The court clearly concludes that all of those cases imply that a person born under the jurisdiction of the United States, on US soil, is a natural born citizen.
Being a liberal troll, you OBVIOUSLY do not care to read the applicable citations. Because, you will find out that you are wrong.
BTW: If you bothered to read Calvin's Case - you will find that he WAS declared to be a natural born subject. The Court had been petitioned to deny him that status so that he could not inherit - since he had been born in Scotland. The Court ruled that he had been born AFTER James I united the kingdoms and, being born in Scotland he was born within the sovreign's dominion. It was ALSO ruled that he WAS BORN under a single allegiance to that same sovreign [James I].
As far as the citations, Justice Gray CLEARLY lied to some extent.
Although children born in England to alien parents were USUALLY considered to be natural born subjects, he CONVENIENTLY NEGLECTED to add the following citation from Calvin's Case:
" ... 3. There be regularly (unless it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King. 2. That the place of his birth be within the King's dominion. And, 3. The time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a King of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the King of the other. For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because, though the King of England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitai, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are subjects to the King of England. 2. The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject ..."
Calvin's Case clearly states that a child can only be a natural born subject if he is born within the sovreign's dominion AND under actual obedience to that same sovreign. That obedience was transmitted through the parents - BOTH parents had to be under actual obedience to the sovreign.
Actual obedience means solitary allegiance - but Justice Gray fails to mention it.
Calvin's Case clearly states that a child can only be a natural born subject if he is born within the sovreign's dominion AND under actual obedience to that same sovreign. That obedience was transmitted through the parents - BOTH parents had to be under actual obedience to the sovreign.
Yeah. All that means is that the parents are subject to the King and have to obey his laws at the time and place of the birth. In a republic without a King, the analogous concept is that the parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the the government at the time of birth, which was the case with both Wong's parents as well as Obama's.
Actual obedience means solitary allegiance -
Uh, no. Allegiance and obediance have different meanings.
All "actual obedience" means is that the parents are living in territory under the King's rule and obligated to obligated to obey the King at the time and place of their child's birth.
Applied to a republic, it just means that the parents are living in the sovereign territory of the Republic and are only obligated to follow that Republic's laws at the time of the child's birth. That is also clearly the case with Obama's parents, as well as Wong's.
I have read a bit about Calvin's case in “English Nationality Law: Soli or Sanguinis” in the Grotrian Society Papers of 1972. Can you recommend another source? James Wilson is a dazzling writer, and refers to Vattel, Pufendorf, Grotius, and others, discussing citizenship extensively, but not natural born citizenship - I suspect because there was so little doubt about its wisdom. Kent Story and Hamilton all confirm Vattel’s major role, and do mention natural born citizenship, deferring to Vattel, but I'd like to find scholarship more narrowly focused on natural born citizenship?
Of course, the principal challenge now is to inform as many as possible of the fact of Obama’s ineligibility. Public opinion certainly affects the willingness of political appointee judges to grant standing, though in a perfect world the law should prevail. Ridicule is a powerful weapon. For many it seems far fetched that no major legal authority would challenge a candidate who told everyone that he, because of his father, was born a British subject. They understandably figure "he told everyone so how could there be anything wrong with his eligibility?" "Someone would have said something!" The sad truth is that it was like a chess game where the Republicans knew they were vulnerable, but daren't say anything or they would lose immediately. Having hidden what they knew, they are now complicit in the coverup.
Better informed people will overcome the name-calling sheep who discourage the public from understanding that Obama is very much the kind of leader Article II Section 1 natural born citizenship was intended to protect us from. Obama’s dream was to realize the dreams from his father of a socialist government, perhaps built around Sharia law (though I suspect Marxism is a stronger guiding principle for Obama than submission to Allah). A citizen father would have provided a higher likelihood that Obama’s allegiances were more consistant with the natural law on which our Constitution was built, and that was clearly the intention. There are also legal implications which I don't claim to understand of ignoring the clear intention of the Constitution.
I do suggest that we not feed the trolls. Responding to them validates their involvement. Someone in the thread, Bp2 I believe, noted that one troll had argued opposite points in another thread. Perhaps an abbreviated response such as “Warning Wong Kim” or “Warning Long Form Birth” or “Warning Nat Born = Jus Soli” would signal that citizens are learning the truth?