True, but only in regard to really one thing.
The difference between "subject" and "citizen."
As for your making the claim that England adhered to perpetual allegiance and we did not, that's only true to a certain point. In the early United States, we were quite happy to reject the doctrine that citizens of other countries were not permanently bound to the countries of their birth. We were happy enough to welcome them here.
We were not nearly so happy to reject the doctrine that citizens of the UNITED STATES were not permanently bound to the country of THEIR birth.
It was a rather hypocritical position. But it's one we tended to hold in the early days.
But even if we granted, for the sake of argument, that we rejected the doctrine of perpetual allegiance (and EVENTUALLY, we did).
It is still FALLACIOUS to argue that we therefore rejected all aspects of the citizenship rules handed down to us through English, colonial, and American common law.
In order to make that argument, you need to actually SHOW that we rejected the basic citizenship rule.
And you CAN'T. Because we DIDN'T.
In fact, here's a very important early legal authority, who was appointed by GEORGE WASHINGTON to be United States District Attorney for the entire State of Pennsylvania. He was a delegate to Pennsylvania's Constitutional Assembly. He was offered the post of United States Attorney General by GEORGE WASHINGTON - more than once - but always turned the post down.
He was a friend of Founder BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, and used to meet with other important early leaders at Franklin's house to discuss politics, law, etc.
Although he wasn't a delegate, he was present in Philadelphia while the Constitutional Convention was taking place.
He was quoted approvingly as an early American legal authority by the United States Supreme Court.
He was the first president of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, and for 40 years a trustee of the University of Pennsylvania.
He wrote an authoritative guide to the Constitution of the United States, which was used as a textbook on the Constitution in many of our universities.
In fact, it was the standard constitutional law text at Harvard until 1845 and at Dartmouth until 1860.
But you will spit on him and disrespect him, as you spit upon and disrespect any and all from the Founding Generation who disagree with your Constitution-twisting BS.
Here's what William Rawle had to say:
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."
Don't claim to be a friend of the Founders. You and your ilk most certainly aren't.
Or, to be a bit more precise about it:
You're only a friend of the Founders as long as you like what they said. As soon as you don't, you're just as prepared to throw the Founders under the bus as are liberals. Like Mara Zebest, the liberal, Democrat, Hillary-Clinton-supporting author of this article.
The term "citizen" as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people - and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."Reading the paragraph this sentence is extracted from will show that Judge Gaston's references to "our law" and "our constitution" are references to the statutes and Constitution of North Carolina.
North Carolina grew from a colonial condition. In the laws of North Carolina "citizen" is analogous to "subject", as would be expected due to their former colonial condition.
The United States was never a colony. It is an entirely new government with no predecessor. It is founded upon principles different than North Carolina or any of the states.
Foundational of those principles is the proposition that all men are created equal and are endowed with inalienable rights. This is directly opposed to the laws of Great Britain, some of which found their way into colonies and later states.
Pertaining to citizenship, the Naturalization Act of 1790 et seq. are indicative of the differences between United States and Great Britain, which demonstrates that the United States is founded upon principles different than North Carolina or any of the states.
The application of Manuel to the United States is an error, it does not supply a rule for United States national law pertaining to citizenship.
"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"namely: explicitly; specifically
The question asked and answered.
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.
SCOTUS 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.
In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, Gray was presented with the perfect opportunity to define US natural born citizen as native-born without regard to parents' status. But after all the examination, citations, and quotes, Gray gave Wong's citizenship no such qualification.
As Obama's father was NOT permanently domiciled in the U.S. in 1961, or ever, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark does NOT apply to Obama.
Obama, legally, isn't even a U.S. citizen.