Replies

“Why not quote the SCOTUS definition?”

I have in other threads, and will again below, but for we laymen secondary authorities such as /Black’s/ are more instructive. The editors of /Black’s/ actually have the expertise that the Vattel-birthers pretend, to understand what precedents control and what they mean.

On the issue here courts and legal scholars cite U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), in which the SCOTUS quoted the definition to British jurist A. V. Dicey: “’Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’” In the same opinion the Court explained that our Constitution is written in the language of English common law, and, “The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”

We laymen can read a legal ruling from the highest court in the land and understand it just fine thank you. We do not need the high priests of lawyers and judges to spoon feed it to us.

M v. H lays it out just fine. Quoting other sources is intentional and malicious deflection.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on the precise definition of what is in Article II, Section 1. We need nothing secondary to support it. It is clear.

On the issue here courts and legal scholars cite U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), in which the SCOTUS quoted the definition to British jurist A. V. Dicey: “’Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’” In the same opinion the Court explained that our Constitution is written in the language of English common law, and, “The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”

You did happen to see this page from John Adam's very own personal copy of Bacon (1736) on law?

Apparently the main requirement for a "natural born subject" according to one book KNOWN to have been in a founder's possession was that the PARENTS had to be under the ACTUAL Obedience of the King. I take that to mean that they already had to be loyal subjects. Transient Aliens need not apply. I also notice it references the PARENTS First, before it mentions place of birth. I take that to mean that the one thing is of greater significance than the other.

Link