Not quite true - if you read the citations by Justice Gray IN THEIR ENTIRETY [Blackstone, Calvin's Case, Dicey, etc.] in Wong Kim Ark, and then read Wong Kim Ark ENTIRELY, you will find that he bastardized and even flat out lied in the opinion.
It is clear from the opinion he wrote that he believed that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen. The others concurred with the opinion, BUT it is EXPLICITLY stated in the last paragraph :
" ... 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 stated at the beginning of the opinion is:
" ... The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents 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 by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution ..."
NOTICE THAT THEY DECLARED HIM A CITIZEN UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. IF GRAY HAD INSISTED ON DECLARING HIM AN NBC, HE WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN A MAJORITY - SINCE THE OTHER JUSTICES WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED WITH HIM, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE WANTED AN "AGENT PROVOCATEUR" TO POSSIBLY BECOME POTUS IN THE FUTURE. THEY "SPLIT THE BABY" ON THIS - DECLARING HIM A CITIZEN, BUT STOPPING SHORT OF NBC.
Now, Justice Gray said in the opinion:
" ... 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. ..."
Not quite true, what Blackstone REALLY said was this:
" ... For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be divested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters; and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince."
AND FURTHER:
" ... The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such ..."
NOTE THE CAVEAT "GENERALLY SPEAKING", ABOVE ...
Blackstone admits that there are exceptions - notably, Denizens ...
AND FURTHER:
" ... A Denizen is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject: a high and incommunicable branch of the royal prerogative. A Denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them. He may take lands by purchase or devise, which an alien may not; but cannot take by inheritance: for his parent, through whom he must claim, being an alien had no inheritable blood, and therefore could convey none to the son. And, upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue of a denizen, born before denization, cannot inherit to him; but his issue born after, may. A denizen is not excused from paying the alien's duty, and some other mercantile burdens. And no denizen can be of the privy council, or either house of parliament, or have any office of trust, civil or military, or be capable of any grant from the crown."
A natural-born subject CAN ONLY have one allegiance, but all children born in England (regardless of parentage) are natural born subjects. However, there are exceptions - when the alien parents' country lays claim to the child's citizenship. When this happens, the child is a Denizen.
BTW: Blackstone is a COMMENTARY on the laws of England - and IS NOT the law itself ...
If you read Calvin's Case (1608) and the British Nationality Act of 1730, (which was the controlling English Law) [cited by Dicey] at the time of the framing of the Constitution), you will find that a natural-born subject is both born WITHIN the sovreign's dominion AND under SOLITARY allegiance to that same sovreign. You will ALSO find that this was extended in 1730 to include all children born BEYOND the sovreign's dominion - as long as the father was a natural born subject.
So, with Obama, you have a child born on U.S. soil, a citizen under the 14th Amendment - BUT, he is also a natural-born subject of England [under the British Nationality Act 0f 1948].
These traits ARE WHOLLY incompatible with the Founding Fathers' concept of NBC - Obama is a Denizen (which is probably what we call a dual citizen). He is British by British law and American by US law - BUT HE CANNOT BE NBC !!!
Funny that he did not write that then in his conclusion. What he wrote was:
becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.
If if meant natural born citizen, he likely would have written:
"is a natural born citizen of he United States".
Agreed.
The others concurred with the opinion,
Except for the two dissenters, who apparently explicitly objected to the NBC part of the opinion.
NOTICE THAT THEY DECLARED HIM A CITIZEN UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
That is because the case did not involve the question of whether Wong Kim Ark was a NBC for the purposes of running for president. Also in those days it was undoubtedly inconceivable that someone like the plaintiff would ever have a chance to become POTUS. Note that the dissenters included racial reasoning among their other arguments.
IF GRAY HAD INSISTED ON DECLARING HIM AN NBC, HE WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN A MAJORITY - SINCE THE OTHER JUSTICES WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED WITH HIM,
But six other justices did sign off on an opinion that, without explicitly declaring him so, clearly implies that Wong Kim Ark was a NBC.
" ... The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such ..."
Blackstone admits that there are exceptions - notably, Denizens ...
Obama is a Denizen
If you look up the definition of denizen, it is very clear that Obama is not a denizen.
BTW I am not arguing that Obama is a NBC. I was only pointing out that anyone bringing a case on this subject would at least have to overcome some of the arguments made in the Wong Kim Ark majority opinion. Perhaps that is not so difficult.
To: wideminded; All
I have heard that 'All' does not cause anyone to be pinged.