You don’t get to go back to the cases that are quoted and add stuff to the case they are quoted in. Because that is the court’s job. They bring into the case, the stuff that they think applies. If courts did stuff the way you do, every case would be 9,000 pages long or more.
The court quotes what it thinks is applicable. Period. The Wong Kim Ark judges must not have figured that talking about people caught in the middle of the American Revolution, between England and America, were really applicable beyond those times.
The quote above was in Section III of the Wong Kim Ark case, which started out explaining how American law so far had followed the English common law. Remember these two paragraphs???:
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, 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.
NOW here, in this No. III section the judges start listing the American law cases that PROVED the “same rule” was in effect here, and one of them was:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
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 [p663] 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.
If you want to be a lawyer when you grow up, and then try to be a judge, then it will be YOUR job to quote stuff that you think is applicable.
This is one way HOW you Vattle Birthers just mangle law stuff all over the place. You keep wanting to cram stuff into a case that isn’t there. Like Vattel, like natural law, like people’s library cards, like a letter to George Washington, etc. etc., even one person I read somewhere who was quoting Deuteronomy or something. I forget who it was.
My BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer, says this is what PRETEND lawyers do because they don’t know any better. This is one reason why people laugh at Vattle Birthers,and say, like Mark Levin, that the Vattle stuff is Birther crap, and there is no debate, and Vattle birthers are not rational.
Sooo, quit trying to put stuff into a case that isn’t there, and maybe you might be able to follow what is going on for a change.
You don't understand. Gray wasn't using this citation to declare anyone to be a natural-born citizen. He was only using it to give teeth to the 14th amendment. For you to quote it and think it has broader application to the definition of natural-born citizen is wrong, which is why I gave the context of the quote. Obviously Gray knew that context because he avoided declaring Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen.
The quote above was in Section III of the Wong Kim Ark case, which started out explaining how American law so far had followed the English common law.
It doesn't matter. Gray says NBC is outside the Constitution and the definition he finally settles on is from the Minor decision. He doesn't dispute it and he acknowledges that Virginia Minor's citizenship was based in part on having citizen parents. English common law won't change that, but Gray felt he could still use it to bolster the 14th amendment. To do so, he resorted to different terminology: "citizenship by birth."
If section III was sufficient, there would have been no section IV or V in the decision. Surely, even YOU are smart enough to understand that and honest enough to admit it.