Replies

You said: "There were some elements of common law that were used in a couple of the original colonies/states, but not in the U.S. as a whole. "

BUT, The Judge in Lynch v. Clark said IN 1844"

6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question. None was found by the counsel who argued this cause, and so far as I have been able to ascertain, it never has been expressly decided in any of the courts of the respective states, or of the United States.

This circumstance itself, in regard to a point which must have occurred so often in the administration of justice, furnishes a strong inference that there has never been any doubt but that the common law rule was the law of the land. This inference is confirmed, and the position made morally certain, by such legislative, judicial and legal expositions as bear upon the question. Before referring to those, I am bound to say that the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind, so far as I have had the opportunity of knowing it, is that birth in this country, does of itself constitute citizenship.

Thus when at an election, the inquiry is made whether a person offering to vote is a citizen or an alien, if he answers that he is a native of this country, it is received as conclusive that he is a citizen. No one inquires farther. No one asks whether his parents were citizens or were foreigners. It is enough that he was born here, whatever were the status of his parents. I know that common consent is sometimes only a common error, and that public opinion is not any authority on a point of law. But this is a question which is more important, and more deeply felt, in reference to political rights, than to rights of property.

The universality of the public sentiment in this instance, is a part of the historical evidence of the state and progress of the law on the subject. It indicates the strength and depth of the common law principle, and confirms the position that the adoption of the Federal Constitution wrought no change in that principle.

Sooo, this is LOL No.1 on you. Now, what is YOUR argument that you have been PROVEN not to know what you are gibberishing about. You have been trying to fool people here with stuff that was LOSING in court 167 years ago. Are you going to start disclosing that fact to people here??? I bet not.

BUT, The Judge in Lynch v. Clark said IN 1844"

The judge in Lynch v. Clarke (with an E by the way), was expressing a personal opinion, unfortunately for him, it was not based on any fact, from the very first sentence you quoted:

Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.

There is NO law of the United States that says this or anything like this. In fact, the good judge contradicts himself by saying that there is no written law that says who a citizen is.

And the question whether Julia Lynch was or was not a citizen, must be determined by the national unwritten law.

IOW, this guy gave himself carte blanche to invent whatever law he wanted to make up.

After all, if there was national law, the Supreme Court certainly could have quoted it in Slaughterhouse, Elk, Minor or Wong Kim Ark. The Lynch judge goes on:

Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

Notice that this was NEVER quoted by the higher court. This particular judge doesn't come across as very educated. He says:

It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question. None was found by the counsel who argued this cause, and so far as I have been able to ascertain, it never has been expressly decided in any of the courts of the respective states, or of the United States.

This quote is mainly this judge's way of playing ignorant. And he does it to great effect here when confronted directly with a Supreme Court case that clearly undermined his belief in the "national unwritten law."

The case of Inglis v. The Sailor's Snug Harbor was cited as having been decided on the principle of the public law, that the national character of an infant followed the condition of his father. I do not so understand the decision.

Do not so understand the decision?? This judge says it's because Inglis was born BEFORE the Declaration of Independence. Yet the Supreme Court CLEARLY said:

2. If born after the 4th of July 1776, and before the 15th of September of the same year, when the British took possession of New York, his infancy incapacitated him from making any election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his father, subject to the right of disaffirmance in a reasonable time after the termination of his minority; which never having been done, he remains a British subject, and disabled from inheriting the land in question.

Sorry, but this shows that the judge in Lynch ignored clear precedent. There's a reason why very little is quoted by the Supreme Court from this decision. It was junk.