~~
"interchageable"? [sic] Not so. From WKA -- at your link:
The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]
"citizen" versus "natural born"... Distinct and separate.
~~
(How does that foot in your mouth taste -- now that you've shot yourself there?)
Haven’t shot myself in the foot. Here is what they wrote:
The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, 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; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . 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; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the 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. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”
Notice they DO consider the terms natural born subject and natural born citizen to be “precisely analogous”, and that “...the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”
Further, they note in detail that under English common law, it was well established prior to the Constitution that a natural born subject included anyone with TWO alien parents, provided the parents were not members of an invading army or ambassadors.
Elsewhere they note:
“And he [Kent] elsewhere says:
And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
“They make NO argument that Wong Kim Ark qualified as a a naturalb born citizen. The only definition per the Constitution is citizen of the United States via the 14th amendment.”
Sure - they wrote for pages just for the fun of it! There is a reason that no state legislature or DA & no Congressman has taken up your cause, and why Sarah Palin & John McCain did not either - you have no legal case.
WKA clearly establishes TWO arguments based on the Constitution for WKA’s citizenship - the 14th, which is their second argument, and the original intent of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’, which is their first argument.
Since WKA was not running for President, there was no reason to bring up the NBC phrase EXCEPT that it applies to WKA and thus makes him a citizen by birth.