- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - -
| Emphasis added. It seems to me that being born on US soil is enough to qualify for natural born citizenship, if we're to fall back on the history of English common law, at least that's what the Supreme Court ruled. Correct? I should point out at the beginning that this includes new research, especially regarding US v Wong Kim Ark ... As attorney and law expert John W. Guendelsberger pointed out in 1992 regarding US v Wong Kim Ark (169 U.S. at 653): “In particular, the Court noted the Constitution's requirement that the President be a “natural-born citizen,” a condition whose meaning could be derived only by reference to English common law in existence at the time” – see US v Wong Kim Ark (1898), referencing Minor v. Happersett (1874). However, a closer look at this “reference to English common law in existence at the time” used in Wong Kim Ark includes the somewhat dicey and contemporary use of A. W. Dicey’s 1896 edition of “Conflict of Laws”. Dicey’s 1896 version of “Conflict of Laws” is the primary reference used in Justice Gray's discussion regarding “Natural Born Subject” in Gray’s 1898 Wong Kim Ark Majority Opinion. Significant portions of this language that Dicey used in his 1896 version of “Conflict of Laws” (referenced in the 1898 US v Wong Kim Ark) disappeared in the 1908 and subsequent versions of Dicey's book. Further, it would appear that as the years moved on, Dicey’s respect for the wisdom of "Blackstone’s Commentaries" seasoned with time. Fast forward from the 1898 Kim Wong Ark Opinion to 1932, when an older and wiser A. W. Dicey himself wrote, “To any critic of Blackstone, as to any student of English law, I unhesitatingly give this advice: Begin your study by reading Blackstone's Commentaries. Keep in mind that the book describes English law as it stood towards the end of the eighteenth century.” Of course, this would include the US Constitution, ratified in 1789, influenced by "Blackstone’s Commentaries". Just five years later, the Congressional (Senate) Library purchased its only two books of the 18th Century: "Blackstone’s Commentaries" and Vattel's "Law of Nations":
Although the famed Wong Kim Ark case itself is referenced dozens of times by subsequent US Supreme Courts, Dicey’s “Conflict of Laws” has only been referenced EIGHT times in ALL of the searchable US Supreme Court Opinions on record. In fact, the last time Dicey’s “Conflict of Laws” was referenced by the SCOTUS was in 1964 BANCO NACIONAL DE CUBA v. SABBATINO, 376 U.S. 398, nearly 46 years ago. That's very telling of the US Supreme Court's use and confidence of Dicey’s late-19th century book in their Court Opinions. By comparison, "Blackstone's Commentaries" is considered to be one of the chief standards used by today's Roberts Court in interpretation of common law, searchable thousands of times in prior Supreme Court Opinions. Most recently, "Blackstone's Commentaries" was referenced nearly 20 times in determining the Framer's meaning of “keep and bear arms” in the 2008 DC v Heller Opinion.
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I might as well just repost old posts for all that has already been answered since you like to go around circles.