| < Note: this is a long post, but please stick with it ... there's important NEW info & citations within >
Indeed. You just described the average Obama-supporting After-Birther who wanders through here, quoting from bulletpoint "fact" sheets created by some half-ass Progressive legal assistant ... LOL one only needs to read this paragraph from Justice Fuller lamenting the very reality created by the majority's opinion... ROTFLMAO ... so instead of citing CASE law, you're now quoting Dissenting Opinions to attempt to make your point? Now that's funny. Well if you're playing that game ... Justice Gray laments the very reality created by the Minority opinion (Justice Fuller) ... about 11 paragraphs down in Gray's Majority opinion:
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]
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.”So ... FROM WHERE would "Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that" come? Obviously Common Law, although Natural Law (Vattel, Locke, etc) had a very strong influence as well (seeing how France financed a lot of the Revolutionary War and the Colonists had a general disdain for British law). However, let's delve deeper on the subject of citations used by Justice Gray in US vs. Kim Wong Ark. HINT: Don't hang your hat on A.W. Dicey's "Conflict of Law" (1896 edition) as used in Justice Gray's US v. Kim Wong Ark Opinion (1898).
The first modern case that pops into my head is the 2008 DC v. Heller SCOTUS Opinion on “to keep and bear arms”, which overturned nearly 70 years of BAD Lower Court Opinions and Local/State laws stemming from the badly-written and incomplete 1939 US v Miller SCOTUS Opinion. It's a VERY good bet that today's Chief Justice Roberts' SCOTUS Court will eventually "clarify" historically-incorrect sections of Justice Gray's 1898 US v. Kim Wong Ark Opinion and his historical analysis therein. Here's why:
See, the quote you offered, "It thus clearly appears that by the law of England ... whatever the nationality of his parents, is born within the British dominions, acquires British nationality at birth and is a natural-born British subject." was first published in the unrefined 1896 First Edition of A.W. Dicey's "Conflict of Law." Justice Gray used the two-year-old First Edition version of Dicey's book in his 1898 US v. Kim Wong Ark analysis. (Gray used other weak references to make his point in his 1898 US v. Ark Opinion, too, like Binney's 1853 "Alienigenae of the United States" ... a pamphlet rejected by Congress, where Binney contradicts himself in 1854, LOL). However, in Dicey's SECOND Edition of "Conflict of Law" published in 1908 and subsequent editions, you will NOT find that quote from Dicey. Dicey "corrected" himself later ... perhaps why Dicey’s “Conflict of Laws” has been cited only EIGHT times in ALL of the searchable US Supreme Court Opinions on record. You'll find that Dicey — after further analysis of Common Law of the latter-18th century — revealed THIS in his 1908 Second Edition of “Conflict of Laws”:
"A child whose father's father (paternal grandfather) was born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject, even though the child's father and the child himself were not born within the British dominions." (Hint: This would DIRECTLY IMPACT Barack Hussein Obama and his lineage to his British father and British subject, regardless of Obama Jr's birthplace). By 1932, an older and wiser A. W. Dicey wrote: “To any critic of Blackstone, as to any student of English law, I unhesitatingly give this advice: Begin your study by reading Blackstone's Commentaries. Keep in mind that the book describes English law as it stood towards the end of the eighteenth century.” Dicey finds the proverbial acorn with his 1932 observation, as the SCOTUS of yesteryear and today references Blackstone's Commentaries on a very regular basis! This methodology to determine the Framer's Original Intent — by referencing Common Law as it existed at the time of the Framing "towards the end of the eighteenth century" — has been re-affirmed by the SCOTUS and Constitutional experts time and time again. Again, citing DC v Heller (2008), the SCOTUS must make Opinions as "interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution."
“In particular, the Court noted the Constitution's requirement that the President be a “natural-born citizen,” a condition whose meaning could be derived only by reference to English common law in existence at the time” – see US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), referencing Minor v. Happersett (1874). To reiterate: Blackstone has been referenced THOUSANDS of times by the US Supreme Court to define the Framer's Original Intent ... nearly 20 times in DC v Heller alone! Blackstone's Commentaries has stood the test of time; A.W. Dicey's "Conflict of Law" — used by Justice Gray in US v. Ark (1898) — HAS NOT.
So ... what does Blackstone say about British subjects, Allegiance and "service to two masters" (i.e., Dual Citizenship)?
|
