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.
You cite a case that only applies to all free persons, not ALL persons born within the territory. Those are remarkably different conditions than those set forth in the 14th amendment. Second, I’ve already shot down your ‘analagous’ argument. Analogous does not mean exactly the same. The President of the United States can be considered precisely analogous to the Monarch of Britain (or if you prefer, the Prime Minister) however, they are not the same, in either case. Allegiance is demanded from a subject, but a citizen has to declare allegiance or be born with a birthright to citizenship. There’s no birthright inherently derived from the soil of birth.
This is a reference to a decision from the North Carolina Supreme Court. He's saying here that North Carolina law equated "subject" with "citizen". He makes no claim about the US constitution. And when you say "Notice they DO consider the terms natural born subject and natural born citizen to be 'precisely analogous'", you are referring to the South Carolina court, not the USSC.
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
This was a statement by Chancellor Kent from the 6th edition of his commentaries, not a SC decision. And without fuller context, it's difficult to say if he's stating that simple birth in the US makes the person a NBC.
“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!
They also delved for quite a while into the citizenship of a child born to US citizens abroad. That also has nothing to do with NBC in their analysis. They covered a lot of citizenship territory, quoting many different sources, authoritative, and non-authoritative, and sometimes conflicting.
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.
Most references to "natural born" are talking about English law, and most of those references are to English statutes, not common law.
It seems to me that WKA brought in just about every possible discussion of citizenship as background information. Why else talk about children of citizens abroad? They're being thorough. Not using it all to decide Wong's fate, not establishing a definition, or to set precedent for future NBC cases. It looks to me like the definition of NBC is as "undefined" after WKA as it was before.