Which is only pertinent through the 14th amendment. We've already established that natural born is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution. Gray went further and said the court was committed to the view that NBCs were EXCLUDED from the birth clause of the 14th amendment.
Here, again the court BABBLES:
ll persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.
The problem is that this passage was used by the Supreme Court in acknolwedging that you could be born IN THE UNITED STATES and be a natural born SUBJECT if your parents still held allegiance to the King. This is mentioned in both Shanks v. Dupont and in Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harbor, the latter of which said very clearly:
The facts disclosed in this case, then, lead irresistibly to the conclusion that it was the fixed determination of Charles Inglis the father, at the declaration of independence, to adhere to his native allegiance. And John Inglis the son must be deemed to have followed the condition of his father, and the character of a British subject attached to and fastened on him also, which he has never attempted to throw off by any act disaffirming the choice made for him by his father.
Read the underlined and bolded parts above. The SCOTUS is using Vattel to adjudge a person born IN the U.S. as a British subject. Here's Vattel:
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Sorry, but I'm a Supreme Court legalist. The court says NBC = all children born in the country to citizen parents BECAUSE children follow the condition of the father. The concept of so-called "native-born children" is not the same thing. It is based only on circumstances defined by the Constitution via the 14th amendment, which was CLEARLY what the Wong Kim Ark decision ruled, subject to permanent domicil and residence.
I don’t think you are much of a Supreme Court Legalist because you can’t read stuff and retain it very long. Plus, you did NOT give linky thingies to your cases. You did not explain what the cases were about. Because I found one of them and it was something to do about the American Revolution and stuff and was from 1830.
Which, 1830 is before 1888, 1898, and 2009 all three of them. Plus things were very iffy around the time of the American Revolution, and stuff depended on who went where and when, by what I did find real fast on your case thingy. Sooo, Mr. Supreme Court Legalist, whatever that is, which I wish all you Vattle Birthers would start calling yourselves sooo you wouldn’t embarrass regular Common Sense Suspicious Birthers sooo much, you can not take cases which are before Wong Kim Ark and try to overturn Wong Kim Ark with them. Because another one of you Vattle Birthers here tried that already and my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a REAL lawyer called him “Perry Mason” and not in a good way.
What you are doing is just stringing words together to mislead people here and give conservatives bad and false legal advice about Mark Rubio.
Sooo, if you want to give linky thingys to your cases, and tell what they are about, and what year, and how it relates to NBC and stuff, then do it. If not, I am going with the 1898 Supreme Court which says, and I REPEAT, for the slow of learning:
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore 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.
III. 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.13”
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
Which is simply, “everybody born here, even aliens, except kids of diplomats or soldiers, is born in the allegiance of the United States, and all these people are natural born citizens.
It doesn’t say nothing about Vattel. It doesn’t say nothing about their parents, except for diplomats and soldiers, and it doesn’t say nothing about whatever else you are just making up.
So There!!!