Replies

"No, the government argued that WKA was not a U.S. citizen. / Why do you feel the need to lie about that, Mr. Rogers?"

Actually, I've read the arguments submitted to the US Supreme Court for WKA, so I know what I am talking about. You obviously have not read them, or are choosing to be dishonest. The 14th Amendment isn't mentioned until page 17 of the government's argument against WKA's citizenship.

Indeed, the government's argument in WKA reads like a birther textbook. It advances the argument that English common law was an unfit bases for citizenship, and that International Law should prevail. And those arguments were rejected, 6-2.

I do not have access to the arguments as text files, but I've taken a couple of screen capture images to give you a taste:

---------------------------------------------

Only the Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, are the supreme Law of the Land.

Gray violated the Laws of the United States, abrogated Treaties, and applied foreign law - a power “infinitively beyond their power to adopt.” (Jefferson letter to Edmund Randolph, August 18, 1799)

Gray made a political ruling, not one based in law. It is a judicial novelty contrary to law.

Actually, I've read the arguments submitted to the US Supreme Court for WKA, so I know what I am talking about.

Obviously, you DON'T.

I'll defer to Gray himself:

"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

The single question asked and answered. A citizen.

And only by virtue of permanently domiciled parents and other agreed upon facts of the case.

Obama's father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S.

Yes, Mr. Rogers, Defend the Plessy courts rulings. Tell me how absolutely infallible is the Wong/Plessy court.

English Law *IS* incompatible with the principles of American Independence. To find a body of law that is consistent with the Idea of Separation from a Monarchy, you have to look to Switzerland. If you abide by English law, you have no right to leave.