the beginning of your posted comment mentions subjects and Citizens, the bolded ending portion just mentions subject, not Citizen.did you miss that? Seems the words are not interchangeable to the writer of Wong Kim Ark... that you posted.
The writer of Wong Kim Ark was U.S. Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray writing for a 6-2 majority.
"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."
It does not say all persons born in the United States to two U.S. citizens.
The ending portion of my #4 uses the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction," and that has nothing to do with being a subject (of the king) vs. being a citizen. That has to do with being subject to the laws of the United States.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 658-59:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 662-63:
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 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."
When silly birther nonsense is presented to a court, the results are predictable.
https://casetext.com/case/kerchner-v-obama-2
Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (2010) Third Circuit, July 1, 2010
III.Because we have decided that this appeal is frivolous, we will order counsel for Appellants to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 provides that "[i]f a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee." "The purpose of an award of attorneys' fees under Rule 38 is to compensate appellees who are forced to defend judgments awarded them in the trial court from appeals that are wholly without merit, and to preserve the appellate court calendar for cases worthy of consideration." Huck v. Dawson, 106 F.3d 45, 52 (3d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation and citation omitted). "Damages [under Rule 38] are awarded by the court in its discretion... as a matter of justice to the appellee." Beam v. Bauer, 383 F.3d 106, 108 (3d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation and citation omitted). An "important purpose [of a damages award] is to discourage litigants from unnecessarily wasting their opponents' time and resources." Nagle v. Alspach, 8 F.3d 141, 145 (3d Cir. 1993).
"This court employs an objective standard to determine whether or not an appeal is frivolous" which "focuses on the merits of the appeal regardless of good or bad faith." Hilmon Co. v. Hyatt Int'l, 899 F.2d 250, 253 (3d Cir. 1990) (internal quotation omitted). We have stated that "an appeal from a frivolous claim is likewise frivolous." Beam, 383 F.3d at 108. Appellants had ample notice that this appeal had no merit. They should have been aware that we rejected almost identical claims in Berg, as have courts in other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Barnett v. Obama, No. 09-0082, F. Supp. 2d, 2009 WL 3861788, at *4-*6 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009) (holding that active and former military personnel lack Article III standing requirements to challenge President Obama's eligibility for office); Cohen v. Obama, No. 08-2150, 2008 WL 5191864, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2008) (holding that a federal prisoner who alleged that then-Senator Obama was "an illegal alien impersonating a United States citizen" lacked standing under Article III), aff'd, Cohen v. Obama, 332 F. App'x 640 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
Examination of this precedent would have made it "obvious to a reasonable attorney that an appeal from the District Court's order was frivolous, [as no] law or facts... support a conclusion that the District Court judge had erred." Beam, 383 F.3d at 109. Moreover, other courts have imposed sanctions for similar reasons. See Hollister v. Soetero, 258 F.R.D. 1, 2-5 (D.D.C. 2009) (reprimanding an attorney under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) for signing and filing a complaint alleging that President Obama was ineligible to serve as president because he is not a "natural born Citizen"), aff'd, Hollister v. Soetoro, Nos. 09-5080, 09-5161, 2010 WL 1169793 (D.C. Cir. March 22, 2010); see also Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1373 (M.D.Ga. 2009) (imposing monetary sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(3) against counsel who filed similar claims on behalf of members of the military), aff'd, Rhodes v. MacDonald, No. 09-15418, 2010 WL 892848 (11th Cir. March 15, 2010).
In the past, "we cautioned counsel that a finding by a District Court that a lawsuit is frivolous should serve as notice to the parties and their attorney to exercise caution, pause, and devote additional examination to the legal validity and factual merit of his contentions." Beam, 383 F.3d at 109 (quotation omitted). Although the District Court did not explicitly state that Appellants' claims were frivolous, the finding of other district courts that plaintiffs who filed complaints based on similar legal theories violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 should have served as meaningful notice that the appeal here would be frivolous.5 We therefore will order Appellants' counsel to show cause why he should not pay just damages and costs for having filed a frivolous appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 38.
IV.
For the reasons set forth, we will affirm the District Court's order of dismissal.
Ah, I see you are using the typical OBOT tactic to steer the thread off course by attacking the messenger and not discussing the specific arguments put forward in Joseph DeMaio’s three part critique of the linguistic trickery in the C&K 2015 paper about the meaning of the nbC term in our U.S. Constitution. And your buddies in linguistic crime here are engaging in name calling and character assassination. OBOTs tag-teamwork at their finest.
As to my treatment before the courts, it is an obvious example of early law-fare threats at its finest. Deflections by the courts like lack of standing, political question, or frivolous filings, etc., instead of taking on the issue and determining in the federal court system the true meaning and original intent of the nbC term in the presidential eligibility clause. And we see that law-fare and courts doing dirty deeds instead of their constitutional duty in full action against Donald Trump these days in even more obvious use.
The Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al case was the first totally “ripe” case since Obama was now the “President Elect” having skated by the hurdles of the Electoral College and action by Congress to protect the Constitution from an ineligible usurper being put in the highest office, and had not yet been sworn in at the time it was filed.
By the way, you did not report that Atty Mario Apuzzo (now deceased) challenged the 3rd Circuit on their threat of damages in an extensive and thorough answer to the court as to why the appeal was not frivolous and by his requesting a public hearing on their threats to prove they were wrong, per his rights under the rules of the court, and the 3rd Circuit judges quietly backed off dropped that idea of theirs to sanction him. The courts did not want any light on the issue from a public hearing on the various issues in play. Thus, Atty Apuzzo was not sanctioned. The 3rd Circuit ducked on that law-fare attempt of theirs to scare off Atty Apuzzo. It did not work.
And from there as you OBOTs know so we were on to the U.S. Supreme Court, who under the compromised leadership of Chief Justice Roberts as the history of my and other cases brought on the nbC issue, it has evaded the issue. Justice Thomas told us that in a Congressional hearing. From top to bottom the federal court system used every tactic at their disposal to not take a case and try it on the merits. Why? Because they new the answer. And Obama was not constitutionally a natural born Citizen of the United States and the courts were afraid to take him on as both major political parties were in on the fix to abrogate the nbC term in the 2008 election cycle. See: https://www.calameo.com/books/0058410031629810ae268
Readers can see the various filings in my federal lawsuit here, including the Supreme Court filing: https://www.scribd.com/document/61221761/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-00-Table-of-Contents-for-2nd-Amended-Complaint
But as we have learned by the process, the fix was in at all levels of the courts in our nation to abrogate the original intent, meaning, and the WHY of the nbC term in the presidential eligibility clause. See: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf
And we got the Usurper in Chief, Barack Hussein Obama with his Marxist, Islamic, anti-American “Dreams From My Father” agenda who then proceeded to implement his destruction of our constitutional republic. And Team Obama continues in that process via his 3rd term behind the curtains controlling Biden and Harris.
So continue to attack the messenger here as you likely will continue to do instead of addressing the specifics arguments made by Joseph DeMaio’s critique and writings about the linguistic trickery used by Clements and Katyal in their 2015 paper. Or did all you OBOTs not even read the three part analysis and critique? Probably not, imo.
Here’s your “silly birther” scenario- KGB agent sneak into the country, have a child, go back to Russia with the child, raise the child to be a Manchurian candidate; come back to the US when he’s age-eligible and he runs as the international candidate in the Democrat primary. Born of illegal parents, spent one day in America… You think he is a natural-born citizen. Silly you.
I find the observation made by Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court in the case of United States v. Rhodes (1866), that “...[B]irth and allegiance go together”... to be wrong.
Under English common law, birth and allegiance do go together, but not in a Republic made of the ‘Consent to be Governed.’
This point also supports the notion that ‘natural citizenship’ is citizenship acquired as a natural right by natural law at birth. It is not citizenship acquired by the state, either at birth or after.
As far as jurisdiction goes, Congress sets jurisdiction. As long as birth occurs within the sole jurisdiction of the United States, they are natural citizens.
In 2011 it was discovered that somebody tampered with Justia.com, the preeminent website for searching Supreme Court cases, precedents, links to cited cases, etc.
In the summer of 2008, all references to "natural born citizen" in Supreme Court cases were scrubbed from Justia.com. A few years after the election, the references were restored. It's almost as if some people were concerned enough to conspire to make it difficult to research prior SCOTUS mentions of "natural born citizen" leading up to the Obama election. And it was happening while the birth certificate stories were swirling.
See the following Free Republic articles on this finding. Note that it got no mention in the LAAP-dog media.
10/20/2011 - JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS
10/23/2011 - Eligibility rulings vanish from Net (Minor v Happersett, FReeper Danae quoted)
10/27/2011 - Look Who Cited To Justia For Supreme Court Holding.
10/29/2011 - Conspiracies, Lies, and Justiagate
10/31/2011 - JustiaGate: The Cover-Up Continues
12/14/2011 - JustiaGate: 'Natural Born' Supreme Court Citations Disappear
-PJ