“It goes to the law in place in 1940 & NOT YET REPEALED that the child follows the condition of the father unless born out of wedlock. If the married parents were of different nationalities, then the child MUST at the coming of age, decide & take a formal oath if the child wishes to take the nationality of the mother, otherwise the derivative(consenting) citizenship of the father at birth is said to be his ONLY citizenship of allegiance.”
Ummm...Congress cannot make a law determining the citizenship of someone born in the USA. That is what WKA was about. The idea that Obama is a UK citizen is...LOONY! CRAZY! INSANE!
No court in the country agrees with your novel interpretation of citizenship, which is why folks who agree with you keep getting their butts handed to them in court!
Again, might I suggest you open a book prior to 1800 where it defines the definition of subject, born on soil regardless of parentage & citizen, born to citizen parents.
I challenge you to find me 1 book that defines the 2 as the same. And I do not want opinions in law, I want actual law dictionaries or scholastic dictionaries because even Webster's 1825 dictionary defines them as 2 different things. One being under the rule of a master & the other a free & sovereign member of society. Free members consent to participation, subjects have no say or right to participation unless it is granted to them by the rulers.
I won't hold my breath for you to actually take the challenge as you have already shown your ignorance of history & the law. But one can still hope for the oppressed & ignorant to finally see the light & become informed & free.