Show the passages. Again, the burden is on you to show this and not make somebody else hunt for it. I’ve given you several opportunities and you keep dodging.
“Show the passages. Again, the burden is on you to show this and not make somebody else hunt for it. Ive given you several opportunities and you keep dodging.”
In Wong Kim Ark,Justice Gray wrote at great length about the understanding of the term natural bornand its common law meaning, probing English authorities and concluding that the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country,and continuing to the present day, . . . 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. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United Statesafterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.This position as to the common law meaning is in accord with Justice Joseph Storys statement, concurring in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99,7 L. Ed. 617 (1830), Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents reside there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth. See Wong Kim Ark, 160 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court also cited Justice Swaynes comment in United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott 26,40, 41 (1860).
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are
natural-born subjects, and all person 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 the common law of this country, as well as of England.
The Wong Kim Ark Court then stated:
We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle
of the common law has ever been changed
in the UnitedStates. It has always obtained here
with the same vigor,and subject only to the same exceptions [children ofambassadors, etc.], since
as before the Revolution.
[Wong Kim Ark, supra, at 169 U.S. 662-663, 18 S. Ct.
at 462].
The Georgia Secretary of State recently denied a similar challenge to Mr. Obamas status as a natural born citizen in Farrar, et al. v. Obama, OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MAHIHI, where Georgia State Administrative Law Judge Mahili relied upon Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark for his ruling that the President was indeed a natural born citizen.
_______________________________________________________
{2}
The Wong Kim Ark decision was preceded by Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167, 22L.Ed. 627 (1874), where the Supreme Court stated that while the Constitution did not say in words who shall be natural-born citizens there were some authorities who held that children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents were citizens. The Court concludes that it was not necessary to decide that issue in Minor. Wong Kim Ark more directly addresses the issue of who is natural-born although it is acknowledged that neither of these cases involved the use of the term in connection with a presidential candidate and the unique Constitutional requirements for holding that office. Nevertheless, the Wong Kim Ark ruling certainly goes very far in defining the term and its meaning in this country. And the decision does not suggest that the common law rule identified therein only applied at the state level and not on a national basis, as counsel here claims.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo