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!!!
The paragraph you quoted about "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" is from U.S. v Rhodes which recognized that you could be born IN THE UNITED STATES and NOT be a U.S. citizen. To be in the allegiance of the United States required that the parents ADHERED to the United States and NOT to Great Britain. Swayne cited Shanks v. Dupont for this part of the common law:
"All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states, were virtually absolved from their allegiance to the British crown, and those who then adhered to the British crown, were deemed and held subjects of that crown. The treaty of peace was a treaty operating between the states on each side, and the inhabitants thereof; in the language of the seventh article, it was a ‘firm and perpetual peace between his Britannic majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of one and the citizens of the other.’ Who then were subjects or citizens was to be decided by the state of facts. If they were originally subjects of Great Britain and then adhered to her and were claimed by her as subject, the treaty deemed them such; if they were originally British subjects, but then adhering to the states, the treaty deemed them citizens.”
Are you UNDERSTANDING what this says?? If a person was NATIVE or otherwise ... IOW, this would include those who were born in the United States who would NOT be U.S. citizen, but would be British subjects because they adhered to the Crown. Thus, in U.S. v Rhodes, you get TWO possible conditions from being born in the United States: NBC or subject of Great Britain. Those persons who adhered to the United States were U.S. citizens and of course, their children if born in the country would be natural born citizens.