Twelve of the colonies adopted some form of English common law. The federal government did not. State cases on this topic, especially after the adoption of the Constitution, are irrelevant.
Your posting of these cases is crap. You intend to put it over that these cases are relevant when they are not. YOU are the twister.
And just to be clear, I said your text wall is crap.
You just can’t help twisting.
Without consulting my notes, I believe you are correct on that point.
And the thirteenth adopted the common law rule for citizenship.
This made the common law rule for citizenship unanimous throughout the thirteen original states.
The federal government did not.
Again, correct. However, we are repeatedly told by authorities such as Framer Alexander Hamilton and the US Supreme Court that the Constitution was framed in the language of the English common law, and it is that language we should look to in order to understand the terms used therein.
So when the Constitution says "natural born," it means the same thing that "natural born" had always meant, which, incidentally, came from the common law of both England and America.
Secondly, the first known court case to adjudicate the meaning of "natural born citizen" WAS a State court case, in New York, in 1844. Vice Chancellor Sandford looked carefully at the history of "natural born citizen" and concluded, quite clearly, that ALL the early American States had adopted the same common law rule for citizenship; and that therefore, the common law rule for the United States as a whole was the same common law rule as had always existed in both England and the United States.
He also concluded, quite clearly, that children born in the United States were NATURAL BORN CITIZENS and eligible to the Presidency without any regard at all to the citizenship of their parents.
Was that good precedent, or not? The US Supreme Court in 1898 reviewed Sandford's decision, quoted it approvingly, and said essentially the same thing as he did: That the SAME RULE had always applied in regard to citizenship. First, in England. Then, in the American Colonies. Then, in the United States after Independence. Then in the United States AFTER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.
And by that rule, children born in the country were NATURAL BORN subjects or citizens (whichever term was in vogue at the time), unless the children of foreign ambassadors or invading armies.
Your posting of these cases is crap. You intend to put it over that these cases are relevant when they are not. YOU are the twister.
Sorry, but this understanding of history and law is agreed upon by pretty much every significant legal authority throughout American history - conservative, liberal, or otherwise.
It is virtually unanimous. And the only people who currently disagree are a bunch of stubborn, nutcase, Constitution-twisting, conspiracy-theorist loons, and those gullible folks whom they have deceived with all of their slick double-talk and fallacious arguments.
Historically speaking, it's not even close.
Your posting of these cases is crap. You intend to put it over that these cases are relevant when they are not. YOU are the twister.
And this is exactly correct. Jeff posts crap that doesn't demonstrate any connection to the Delegates whatsoever, (who are the only people who can say what they meant by the term "natural born citizen") and much of what he posts doesn't even support his own argument.
His text dump is just a mountain of bullsh*t which he hopes will overwhelm any argument through sheer bulk. Again, this is a liar's tactic. Honest people address issues on a point by point basis and establish veracity.
This guy just lies by volume.