WKA did.
“That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.”
“And I never quoted any dissenting WKA opinions.”
You didn’t quote, but the reference you used came directly from the dissent in WKA. Without the DISSENT of WKA, you would never have found out about Hausding and Greisser.
Federal law does not trump the US Constitution.
They also cited this:
“In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
And about the only place where Hausding and Greisser can be found is in the dissent (losing side) of WKA.
WKA did. “That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.”WKA also cites Minor v. Happersett, an ACTUAL Supreme Court case:
"In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision."
We already know that Minor v. Happersett defines natural born citizen thusly:
"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners"
We also are quite aware that those born in the U.S. to an alien parent whose country asserts jus sanguinis citizenship law, are born foreigners (foreign citizens). Obama's campaign and the DNC admit to exactly such when they posted on their own website the fact that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed Obama's status:
