The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth . . . What do you think the ancient and fundamental rule is??? It's all that natural born citizen stuff they talked about in the case, that went back to 1608. How do I know this???
(1) I can READ.
(2) The Wong Kim Ark judges said it: "The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
(3)Another court said the same thing:
By the common law, a child born within the allegiance—the jurisdiction—of the United States, is born a subject or citizen thereof, without reference to the political status or condition of its parents. McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawy., 118 ; In re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawy., 353 ; 21 Fed. Rep., 905; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch., 583. In the latter case it was held that Julia Lynch, who was born in New York in 1849, of alien parents during a temporary sojourn by them in that city; and returned with them the same year to their native country, where she resided until her death, was an American citizen. The vice-chancellor, after an exhaustive examination of the law, declared that every citizen born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States was a citizen thereof, without reference to the situation of his parents. This, of course, does not include the children born in the United States of parents engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, whose residence, in contemplation of public law, is a part of their own country. THE RULE OF COMMON LAW ON THIS SUBJECT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE LAND. The fourteenth amendment declares : persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside.’
(4) Vattle Birthers tried YOUR silly nonsense and court and LOST:
“[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, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants’ Brief at 23.
(5) The HILLBILLY Court, as you call them, also read the 14th Amendment and NBC as the same thing:
The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
(6) The Vattle Birthers themselves said:
“[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, owing no foreign allegiance.”
Which means even the Vattle Birthers themselves admit MOST PEOPLE DON'T READ IT THE WAY US VATTLE BIRTHERS DO
Sooo, I don't really care about YOU having an opinion, because it is a free country. BUT, I do care when you try to convince other conservatives that Mark Rubio and Bobby Jindal are not eligible and then don't bother to tell people here that your opinion has lost in court, and is not the view of MOST people.
squeezy, there are NO assumptions. I've given direct citations so that people of limited reading ability like yourself can see what is being said. NOTHING has been ignored. I've explained several times why Gray cited what he cited and how it applied to the different concepts of natural-born citizen (outside the constitution) and HIS concept of citizenship by birth (inside the constitution). The only person making an assumption is YOU in trying to connect dots that Gray NEVER connected. You try to draw a picture of a watermelon while gray drew pictures of apples and oranges.
It's all that natural born citizen stuff they talked about in the case, that went back to 1608. How do I know this???
They didn't go back to 1608 to talk about natural born citizenship. This is YOU imagining something to be there that just isn't there.
(2) The Wong Kim Ark judges said it:
Said what??? The term "natural-born citizen is NOWHERE inside of that passage.
Second, this is talking about the 14th amendment and the court has said in two other places that it does NOT say who natural-born citizens are and that it excludes children born in the country to citizens.
Third, the closest this comes to NBC is when it says "AS MUCH a citizen as the natural-born CHILD OF a citizen." IOW, this still makes a distinction between alien-born and natural-born. Guess what?? An apple is AS MUCH a piece of fruit as is a banana, but a banana is NOT an apple. Under the same analogy, Obama would be a fruit.
Back to this passage: while English statutory law (as cited from Coke's Case) turned Scots into Brits, it didn't specifically turn Kenyans, Hawaiians or Indonesians into Brits. To do that, the aliens had to have what is called "actual obedience" to the crown. Otherwise, they could apply to be legal inhabitants, also called "denizens." Under the denizenship, the children of denizens are NOT natural-born subjects, but instead are just denizens.
(3)Another court said the same thing:
Again, NOTHING here says ANYTHING about natural born citizenship. All is says is that the 14th amendment incorporated common law to make persons born in the country to be citizens. It does NOT say they are natural-born citizens. It's pretty ridiculous for you to comaplain about "assumptions" when that's all you have.
(4) Vattle Birthers tried YOUR silly nonsense and court and LOST:
Wrong. This doesn't cite the SCOTUS. This was what the Hoosier Hillbilly's said in the Ankeny case: "The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief;" Well, I AM citing that authority and proving how ignorant and/or willfully stupid this court was.
(5) The HILLBILLY Court, as you call them, also read the 14th Amendment and NBC as the same thing:
No, what you cited only says that under the NBC clause and the 14th amendment that new citizens may be born or naturalized. It doesn't say ALL persons born in the U.S. are natural-born citizens. And in fact, the Hillbillies clearly contradict themselves in a span of ONE sentence.
In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
Did you catch this?? The Indiana Appeal Court says that in Minor, the court observed that the Constitution (yes, Virgina, the 14th amendment is part of the Constitution) does NOT say who natural-born citizens are. IOW, there's NO way they can claim ANY guidance that persons born in the country are natural-born citizens UNLESS they were born to citizen parents. This court is guilty of what it accused of the plaintiffs: making "conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions."
Game. Set. Match.