Edge: First in the definition of natural born citizen and second,
Nope. Nowhere in the entire decision does Gray define NBC so as to exclude US-born children of aliens under US jurisdiction. Strike one.
second, by declaring that WKA's citizenship was established by the 14th amendment: "
False dichotomy. Just becaue the 14th amendment establishes his citizenship does not mean that the common law argument doesn't do it as well. In point of fact, Gray makes abundnatly clear that BOTH arguments are valid. Strike two.
And now for strike three:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries...every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
"The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
And just in case you try to weasle out of that by claiming a natural born subject isn't the same thing as a natural born citizen, Justice Gray explicitly affirms that the North Carolina Supreme Court was correct when it said:
"Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; . . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . . 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."
Wrong. He did when he cited Minor v. Happersett. "all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." This definition does not extend to anyone but those born in the country of citizen parents. Period.
Just becaue the 14th amendment establishes his citizenship does not mean that the common law argument doesn't do it as well.
Nonsense. The common law argument was used in support of the court's view on the 14th amendment. And the court specifically cited the 14th amendment citizenship phrase as being the decisive factor, not common law.
What you cited on the law of England from the decision doesn't make WKA a natural born citizen, nor did the North Carolina citation even mention the term natural born citizen. Don't make this so easy. The person striking out is you.