the law is something it is not and never was.

You are reminding me that the 14th amendment was created to insure citizenship for newly freed slaves, while you are stridently defending the idea of transient aliens becoming citizens, and you have the nerve to suggest *I'M* making a fallacious argument?

No Jeff, neither previous American Law, nor the 14th amendment was EVER intended to make citizens of the children of transient aliens. That is not only not supported by the debates on the 14th amendment, it is just plain stupid.

the Supreme Court stated... "everyone born in the U.S. regardless of their parents' status [except for the historical exceptions of children of foreign ambassadors, foreign royalty, invading armies] WAS a U.S. citizen at birth."

Which case?

If it is already the law, how is making it the law going to help?

Because there were people who pretended it WASN'T the law. Just like you, except at least you're not trying to make a general argument that black people aren't citizens and shouldn't have the rights of citizens, and can't even become citizens.

You are reminding me that the 14th amendment was created to insure citizenship for newly freed slaves, while you are stridently defending the idea of transient aliens becoming citizens, and you have the nerve to suggest *I'M* making a fallacious argument?

I "have the nerve" to "suggest" that you're making a fallacious argument, because you ARE.

Actually, let me put it a bit stronger than that.

You've been completely BUSTED making literally DOZENS of fallacious arguments, all to support your one big BS claim that it takes birth on US soil, plus two citizen parents, for a person to be a natural born citizen and eligible to be elected President.

In the early days, when you started coming out with all of this BS, it sounded fairly plausible, because you were dealing with people who hadn't gone and read the original sources for themselves, and taken a good look at your claims to see whether they actually matched up with our history and our law.

We are well beyond the early days. Now we know, and have clear documentation, of a bunch of different things.

First of all, neither you nor anyone else has ever been able to produce even one single statement of any early authority ever linking Vattel's book with our American rules for citizenship. Such a statement apparently does not exist.

Secondly, every known early authority of any real note (David Ramsay and Samuel Roberts are not early authorities of any real note) contradicts you.

Third, we now have a long list of fallacious arguments made by you and others of your ilk, and we've seen WHY they're fallacious.

Fourth, it is clear that Minor v Happersett doesn't say what you claim it says, that Wong Kim Ark says what you claim it doesn't say, and that every court in existence affirms what you deny: that it doesn't take birth on US soil plus citizen parents for a person to be a natural born citizen.

No Jeff, neither previous American Law, nor the 14th amendment was EVER intended to make citizens of the children of transient aliens. That is not only not supported by the debates on the 14th amendment, it is just plain stupid.

Perhaps we're making some progress here. You seem to be shifting your claim to say that children of transient aliens are not natural born citizens.

As I've said quite a few times before, I think there's some argument to be made for that. Of course you misrepresent my position (again) and claim that I'm claiming the 14th Amendment was "intended to make citizens of the children of transient aliens." And of course, I've never made any such claim.

On the contrary, I've said there's some argument for that position. I think the argument is fairly weak, but still, there's some argument for such a position. I think there is also some argument to be made against the children of illegal aliens.

In both cases, of course, if BOTH parents are some combination of transient or illegal aliens.

But what is absolutely clear is that if someone is born on US soil to parents who live here, whether those parents are themselves US citizens or not, that person is legally and historically a natural born citizen.

Why is this important? Because it's the TRUTH. It's an accurate representation of our history. It's an accurate representation of our law. It's an accurate representation of what our Founding Fathers and Framers set up in this country. And it's an accurate representation of our Constitution, rather than you or I or someone else misrepresenting our Constitution and trying to twist it to say something it never said.

I am not tolerant of people twisting the Constitution and claiming it said stuff it never said.

The Constitution never said that the federal government is all powerful. The Constitution doesn't allow for Obama to do a lot of the stuff he's trying to do. The Constitution protects our inalienable rights, such as the right against unreasonable search and seizure. The right to free speech. The right to freedom of conscience. The right to life. The right to keep and bear arms.

If the Constitution means what you'd like it mean, then it means whatever Ashley over there, or Frank and Tom, or Barack and Michelle, want it to mean.

It doesn't. It means what it means.

Which case?

US v Wong Kim Ark.

I think there's room in that decision to argue that it may not include children of temporary visitors and children of illegal aliens. Not a great deal of room, but some.

But there's no room to argue that children born here of resident alien parents aren't born United States citizens, because that's the precise case that USvWKA decided.

US v Wong Kim Ark.

I don't see it in Gray's explicitly limiting ruling:

"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative"

The question before the court was not only if Wong Kim Ark should have citizenship because of native-birth. There were OTHER NAMED AGREED UPON FACTORS and FACTS on which the ruling was explicitly based.

The Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark's PARENTS' status was a determining factor in deciding that Wong Kim Ark met the 14th Amendment's required "subject to the jurisdiction" status.

Gray had the perfect opportunity to redefine US born citizen and even 'natural born citizen' as native-born without regard to parents' status. But after all the verbal meandering and quotes, he specifically did not do so.

Gray ruled Wong Kim Ark a U.S. citizen based upon the condition of his permanently domiciled parents, among other specifically named facts.

there's no room to argue that children born here of resident alien parents aren't born United States citizens, because that's the precise case that USvWKA decided.

Close but not quite. The ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was predicated on birth in the U.S. to parents permanently domiciled in the U.S.

Obama's father wasn't permanently domiciled in the U.S. in 1961, or ever.

Close but not quite. The ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was predicated on birth in the U.S. to parents permanently domiciled in the U.S.

Yes, although they didn't quite mean by "permanently domiciled" what you might expect:

The case was submitted to the decision of the court upon the following facts agreed by the parties:

...That, at the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicil and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid.

That said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark continued to reside and remain in the United States until the year 1890, when they departed for China.

That during all the time of their said residence in the United States as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.

So at the time of the case, and in fact 8 years before, Wong's parents had already abandoned their "permanent" domicile here in the US, and gone back to China for good.

Obama's father wasn't permanently domiciled in the U.S. in 1961, or ever.

I would agree with you on that. He was here on a student visa.

If BOTH of his parents had been foreigners here on student visas, then I think there would be SOME argument for the case that he's not a natural born citizen. I think the argument would be a pretty good one from the common-sense point of view, but a fairly weak one from the legal point of view.

The latter is because the long-standing legal precedents never had an exception for the children of temporary alien visitors. Those children were natural born subjects just like the children of permanently domiciled aliens, because they were in the country "in obedience to" and "under the protection of" the government (which in old days meant the king).

If you look at it from the legal point of view, because of the precedents, there is a spectrum of certainty as to whether people are natural born subjects / citizens:

Born in the country to two citizen parents: Certain. No doubt there.

Born in the country to one citizen parent: Certain. No doubt there. This covers Obama.

Born in the country to two domiciled alien parents: Certain. This is the case of Wong Kim Ark.

Born in the country to two alien parents here on student visas: Fairly close to certain. This appears to be the case of Bobby Jindal. Again, I think the common-sense argument against folks like Jindal is pretty strong, but the legal argument, due to precedent, is weak.

Born in the country to two alien parents here on a tourist visa: Similar to the case of student visas. They are here "under the protection of" and "in obedience to" the US government.

Born in the country to two illegal aliens: Definitely debatable IMO. Legally, as I see it, they are NOT here "under the protection of" or "in obedience to" our government and our laws. If I were a Supreme Court Justice voting on such a case, I would be VERY likely to vote against such a person being eligible to be President. There is, however, a wrinkle, which I will get to in a moment.

Born outside of the country to two US citizen parents: Most likely eligible.

Born outside of the country to one US citizen parent: Most likely eligible.

Born outside of the country to no US citizen parents: Not eligible.

Generally, from the beginning of the Republic, however, a great many of our authorities have regarded "born a citizen" and "natural born citizen" as being pretty much synonymous.

That could make it difficult to deny the natural born citizenship, and therefore eligibility, of someone who might otherwise be ineligible.

In other words: If it's the policy of the US government to grant citizenship status, social security numbers, and passports to the children of illegal aliens, that's a pretty strong argument, legally speaking, for such a person to be considered a natural born US citizen if the question should ever arise.

I'm not saying it's ADVISABLE. I'm not saying it's good policy. The law is not always advisable OR good policy. In fact, in many instances, the law is downright damn stupid.

Take your pick of gun control laws, for example. Or take Obama's Cash for Clunkers, or any one of a bunch of other things he's done. Damn stupid. But it's still the law.

Even when a law has consequences unintended by those who passed it (which was the original claim of this article) it's still the law. People may ignore it. The law-enforcement authorities may ignore it. But it's still the law.

A great example is the recent gun control legislation rushed through in New York. Damn stupid to start with, but beyond that, it made it illegal even for policemen to carry more than 7 rounds in their firearms, because there was no exception for policemen.

Stupid? Absolutely. The law? Even if everybody ignores it, it's still the law on the books. Until it isn't.

Born in the country...

I would add to your list "Born in the country to aliens here in an official capacity on behalf of their government: not eligible." That's the clear "owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty" case.

Even when a law has consequences unintended by those who passed it (which was the original claim of this article) it's still the law.

The counterargument made by your interlocutors is the exact same argument the gun grabbers make: "Oh, the Founders could never have anticipated assault rifles, and you gotta be crazy to think they intended Sandy Hook and Aurora, so we should find a way around what they actually said." It doesn't work that way.

Because there were people who pretended it WASN'T the law. Just like you, except at least you're not trying to make a general argument that black people aren't citizens and shouldn't have the rights of citizens, and can't even become citizens.

The Supreme court under Roger Taney said exactly that. Now *I* don't have much respect for the Supreme court, or pretty much any other court anymore, but You are all about how this court or that court decides something, so therefore it must be the absolute truth!

So now can I take this as a sign that you comprehend the notion that a court can be wrong? And waddaya know, it was a seven two decision. Wong Kim Ark was a six to two decision.

I think the entire point of the 14th amendment was to overturn the Supreme court ruling of Dred Scott v Sanford. It wasn't to reassert what was the law, because the law had already been decided in 1857, Remember? You are always on about the court deciding the law, well the court did so. The legislators didn't like it, and they overturned that court ruling with a constitutional amendment.

Makes more sense than that crap you spout.

You've been completely BUSTED making literally DOZENS of fallacious arguments, all to support your one big BS claim that it takes birth on US soil, plus two citizen parents, for a person to be a natural born citizen and eligible to be elected President.

You are a legend in your own mind. You haven't busted anyone, despite your thinking so. You have been flailing about citing immaterial and obscure crap that doesn't even provide support for your argument, and pretending like you proved something. (Seriously, the Marques de la Fayette's Aid as an authority?)

We are well beyond the early days. Now we know, and have clear documentation, of a bunch of different things.

Yes we do. That book of British Statutes in force in Pennsylvania pretty much blows Rawle out of the water. There is no way that he could not have been aware of the work of the Pennsylvania Supreme court, and that subsequent book based on their work. Rawle intentionally, and with knowledgeable aforethought, misstated what was the legal understanding of all his fellow lawyers in Pennsylvania.

I have been researching this group of lawyers. Rawle was right in the thick of them. There is no way that he could not have known what was the dominant opinion of the Bar of Pennsylvania, yet he intentionally wrote that American citizenship was based on British Subjugation law. It is the very rebuke of it.

Rawle did much damage to the nation.

US v Wong Kim Ark.

I think there's room in that decision to argue that it may not include children of temporary visitors and children of illegal aliens. Not a great deal of room, but some.

But there's no room to argue that children born here of resident alien parents aren't born United States citizens, because that's the precise case that USvWKA decided.

If you argue that the requirement is for them to be permanently domiciled, then I could agree. This roughly corresponds to the legal status of freed slaves, which was the exact target for the 14th amendment's relief. Even though I think it's stupid, it can be argued that this satisfies the requirements of the 14th amendment.

But natural born? Nope. Just citizens. "Natural citizens" do not acquire citizenship as a result of the 14th amendment, or any other law.

I would add to your list "Born in the country to aliens here in an official capacity on behalf of their government: not eligible." That's the clear "owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty" case.

Yes, sorry. I did leave that instance out. Thanks for the addition.

The counterargument made by your interlocutors is the exact same argument the gun grabbers make: "Oh, the Founders could never have anticipated assault rifles, and you gotta be crazy to think they intended Sandy Hook and Aurora, so we should find a way around what they actually said." It doesn't work that way.

You're right. It IS the same argument.

Gun grabbers: "The Founders never anticipated modern semiautomatic 'assault weapons.'"

Citizenship revisionists: "The Founders never anticipated illegal aliens and birth tourism."

Gun grabbers: "You've gotta be crazy to think they intended for people to be able to go in a classroom and shoot 20 children."

Citizenship revisionists: "You've gotta be crazy to think they intended for people to be able to come here temporarily and have US citizen babies, or to be born to non-citizen parents and then grow up and be elected President."

(By the way, I agree that the Founders "didn't intend" birth tourism.)

Gun grabbers: "The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right." (denial of what the Second Amendment actually says and means.)

Citizenship revisionists: "It takes birth on US soil, PLUS two citizen parents, for a person to be a natural born citizen." (denial of what US law on citizenship has always actually said and meant.)

In both cases, the claim is pretty much of a novel one. People throughout history didn't understand that the Second Amendment only guaranteed a right of States to have militias. That wasn't what it said. There may have been a very few people, in the past, who said that. But they were fringe.

Likewise, people throughout history never understood that it took birth on US soil PLUS two US citizen parents to make a natural born citizen. When the first Republican, John Charles Fremont, ran for President, he did so as the proud son of a Frenchman who never naturalized and never intended to. Heck, he even did so with a French accent over his last name.

And nobody gave a damn, because virtually nobody had ever even imagined the stupid birther doctrine that we now see pushed here pretty much every single day.

In the case of this thread, we even have the writings of a Hillary Clinton supporter being posted as gospel, while conservatives like you and me are called all kinds of names for sticking up for the Constitutional and historical truth.

I have been surprised, and I am still surprised, that this revisionist, Constitution-twisting, history-twisting nonsense is even tolerated at FreeRepublic. I am hopeful that the day is eventually coming when Jim and the moderators will tell these clowns that they've spun enough of their fallacious arguments here.

So at the time of the case, and in fact 8 years before, Wong's parents had already abandoned their "permanent" domicile here in the US, and gone back to China for good.

Read the ruling, Jeff:

"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

What mattered in the case was the parents' status AT THE TIME OF THE CHILD'S BIRTH.

Wong Kim Ark's parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S. in 1873 and remained so for 17 more years until 1890.

All parties to the case agreed that they were permanently domiciled in the U.S. AT THE TIME of his birth.

The same CANNOT be said of Obama. His father was in the U.S. on only a TEMPORARY stay. The forms which state so are a matter of public record.

Mistakes like the one you just made are what happens when you don't actually comprehend what you have read in the cases and quotes that you like to cite. You've been called out on your misunderstandings of what you post repeatedly for that very same reason.

I made no "mistake" there. I was perfectly aware that Wong's parents had been living here for a long time, and that they continued to do so until Wong was a young man.

But they didn't live here forever.

In the case of Obama, his dad's student visa matters not one whit, because he was born on US soil to a US citizen mother.

Strictly speaking, he doesn't even NEED the ruling in US v Wong Kim Ark, because he was born in the United States to a US citizen parent.

Look at it this way. The Court in Minor v. Happersett noted that there has never been the slightest doubt about the citizenship status of people born on US soil to US citizen parents.

The Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark said that children born on US soil to permanently domiciled alien parents were natural born citizens, too. They did NOT say, however, that permanent domicile was either unnecessary, or a requirement.

Obama has one parent in the "Minor v. Happersett" situation, and one with a bit weaker credentials than the "Wong Kim Ark" situation.

So he is sort of in between the two cases. He only needs the one parent. Anyone born on US soil with even one citizen parent is certainly a natural born citizen.

I made no "mistake" there.

Indeed, you did. Your exact words:
"So at the time of the case, and in fact 8 years before, Wong's parents had already abandoned their "permanent" domicile here in the US"

If you had read the case and the ruling, you would have known that not only were all parties already aware of that fact, but that they had all agreed that Wong Kim Ark's parents WERE in fact permanently domiciled in the U.S. AT THE TIME of his birth and remained so for another 17 years.

What was relevant to the ruling was the parents' status AT THE TIME of the child's birth. Bearing and raising a child in the U.S. for 17 years was indeed agreed upon by all parties to the case to constitute permanent domicile at the time of birth.

In the case of Obama, his dad's student visa matters not one whit, because he was born on US soil to a US citizen mother.

Strictly speaking, he doesn't even NEED the ruling in US v Wong Kim Ark, because he was born in the United States to a US citizen parent.

Cite the law which supports your assertion that those born in the U.S. under those circumstances are U.S. citizens.

I was going to add that both groups want to deny or change the Constitution or the law, based on rare events.

Newtown was an unspeakable tragedy. But as tragic as it was, the gun grabbers want to infringe the rights of literally half of the country based on an incident that took the lives of fewer than one fourth of the number of Americans who are killed on our roadways every single day of every single year.

Even worse, they want to infringe gun owners’ rights in ways that would not have prevented the incident named and would do virtually nothing to prevent any future similar incidents!

In 2008, 7,462 children were born to parents who said they lived outside of the country. We’re talking about 0.18% of births here.

That’s pretty rare.

Still, if we want to do something about that, then have Congress pass a law stating that US citizenship is denied to children born to parents here on a tourist visa. Someone would undoubtedly sue over that law, and the case might well reach the Supreme Court. It’s at least a little bit different from Wong Kim Ark, and it might just be that the Court would say that parents have to be resident here or at least here on a longer-term visa, such as a student visa, for their children to be born US citizens.

Don’t try to misrepresent the Constitution and the law, and claim that they say what they don’t say, like Hillary Clinton supporter Mara Zebest does here.

Cite the law which supports your assertion that those born in the U.S. under those circumstances are U.S. citizens.

The law is the ancient common law rule of citizenship which the Wong Court told us applied first in England, then in the Colonies, then in the United States after the Declaration of Independence, the in the United States after the adoption of the Constitution.

That common law, which was common both to England and every State and the United States as a whole, predates, underlies and even defines the wording "natural born citizen" in the Constitution.

The law is the ancient common law rule of citizenship which the Wong Court told us applied first in England, then in the Colonies, then in the United States after the Declaration of Independence, the in the United States after the adoption of the Constitution.

There was no such common law that applied universally in the U.S. after the adoption of the Constitution.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, among others, did indeed preclude the acquisition of citizenship at birth to those born to a non-citizen father.

Secretaries of State have refused birthright citizenship to those born in the U.S. to non-citizen fathers.

Wong Kim Ark had to take his case all the way to the Supreme Court BECAUSE by law birthright citizenship wasn't granted to those born in the U.S. without regard to their parents' status at birth.

Your ridiculous citation fails. Try again. Cite the law that supports your assertion.

There was no such common law that applied universally in the U.S. after the adoption of the Constitution.

Vice Chancellor Sandford, in the first major case to decide the question, Lynch v. Clarke, said there was.

He said no other rule applied in any of the original thirteen States, and he was right. He said that therefore the same common law rule applied to citizenship for the United States as a whole.

And the Supreme Court, in Wong, cited him approvingly and essentially said the same thing. They said very specifically and clearly that the same common law rule had applied first in England, then in the English Colonies in America, then in the United States after the Declaration of Independence, then in the United States after the establishment of the Constitution.

They were very clear.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, among others, did indeed preclude the acquisition of citizenship at birth to those born to a non-citizen father.

Cite, please.

I don't believe it exists. I believe you're referring to the opinion of Samuel Roberts, who was a judge over several COUNTIES in Pennsylvania. Yes, he wrote a book purporting to LIST the STATUTES from England that were in force in the State of Pennsylvania. But he cites absolutely no statute and no authority, from the Pennsylvania court or otherwise, for his PERSONAL OPINION.

And his personal opinion is completely contradicted, at the national level, by Rawle, who was United States District Attorney for the entire State of Pennsylvania.

Furthermore, that the children of alien parents in Pennsylvania were always natural born citizens is seen in this exchange between Senator Lyman Trumbull and Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania on the floor of the Senate in 1866:

Trumbull: I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?

Cowan: I think not.

Trumbull: I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.

Cowan: The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.

Trumbull: If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I might be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.

This exchange shows that, contrary to the claims of the Constitution-twisters, Senator Trumbull (like the other Senators and Representatives behind the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment) regarded those acts as merely declarative of what the citizenship law was and always had been.

Note that Senator Cowan does not deny that the children of German immigrants, born in Pennsylvania, are born citizens of that State and of the United States.

Secretaries of State have refused birthright citizenship to those born in the U.S. to non-citizen fathers.

They made some rulings in the 1880s and 1890s which were sometimes nuanced and arguably correct, and sometimes contradictory. It became fashionable to increasingly deny the citizenship rights of children born here to alien parents who then carried their children abroad. This culminated in the Wong Kim Ark case in 1898 in which the government first acknowledged, then denied, that Mr. Wong was a US citizen. In that case the Supreme Court correctly noted that such a position was not correct by the citizenship rules that has always applied before, during and after the establishment of the Constitution, and put a stop to that policy.

Vice Chancellor Sandford, in the first major case to decide the question, Lynch v. Clarke, said there was.

Clearly, he is wrong.

Inglis v. Trustees Of Sailor's of Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830): The Plaintiff was born in New York during the Revolutionary War. His father was a British subject who never became a U.S. citizen. The Plaintiff's exact date of birth was unknown. During the Revolutionary War, control of New York alternated between U.S. and British forces. The Court ruled that, even if New York was under U.S. control at the time of the Plaintiff's birth, the Plaintiff would still be a British subject by birth, and not a U.S. citizen, because the plaintiff's nationality at birth "followed that of his father".

NO "common law." Period.

(Regarding Pennsylvania) Cite, please.

Source: http://ia600404.us.archive.org/18/items/digestofselectbr00robe/digestofselectbr00robe.pdf

Given the ruling in Inglis v. Trustees of the Sailors’ Snug Harbor, the account of Samuel Roberts appears to be valid.

There was NO "common law," Jeff.

Cite the law that supports your assertion that one born under Obama's birth circumstances is a U.S. citizen.