Which does not create a natural born citizen as understood by the Founders.
You have previously relied on English common law. For example in Post 153:
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 common law of this country, as well as of England."Born in the allegiance of the United States". Allegiance is political not territorial.
Sen. Trumbull, framer of 14th Amendment:
The provision is, that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof." What do we mean by "complete jurisdiction thereof?" Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.Notice that "jurisdiction" is political not territorial.
Even Calvins Case, to which you alluded:
"And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum, neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King."Born in "the ligeance of a subject"
So what exactly is your point?
Note there is only one office not open to a naturalized citizen - the Presidency. That demonstrates that the NBC clause is to prevent naturalized citizens from being President. And as the alternative to naturalized citizens, there is, in the US Constitution, natural born citizens. Those citizens not naturalized, but citizens from birth, are in the second category, in opposition to the definition of the first.
Partly correct.
The question in WKA:
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.Was answered by declaring WKA to be a citizen under the 14th Amendment.
Prior to WKA there were two kinds of citizenship: native or natural born, and naturalized. Subsequent to WKA this is no longer true.
Gray misinterpreted the jurisdiction clause of the 14th Amendment applying it in a territorial rather than political sense, substituting domicile of the parents for citizenship of the parents.
The result of this broadened interpretation was that the children of aliens became citizens.
The court created a distinction where none had existed. It severed "native born citizen" from "natural born citizen".
Subsequent to WKA there are three kinds of citizenship: native born, natural born, and naturalized.
Article II's natural born citizen requirement is untouched.
Article II does not specify "no person except a naturalized citizen", Article II specifies "no person except a natural born citizen"
It is worthless trying to discuss law with someone who doesn’t know what a holding is, binding precedence, or common law.
“Notice that “jurisdiction” is political not territorial. “
Every court disagrees with you. Your argument was considered and rejected in 1898. It was made again and rejected again in 1942. So what is YOUR point - that you expect the US government to reject the US Supreme Court rulings, and start a system of citizenship that rejects our entire history?
WKA was NOT just about the 14th. NBC was argued and the theory rejected. That is why half of the decision covers the meaning of NBC. I understand you don’t like the decision, but do you really think the US Supreme Court will overturn over 100 years of citizenship cases for the express purpose of rejecting Obama?
If you do not understand the difference between the question the case is ruling on, and how holdings go about answering that question, and which of the two are binding (hint: both), then there can be no legal discussion.
“Subsequent to WKA there are three kinds of citizenship: native born, natural born, and naturalized.”
No state, no court, and no member of Congress agrees with your novel theory. So what do you plan to do with it? If every court rejects your legal theory, and you continue to cling to it, are you not nuts?