No, they do not.
The passage to which you refer:
"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, 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.At least one law which proves definitively that the same rule was NOT in force in the U.S. under the Constitution: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."
Note how New York State law clearly disproves that inane assertion in the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark obiter dicta.
Common law was NOT in effect in the U.S.
Again, I'm asking, with the asinine "common law" theory disproved definitively, cite the law that supports your assertion that one born under Obama's birth circumstances is a U.S. citizen.
We've already talked about this a bit, although I don't know whether you were in on the conversation.
First of all, that was a state law, not a law for the United States as a whole.
And that state law COMPLETELY AFFIRMED THAT THE CHILDREN BORN IN NEW YORK STATE OF RESIDENT ALIENS WERE BORN CITIZENS OF THE STATE.
Note how New York State law clearly disproves that inane assertion in the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark obiter dicta.
Wow. You are really becoming a poster child for Constitution-twister nutjobism.
Obviously you can't tell the difference between the core reasoning of a case, and obiter dicta.
Clue: When a discussion runs for about 50 pages, and cites authority after authority, and is central to the resolution of the case, that's not obiter dicta. That's core reasoning.
Denying that fact is a sure sign of birther-nutjobitis.
Common law was NOT in effect in the U.S.In the general sense of the English common law being adopted at a national level, you're right. It wasn't.
But in regard to the basic definition of "natural born citizen," the terms of definition that we obtained from English and American common law applied, and in regard to the basic rule of citizenship that applied in the United States, Sandford said American common law created that rule, and the Supreme Court did not disagree with that, but stated that the same rule had always applied.
It's even in the passage you JUST QUOTED:
"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, 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."
Again, I'm asking, with the asinine "common law" theory disproved definitively, cite the law that supports your assertion that one born under Obama's birth circumstances is a U.S. citizen.
Once again, you're becoming a poster child for nutjob denialism. Your own passage that you just cited shows clearly that the same rule - which was the rule of English and common law - always applied, continuously, for the 300 years leading up to the decision in US v Wong Kim Ark in 1898.
That being the case, the "asinine" common law "theory" is PROVEN definitively.
But if you don't think so - cite the law that supports your assertion that one born under Obama's birth circumstances is NOT a U.S. citizen.
And don't tell me again to cite the law that says he is, because I've cited it multiple times already, including in this post. It is the ancient rule of citizenship from both the English and the American common law. The same rule that the US Supreme Court, in the passage above, said applied throughout the entire history of the English Colonies, after the Declaration of Independence, and after the establishment of the Constitution.