If you agree the 14th amendment follows common law, then you agree that born on the soil means natural born, as the common law says. Glad we agree on this.
WKA affirmed that NBC = born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
Saying it more often doesn't make it true. Justice Gray quoted several sources, some conflicting. He quoted many sources that said the US follows common law, that "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" were analogous, etc. But you don't like those so you ignore them.
"He could not, in any case, be a British citizen."
This is false and Obama's own website said his citizenship was governed by British law at birth.
At birth yes, but when Kenya became independent in 1963, that British citizenship was gone. Sr. became a Kenyan citizen, and 0bama no longer had the option of British citizenship (at the grand old age of 2 years). So as an adult, there was no question of British citizenship. Good try.
by some accounts, Obama was in Kenya when he would have been old enough to preserve his Kenyan citizenship.
And what evidence do you have that this occurred? This is typical of the "natural born" or "birth certificate" crowd. "I speculate x could have happened, therefore it did happen." He would have had to formally renounce, in writing, at a US consulate or embassy. So there would be a paper trail had this actually occurred. Nice fantasy, though.
Wrong. The court refers to this "opinion" as a guiding principle to follow: In deciding whether a person has obtained the right of an acquired domicile, it is not to be expected that much if any assistance should be derived from mere elementary writers on the law of nations. They can only lay down the general principles of law, and it becomes the duty of courts to establish rules for the proper application of those principles.
Gee, funny, I don't see them affirming that they agree with the author's opinion. I see them saying it is the duty of the courts to decide the proper application of the law.
"However, US law does not provide for "inferior citizens."
Yeah, actually it does. It separates persons into citizens and "nationals" ...Sec. 308. [8 U.S.C. 1408] Unless otherwise provided in section 301 of this title, the following shall be nationals, but not citizens of the United States at birth:
Your own citation shows you are wrong. That law does is not about "grades" of citizens, it deals with those born in outlying possessions, who are called "nationals" and their children.
If he was born outside the U.S., then his mother needed to be age 19 or older to pass on her citizenship to him OR she needed to be legally unwed.
One of the few places we agree.
Jus soli does define NBC. Only when accompanied by jus sanguinis. This is how the Supreme Court defined it in at least TWO landmark cases. Your Scalia quote is not specifically about citizenship. It's hypocritical for you to complain about The Venus citation and then for you to rely on out-of-court statements made by Scalia on his very general philosophy. I believe I've found Scalia citing law of nations or Vattel in other threads. Bellei also does not undermine the Minor definition of NBC. Insisting that Wong and Bellei do so is a matter of two Wongs that don't make you right.
Trying to be clever, but you're failing. You keep claiming Minor defined NBC, but Minor specifically said it would not resolve the doubt. Scalia was clear that much US law is interpreted by going back to common law, particularly where the language echoed phrases from English common law. "Natural born" is clear in common law, and Rogers v Bellei and Ankeny are clear that we follow the common law.
The so-called common law only defines conditions for natural born subjects. There is no common law for natural-born citizenship except for the law of nations definition given in Minor and quoted in WKA.
Saying it more often doesn't make it true. Justice Gray quoted several sources, some conflicting.
There are no sources that conflict with the Minor definition. As has been noted several times, when Gray gives the Minor definition of natural-born citizen, it is the last time he uses this term in the decision.
He quoted many sources that said the US follows common law, that "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" were analogous, etc.
Sorry, but this is simply not true. There is NOWHERE in the decision that Gray says NBS is analoug with NBC. All you have is BS.
At birth yes, but when Kenya became independent in 1963, that British citizenship was gone.
Where does it say this??
So as an adult, there was no question of British citizenship.
The issue wasn't about what citizenship Obama claims as an adult. The discussion is about the natural citizenship he would have obtained AT BIRTH.
He would have had to formally renounce, in writing, at a US consulate or embassy.
Wrong. There's no legal evidence Obama was ever a U.S. citizen, so it's not certain he would have had anything to renounce, except maybe the Indonesian citizenship he had.
Gee, funny, I don't see them affirming that they agree with the author's opinion. I see them saying it is the duty of the courts to decide the proper application of the law.
It doesn't say "proper application of the law" but instead "proper application of those PRINCIPLES ..." as in "They can only lay down the general PRINCIPLES of law ..." This is a straightforward statement that the court is following principles from law of nations ... AS conveyed by writers such as Vattel, who is fequently cited by name.
Your own citation shows you are wrong. That law does is not about "grades" of citizens, it deals with those born in outlying possessions, who are called "nationals" and their children.
Nonsense. The term of national is defined the same way a citizen is defined, but it is separated with lesser privileges. Notice in the definitions from Title 8, Chapter 12 that citizens and nationals are equated with only Minor differences, such as right to vote.
(3) The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.Trying to be clever, but you're failing. You keep claiming Minor defined NBC, but Minor specifically said it would not resolve the doubt.
(21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state. (22) The term “national of the United States” means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
Nationals who are not citizens cannot vote or hold elected office. However, they may reside and work in the United States without restrictions and apply for citizenship under the same rules as other resident aliens.
Sorry, but YOU'RE the one trying to be clever but failing. Minor said there was NO DOUBT about NBCs. The only doubts were about the citizenship of persons who ARE NOT NBCs.
Scalia was clear that much US law is interpreted by going back to common law, particularly where the language echoed phrases from English common law. "Natural born" is clear in common law, and Rogers v Bellei and Ankeny are clear that we follow the common law.
Scalia wasn't speaking specifically about "natural born." There is legal precedent from both Minor and WKA that disputes your misinterpretation of common law. Neither Rogers and especially NOT Ankeny override the legal precedent from Minor. The only way Ankeny could try to do it was by contradicting itself several times and by avoiding any specific declaration that Obama was an NBC. Notice they did NOT ever say this.