Clearly, he is wrong.
There was NO "common law," Jeff.
Sorry, but the US Supreme Court cited him approvingly, and agreed with his conclusion. They stated that the same rule had always applied, first in England, then in the Colonies, then in the US both before and AFTER the establishment of the Constitution.
When it comes to your word versus the word of Vice Chancellor Sandford (who made a thorough review of the law running to about 25 tiny-print pages, or more like 50 pages at a larger print size), and the word of the United States Supreme Court, I'm going with the US Supreme Court and Vice Chancellor Sandford.
Your opinion, plus 5 dollars, will buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
It never ceases to amaze me the amateur yahoos who get on the internet and post that they know far more about citizenship law than the United States Supreme Court PLUS virtually every legal expert who has ever lived in all of United States history, liberal OR conservative.
Cite the law that supports your assertion that one born under Obama's birth circumstances is a U.S. citizen.
I already did. Now you cite the law - the NATIONAL law - that supports your assertion that someone born under Obama's birth circumstances is NOT a US citizen.
And don't give me the Minor v. Happersett BS, because they never said such people were not citizens, only that it was absolutely certain that people born on US soil with two citizen parents were. They said they weren't even going to consider the other question. They backed their side-comment statement with no authority at all, and if they had, and if it had been what birthers claim (it wasn't) it still would've been overruled by US v. Wong Kim Ark.
See? I knew you were going to trot out Samuel Roberts and claim he was the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Wow. You guys have become so predictable.
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".
Ah, yes. The fallacious birther argument based on Inglis again.
In Inglis (1830), the Supreme Court said that Mr. Inglis had been born during the time when Americans were making the election to be US citizens or remain British subjects. They said he had the opportunity to return from England as a young adult and take up his US citizenship, but that by the time he had reached 40-something years old, it was too late for him to do so. He had "ratified" the choice of British citizenship that his parents had made for him.
The case had to do with the division of people into English subjects and United States citizens upon Independence, and has nothing at all to do with the case of children born on the soil of an established country, except that Joseph Story, in a concurring opinion, wrote:
“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
Story was a LEGENDARY Justice on the Supreme Court. He would soon write the first comprehensive treatise on the provisions of the U.S. Constitution (1840). And he tells us, quite clearly, that, by 1830, NOTHING is BETTER SETTLED.
And gee. HE sure seem to think that the common law (both English and American) was relevant. Doesn't he?
So the fact is, what you claim to be the law is not, and never was. You've bought into a fallacy whose only real credibility comes from the number of people claiming it's true.
It's like if you have a bunch of people standing up and claiming to be experts, saying the moon is made of green cheese. Well golly, it must be true.
This is in fact the "argumentum ad numerum" that DiogenesLamp keeps attributing the combined weight of every real legal authority in history. Well, when virtually every real legal authority in history agrees on a point of law, it's probably true.
When a bunch of yahoos on the internet without any training whatsoever, pushing literally dozens of fallacious arguments agree on something, THAT'S "argumentum ad numerum."
But a Previous Supreme court said the exact opposite. Face it Jeff, Wong Kim Ark was a political ruling, not a legal ruling. (Just like Calvin's case.) The Gray court wanted to rebuke the Tanney court. The majority was Mostly Northerners and Republicans, while the dissenters were Democrats. Figure it out.
To rule otherwise would be a rebuke to their party's efforts to win equality for other races, and an affirmation of the worst aspects of the Democrats racism. The law denying Wong's parents citizenship was a racist law in the first place.
The Court wanted the ruling they gave, and they sought out any support in law they could find for it.
It never ceases to amaze me the amateur yahoos who get on the internet and post that they know far more about citizenship law than the United States Supreme Court PLUS virtually every legal expert who has ever lived in all of United States history, liberal OR conservative.
It never ceases to amaze me how many yahoos get on the internet and are so stupid as to believe that court rulings must follow law.
Ever hear of Wickard v Filburn? Kelo v New London? Roe v Wade? Obamacare?
The actual law has nothing to do with it. Judges often like to legislate from the bench, while pretending the law says what they want.
The fact that we actually KNOW that the same rule hasn't always applied proves their statement false.
New York State law denying citizenship to the children of transient aliens:
Political Code - State of New York
There was no "common law." It has been quite easy to prove that there wasn't.
Now, cite the law that supports your assertion that one born under Obama's birth circumstances is a U.S. citizen.