Furthermore, just because the court relied on English law that was used in WKA, does not make it right & true as to the original meaning thereof in the Constitution and of the framers who wrote the 14th that is clearly recorded. Meese used congressional records that Grey also used in his deciding opinion in Elk. In WKA, Grey overturned his own decision as the 9th curcuit just did in the AZ voter registration case in which there, the Chief Justice also wrote a scathing dissent.
Courts overturn themselves ALL the time these days depending on the political philosophy of the judges & the make-up of the court. If our Constitution is a living breathing document, then we have no Constitution or supreme Law because the law is always subject to change based on the opinions of a few and in 1898, there was plenty of congressional record & case law as well as Acts of Congress as to who were the “born” citizens. There was absolutely no reason for Gray to have to refer to English law.
The entire crux of the definition goes to its origins, a subject is a member of society by conference and does not always include political rights, a citizen is a member of society by consent, either direct or tacit and an alien parent does not have the authority of law to consent for their children to be members of a society in which they are not members as they hold no political rights. Also, according to English law, a naturalized subject becomes a natural born thus if English law IS the law, then by right, every naturalized citizen of the US became natural born and thus they should be eligible for president.
This is what you are saying...do you not know how absolutely absurd you sound when you consistently rely on the liberal progressive theology feudal law that has no foundation in "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"? The Declaration is listed as the 1st law of the land, the Articles of Confederation 2nd, & the Constitution 3rd and English Law is not mentioned in any of them as our foundation, but the Laws of Nature are.
JEFFRIS V. EAST OMAHA LAND CO., 134 U. S. 178
In the Roman law. it was said in the Institutes of Gaius, Book II, § 70: “
Alluvion is an addition of soil to land by a river so gradual that in short ...
http://supreme.justia.com/us/134/178/case.html
KER & CO. V. COUDEN, 223 U. S. 268
Justinian’s Institutes, 2, 1, 20 (Gaius, II. 70), followed by the Partidas, 3,
28, 26, give the alluvial increase of river banks to. Page 223 U. S. 276 ...
http://supreme.justia.com/us/223/268/case.html
“You obviously do not understand the term “redundancy” as it applies to making law and what Meese was talking about.”
That must be why all 9 justices agreed with me and not Meese...