The entire WKA decision is based on parsed & edited quotes from Kent's work, not to mention that Grey in writing the opinion, completely disregarded his deciding opinion in Elk wherein he cited the law of nature as well as Vattel in determining the meaning of ‘subject tot he jurisdiction’.
You can not see the error without studying both cases in which Grey wrote both opinions.
So, the question that begs an answer is, why did Grey overturn his own ruling based Constitutional American law per SCOTUS rulings and go on to rule that an English feudal definition of ‘subject’ was used to define US citizen thereby going on to grant citizenship to a Chinese alien, who by law, would never have never even been granted the right to naturalize? What happened in US history between 1884(Elk) & 1898(WKA) to change citizenship laws? NOTHING!
http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/lm18.cfm
All we have to do is look to who nominated him to the high court and we have our answer. The only other British subject at birth, long after the grandfather clause was ‘wholly extinct’ who attained to the office of the executive. It was a huge controversy then, but drones like to cast that little known fact aside. Grey was 11yrs old when his father formally naturalized & became a US citizen, therefore, Grey was Solly a British subject at birth.
But let's not stop there with Grey. He went on to rule in another case a few years later in which he held a personal & financial stake in. A ruling that granted him much wealth and a ruling that was in total contradiction to the constitution also.
parsy, you seem like an intelligent person. It's sad that you don't use it independently but instead take at face value everything put out by the statist drones of marxist professors as if it was gospel.
Preface: National character as incident to birth in a particular locality was the creature of feudal times and of military vassalage, and was described as the jus soli ; national character as the result of parentage was the rule adopted by freer peoples and more enlightened communities, and was designated jus sanguinis?
§ 10. The language of Vattel ^ is : “ By the law of nature
alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and
enter into all their rights. The place of birth produces no
change in this particular ; for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction. Children born at sea, out of the country, in the armies of the state, in the house of its ministers at a foreign court, are reputed native citizens. Every man, born free, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join in the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he finds that it will be of no advantage to him to remain in it, he is at liberty to leave it.”
These and similar expositions of public or international
law, by civilians and publicists generally, are only confirmatory, and constitute developments of the doctrine Jus sanguinis, which prevailed among the ancient free republics, preceding the feudal doctrine jus soli, which had its existence and recognition in a governmental system based upon feudal tenures and military vassalage. The influence of the wiser principles and more liberal ideas of the early republics is felt, and is apparent to-day in the legislation and practices of modern European states and of America.
‘ § 11. The father or mother, who transmits his or her status to the child, may change his or her condition in the interval between the conception and the birth of the child. When it is the father who transmits nationality to the child, the status of the father at the time of conception is considered. If, on the contrary, it is the mother who transmits nationality to the child, —which would be the case when there was no marriage between herself and the father of the child, — attention is paid to the moment of delivery.^
Citizen and person are synonymous terms.* Citizen is analagous to subject at common law.^-Morse (1881)
analagous: Similar in function but not in structure and evolutionary origin
synonymous: Having the same or a similar meaning; Equivalent in connotation
Here the problem:
“The entire WKA decision is based on parsed & edited quotes from Kent’s work, not to mention that Grey in writing the opinion, completely disregarded his deciding opinion in Elk wherein he cited the law of nature as well as Vattel in determining the meaning of ‘subject tot he jurisdiction’.”
A majority of the none justices agreed or this would not be law. You can’t go back behind the decision and try to argue about Grey. That has absolutely NO LEGAL EFFECT OR FORCE.
If someone were to argue the case today, they would have to deal with the case, the ideas and reasoning in the case, and the application of law to the facts in the case.
IMHO, todays court would rubber stamp a lot of this stuff. That is my LEGAL OPINION OR THEORY. But until it is argued, and overturned, then Obama is NOT A USURPER. The case law clearly supports him.
This is where Orly Taitz went really really weird. When she lost in Georgia, rather than deal with the decision the judge handed down, on the legal merits, she turned and started calling the judge names and accusing him of things.
Hey, if you have a good case, you don’t need to do stuff like that. Lawyers win bad cases and lose good ones all the time. Either way, you respect the law.
parsy, who apologizes for the delay. I was in a birther food fight on another thread