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.
Second, the JUDGES on the HILLBILLY Court, as you call them, went to law school, were real lawyers and real judges, not pretend lawyers/Gurus on the Internet. When the Vattle Birthers tried using YOUR legal theory, and said in their lawsuit:
[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship. . .
The HILLBILLIES said:
The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority [Wong Kim Ark] in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true. . .
Then the HILLBILLIES said that the 14th Amendment and the NBC stuff in the Constitution WERE the same:
The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions[14th Amendment and natural born citizen] in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
The HILLBILLIES also said:
14] We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitutions Article II language is immaterial.
SOOO, for me, I believe the HILLBILLIES, not YOU. If you ever find a legal case that backs up what you say, which I am betting you can't, then let me know. I don't trust YOUR way of looking at cases. YOU get stuff backwards, YOU don't think the 14th Amendment applies to people born here in the U. S. to citizen parents, LIKE ME, and pretty much all you do is read sentences in some weird way to make them say weird stuff, while YOU ignore the important stuff in cases that contradicts you. I do not think you could read a "See Spot run!" book and get it right.
The last thing you should be doing is giving conservatives here legal advice about Mark Rubio and Bobby Jindal. I hope, on a human level, that you eventually break free of the cult.
Sorry, but the precedent is that people can born in the United States and NOT be natural-born citizens. Is that really what you're going with?? I've shown you where that was taken from.
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.
If that's your precedent, it means that Obama is a natural-born subject. Which means he should have been deported. So you agree with me. My work is done. I guess that makes you a "vattle birther" now. Congratulations.