Washington Post Hits Ted Cruz With 12 'Birther' Stories In Two Days

Over the course of just two days, the Washington Post pounded its readers with 12 "birther" stories aimed at Texas Senator Ted Cruz. Headlines included, "Can Ted Cruz Run for President?", "Canadian Born Ted Cruz Releases Birth Certificate Amid Queries if He's Eligible for Presidential Run," "Ted Cruz: I am Not a Canadian," and "No, Ted Cruz "Birthers" are Not the Same as Obama Birthers":
**snip
Though there is no legal question as to Cruz's eligibility to run for president (Cruz was born an American citizen), the Post has spent the last 48 hours bedeviling the Hispanic senator with articles obviously meant to put him on defense and plant a seed of doubt in voters' minds.

The timing of the Post's assault is also curious. By accident or design, it dovetails perfectly with a widely criticized Daily Beast hit-piece on Cruz that also focuses on and questions Cruz's past and background.

Since being elected to the United States Senate in 2012, Cruz has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of President Obama and his signature healthcare plan, ObamaCare. The Washington Post has endorsed Obama for president, and frequently used its news and editorial pages to defend ObamaCare.

In the past, the Post has also launched crusades to destroy the careers of many Republicans, including US Senate candidate George Allen, presidential candidate Mitt Romney, presidential candidate Rick Perry, and current gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli -- among others. The Post's modus operandi is similar to what Cruz is currently facing: The Post floods the zone with stories critical of the Republican in an effort to undermine their candidacy through character assassination.

Nothing was "completely overturned." I already showed you how this decision was cited dozens of years AFTER the amendment that allegedly overturned it.

Point to you. Minor has been quoted, a few times at least, since the 19th Amendment. Not many times, and certainly not as a precedent for a "definition" of natural born citizenship. But in this, you are correct. Minor has been quoted.

I didn't quote Dred Scott. Focus, Jeff.

No, but you obliquely referred to it. To be more accurate, you referred to my referral to it, which was not by name. You may not understand the case history well enough to know what we were referring to.

This is a DEFINITION. The STATEMENT is in the sentence immediately following that exclusively says of the definition, "These are the natives, or the natural-born citizens."

NO, IT DOESN'T.

It doesn't say "These are THE natives." It DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY KIND OF RESTRICTIVE DEFINITION. And this is plain, basic English.

Here's the full quote, starting with that sentence:

These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

Note what the Court distinguished natives/natural born citizens FROM: ALIENS OR FOREIGNERS.

There are only two categories here. Either you are a NATIVE, A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, or you are an ALIEN, A FOREIGNER.

There's no middle ground. There isn't the slightest sign or hint of someone who was born a citizen, who isn't a natural born citizen.

And there's not a single judge, or a single credible legal authority in the entire country who understands Minor to say what you and the other birthers claim it says.

There was even a judge who officially RULED that it doesn't say what you claim it says.

It just doesn't provide any DEFINITION for natural born citizen. And this is clear to anybody who can read English, who isn't blinded by their desire for it to say what it clearly does not say.

1) that the meaning of the term "natural born citizen" "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.", and

Wrong. Wong Kim Ark said this to interpret the 14th amendment, not natural-born citizen. This is the part immediately prior to what you quoted:

Let's give the ENTIRE QUOTE, shall we? Not just pick out the part you want to try and make a false point.

Where you literally ripped out only the last part of the paragraph, and deliberately did not include the two sentences immediately before your quoted text.

The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States." By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been "seven years a citizen of the United States," and every Senator to have been "nine years a citizen of the United States." and "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President." The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that

all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

also declares that
no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that
the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.

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]

It is absolutely clear that the Court is referring to the phrases "natural born Citizen" and "Citizen of the United States." To claim that the Court is here referring to interpreting the wording of the 14th Amendment is absolutely idiotic and impossible, because the make absolutely, 100% clear that they are trying to interpret the words of THE ORIGINAL FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, NOT THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE 14TH AMENDMENT 75 YEARS AFTER THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN.

You claim, therefore, is yet another great example of just how far birthers are willing to go in order to deny the truth and sling bullshit.

2) that the earlier Supreme Court was NOT committed to the view that children born here of alien parents weren't citizens.

That's not what it says. It says the certain members of the court didn't know the court would be committed to the view that all persons born in the country to citizens and born to subjects of foreign states would be EXCLUDED from the birth clause of the 14th amendment. The court is saying this because the earlier decisions only reviewed exclusions via the subject clause of the 14th amendment. When it cites Minor, the definition of NBC is not based on an exclusion of the subject clause. It's based on the idea that natural-born citizens don't need the birth clause of the 14th amendment to be citizens.

Wow. I don't know how you could possibly be more incoherent.

To be fair, I did simplify what the Court was saying a bit. If we're going to go into these woods, we might as well get completely clear on what the Court was saying. Here's the quote:

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench...

So here's what the Court said.

This is why the Supreme Court quoted Minor.

They quoted Minor here for the purpose of establishing

"...That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Now that's a little bit complicated, but it's not unclear.

The Supreme Court made a SIDE COMMENT - which is known as DICTA and is not authoritative - in The Slaughterhouse Cases that made it seem as if they thought people born in the United States of alien parents weren't citizens.

The 14th Amendment said that everybody born in the United States and subject to United States jurisdiction was a citizen.

The Wong Court quoted Minor v. Happersett to say, look. It's clear that the previous Supreme Court wasn't issuing any kind of ruling that children born here of alien parents are not subject to US jurisdiction (which is the only way they wouldn't be included as born citizens through the language of the 14th Amendment.

WHY was that clear? The Supreme Court cited Minor v. Happersett as EVIDENCE that the previous Supreme Court HAD NOT been committed to the position that children born on US soil of alien parents were outside of the operation of the 14th Amendment.

In other words, the Supreme Court didn't cite Minor for BIRTHER purposes. They cited it as pretty much of an ANTI-BIRTHER case.

So I repeat:

If you want to cite Minor v. Happersett, cite it for what the US Supreme Court actually DID cite the case for.

...then 15 years later the Supreme Court cited it as precedent on Article II eligibility:

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165;

Again, only to say that the only difference between a naturalized citizen and a NATIVE citizen is that the native citizen is eligible to the Presidency.

And note the use of the language here. Did the Court say "a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the NATURAL BORN CITIZEN in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency?

No, they did not. They used the term "NATIVE citizen" instead of "NATURAL BORN citizen," indicating with absolute clarity that as far as the United States Supreme Court is concerned, a "NATIVE" citizen IS a natural born citizen.

Yes, they did, and they exclusively characterized that class of citizenship as "natural-born,"

No, they didn't. It's clear to anybody who is honest and can read English that the comment was never intended to be an "exclusive" "definition."

So ... one more time, Jeff, WHY would they characterize Virginia Minor's citizenship according to being born to citizen parents ... especially if what you wanted to believe about what Rawle and Bayard or anyone else has said is true??

I have no idea what you're going on about.

The Court wanted to first establish that Virginia Minor, though a woman, was a United States citizen. This was relevant to the case, because if she wasn't a citizen, then she had no right to vote.

If she was a citizen, then maybe she did.

They simply said, in effect, "There's no doubt that she's a citizen. She covers every possible angle and answers every question we can think of that might POSSIBLY make her not a citizen. We don't know about the children of aliens born here. Maybe they're citizens, too, but we're not going to talk about that because it isn't relevant to Virginia Minor's case. So let's move on."

You couldn't possibly come up with a comment that is more clearly dicta. It's just a side comment. And it is CLEARLY that.

And it is very unauthoritative dicta at that. It's simply bullshit to claim that it's any kind of precedent.

First of all, it's bullshit to claim the Court was trying to lay down any kind of complete DEFINITION of "natural born citizen." They weren't. Never did they say that persons born on US soil of non-citizen parents aren't natural born citizens.

Even if they had, the comment was DICTA.

And even if it hadn't been dicta (which it was) it would've been overruled by the comprehensive ruling in Wong Kim Ark.

Why do you waste so much of yours and other people's time arguing and pushing this? It's total, complete, absolute bullshit.

It doesn't say "These are THE natives."

No, but the obvious source that the Court is quoting does. All your left with is an inconsequential objection over the use of an article before the noun.

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

It DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY KIND OF RESTRICTIVE DEFINITION. And this is plain, basic English.

The context makes it restrictive because the Court considered every known way to become a citizen. Only those born to citizens were characterized as natural-born because the Court was fulfilling what the term natural-born means in Article II:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

IOW, they gave an answer to a question.

Note what the Court distinguished natives/natural born citizens FROM: ALIENS OR FOREIGNERS.

Absolutely. This is framed in the perspective of natural law. Those persons who did not meet this definition are natural aliens or foreigners and can only become citizens through other means.

There isn't the slightest sign or hint of someone who was born a citizen, who isn't a natural born citizen.

Yes, there is ... and you quoted it:

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

The "first" was exclusively characterized as natural-born. The second are persons who must have doubts resolved in order to be citizens. Think. Why would the court say there are doubts about this class, especially if they could be considered to be natural-born?? Why not just move the sentence that says "These were natives, or natural-born citizens"???

And there's not a single judge, or a single credible legal authority in the entire country who understands Minor to say what you and the other birthers claim it says.

Wong Kim Ark cited and affirmed this definition. It's why they categorically and completely avoided calling Wong Kim Ark a natural-born citizen. Luria v. United State cites Minor and not Wong Kim Ark as precedent on presidential eligibility. That makes 18 Supreme Court justices who agreed on this idea.

It is absolutely clear that the Court is referring to the phrases "natural born Citizen" and "Citizen of the United States."

Do you even think these things through before you post them. You're trying to salvage an argument about natural-born citizen by saying that "citizen of the United States" must be defined "in the light of the common law"?? Don't be ridiculous. Further, the rest of the quote after this part goes directly into a citation of the Minor decision, which Gray says was "the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question." The only thing that was in question was the citizen provision of the 14th amendment. Natural-born citizen was NOT in question because it was exclusively defined in Minor. And it clearly says that natural-born citizen is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution, thus outside of the 14th amendment.

This means that the Wong Kim Ark decision is acknowledging the exclusive criteria that Minor used to define NBC. If it wasn't exclusive, then the definition of NBC would not have been outside of the Constitution. The only other criteria that could have applied ... you know, the class for which doubts must be resolved ... is categorically rejected from defining NBC.

The Supreme Court made a SIDE COMMENT - which is known as DICTA and is not authoritative - in The Slaughterhouse Cases that made it seem as if they thought people born in the United States of alien parents weren't citizens.

No, the Ark court took issue with Slaughterhouse because it erroneously lumped in consuls with its exclusions to the Subject clause of the 14th amendment. Gray was trying to rough out all the previous precedents regarding the 14th amendment. He's not discussing natural-born citizenship at this point. He's arguing that consuls are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. under the 14th amendment.

consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse [p679] with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction

Talk about "incoherent." Certainly the Minor court did NOT rule on the subject clause, but that same court did exclude "all children born in the United States of citizens"... "from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment." The Minor court didn't exclude these children because of the subject clause. It excluded them because it said "there were necessarily such citizens without such provision." Those persons born without such provision were exclusively characterized as natural-born citizens. It was a unanimous decision. Justice Gray could not ignore a unanimous holding. He had to find another means for establishing citizenship for Wong Kim Ark because he could not do it as a natural-born citizen. This is why this part of Wong Kim Ark is the final time that the term natural-born citizen is used, while the decision continues for another 25 pages.

The Court wanted to first establish that Virginia Minor, though a woman, was a United States citizen. This was relevant to the case, because if she wasn't a citizen, then she had no right to vote.

They could have done this by accepting her 14th amendment citizenship argument. They did not. If what you wanted to believe about Rawle and Bayard was true, they didn't need to talk about Minor or anyone being born to citizen parents. But they did.

We don't know about the children of aliens born here. Maybe they're citizens, too, but we're not going to talk about that because it isn't relevant to Virginia Minor's case. So let's move on."

They didn't move on. Have you not read Minor v. Happersett?? The next four paragraphs talk about how aliens, and the children of aliens, can become citizens.

You couldn't possibly come up with a comment that is more clearly dicta. It's just a side comment. And it is CLEARLY that.

It's not a side comment. The Wong Kim Ark decision gave the holding in Minor:

The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ...

There it is again. Born of citizen parents. It's not a side comment. It's part of the holding. And you're STILL not dealing with the question I'm asking. Why do these courts feel compelled to include birth to citizen parents?? The only way that's relevant is because it exclusively satisfies the definition of natural-born.

I think I'm going to split this reply into two, one for MvH, one for WKA, as I'm likely to end up citing a lot from the latter. Taking MvH first.

Me: Because Virginia Minor's argument was that the by virtue of being a "citizen" as stated by 14th Amendment, she was entitled to the "privileges and immunities" of such citizenship, which she interpreted as including the privilege of voting. The Court analyzed the common law to show that Minor unquestionably was a citizen even before the 14A, and that such citizenship before did not include the inherent right to vote. Since the 14A was declaratory of existing law (as to white persons), her being a citizen under the 14A gave her no greater privileges than before.

You: You're not addressing my actual question. Why are the citizen parents part of this definition?? I know why, and I'm betting you probably know why, but don't want to admit it.

I do know why and will freely explain it: because courts analyze and resolve issues based on the particular facts and question presented. They don't attempt to go beyond that to answer questions which aren't before them in that case.

Since Virginia Minor was U.S. born and had citizen parents, they needed only to ask whether such a person like her was a NBC at common law to establish was a citizen under the pre-14th amendment law. They answered she was.

However, since the case didn't present the question of someone born of alien parents, they don't purport to answer that question. They note there isn't unanimity of outlook on that point and leave the matter for another day. (That day arrives with Mr. Wong Kim Ark.)

Second, you're ignoring a very important part of the Minor decision. They completely rejected the idea women have their citizenship conferred by the 14th amendment unless they are not already natural-born citizens.

The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. - - - The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her.

It did not "confer" citizenship on her because she was already a citizen at the time the 14th Amendment was enacted. But "did not confer" is not the same as saying the 14th Amendment "does not apply" to her at all. Your argument seems to conflate these ideas. She was certainly a "person" who was "born in the United States" and was subject to its jurisdiction. Anyone born after the date of the enactment of the 14th Amendment falls both within the common law meaning of "natural born citizen" and the 14th Amendment: these are not mutually exclusive concepts. To the contrary, the Court later in WKA analyzes "natural born citizen" under the common law and "born . . . in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to have the same meaning.

The syllabus is perhaps even more explicit on this point.

A case syllabus is not part of the opinion; it's added for convenience and should never be quoted.

YOU claimed that the Minor decision reviewed common law to come up with its citizenship definition, EXCEPT this definition DOES hinge on birth to citizen parents.

Many before me have made the point that the Minor court's statement isn't a definition. They aren't making any definitive statement as to whether persons of alien parentage are "natural born citizens" because that question wasn't raised by the facts of the case before them.

So why does the Minor court talk about citizen parents if not for how it distinguishes natural-born from those who would only be native-born?? What other reason is there for talking about citizen parents??

Because Virginia Minor having citizen parents made it a simple question to answer whether she was a citizen at birth. They thus didn't need to delve into the question of whether persons of alien parents born in the U.S. were ALSO native/natural-born citizens. Courts don't give "advisory opinions." They deferred the latter question to when a person born of alien parents was before them (so to speak) in court.

So it's not a "definition" (other than by way of partial inclusion) as they simply didn't consider the question in all facets. MvH is irrelevant -- affords no stare decisis (precedential) value -- in a case testing whether a person born of an alien parent(s) is "natural born." Utterly irrelevant. It didn't involve that question, didn't purport to answer that question, and explicitly stated it was NOT answering that question.

No,there's no question the court made the claim in this paragraph, but my point was the use of the citation that I gave was an admission that their claim wasn't true.

The New Jersey Court was speaking hypothetically; you will note it doesn't actually cite any case where the U.S.-born child of European alien parents was held to be still an alien. It's just stating what it thinks the rule would have been if such a case had arisen before the 14th Amendment. That's why it's dicta.

Most people would call this a contradiction;

At the start of the paragraph (one long sentence actually) I quoted Gray acknowledging matters "once earnestly controverted." So it's not like Gray says there was no split of view on this issue before saying "all (white) persons" were "native born citizens" farther down. But is this a true "contradiction?" Not necessarily. And the reason is there is no caselaw holding otherwise! On a question determined by the common law, caselaw is King. (That's what "common law" is. It's judge-made, decisional law.) Legal commentators do not set precedent. Dicta about what might have been the outcome had such a case once-upon-a-time actually been brought is not precedent. They may opine on what the common law is or was; but that's not the same as an actual case with a holding contrary to the point Gray makes.

Ergo, Gray doesn't contradict himself.

It's NOT obiter dicta. Gray cited this case because it used permanent domicil as the basis for trying to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment. Without that children of aliens would not have been presumed to be citizens, otherwise, there's no legal effect from talking about domicil.

Gray cites it to make a point about domicil and jurisdiction regarding the 14A; NOT about pre-14A common law citizenship. He's already answered the citizenship status of pre-14th Amendment white children in the quote I gave above. This citation comes later and he's here moved on to a different point. So the comment in the quote about pre-14A white children is dicta, as -- read in context -- it is beside the point Gray then is trying to make.

Except that this is contradicted when the court talks about the case with Scotch parents. Simply being white aliens wasn't enough. They had to be domiciled in the U.S.

Gray's cited authorities are not uniform on the domicile point. Gray cites with approval Calvin's Case, which speaks of a person born in England to someone "temporarily" present as being "natural born subject," then says the "same rule" as held true in England was the rule here in the U.S. To what extent the "domicile" term in the final decision is an essential part, given that the discussion on this point is inconsistent is debatable. There is room for saying a true "birth tourism" baby isn't a citizen under Gray's opinion. Though probably less so for children of illegals, as they really WANT (for the most part) to stay here.

OK, this wasn't as long as I anticipated; sometimes posts come out different as one moves along. But I'm sure anticipated reply to one comment in the first post will bring into play all the stuff I planned initially.

The New Jersey Court was speaking hypothetically; you will note it doesn't actually cite any case where the U.S.-born child of European alien parents was held to be still an alien.

Gray says they were dealing with the child of "Scotch" parents. That would be European and alien. Domicil was applied by the court to make the child subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

It's just stating what it thinks the rule would have been if such a case had arisen before the 14th Amendment. That's why it's dicta.

It wasn't before the 14th amendment. Here's the quote:

In a very recent case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a person born in this country of Scotch parents who were domiciled but had not been naturalized here was "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and was "not subject to any foreign power" within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 ...

Gray said this was "a very recent case." Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898, about 30 years after the adoption of the 14th amendment. This case is being cited to give the court a basis for defining what the subject clause requires in the 14th amendment. Since it pertains to the decision, it's not just dicta.

Gray cites it to make a point about domicil and jurisdiction regarding the 14A; NOT about pre-14A common law citizenship.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Gray's whole point in reviewing English common law is to establish a legal foundation on which to buttress the 14th amendment. The court was faced with a treaty from China that explicitly disallowed foreign citizenship to its subjects. The Constitutions places treaties on the same level as the Constitution itself and the laws arising under it. IOW, the only way the Constitution can override a treaty would be if there was some stronger historically established legal principle to fall back upon. Gray's solution is what he called the "ancient" and "fundamental rule of citizenship by birth." The dissent wasn't buying this. The dissent agreed that children of aliens could be born citizens under the 14th amendment if their parents had permanent domicil, but only if there was not a treaty to the contrary, such as with China.

Gray cites with approval Calvin's Case, which speaks of a person born in England to someone "temporarily" present as being "natural born subject," then says the "same rule" as held true in England was the rule here in the U.S.

Yes, and you'll notice Gray doesn't stop at those citations as being controlling. If they were, then the decision could wrap up very tidily at that point. Instead, Gray continues another 45 pages trying to come up with a stronger legal justification to make Wong Kim Ark a citizen under the 14th amendment.

To what extent the "domicile" term in the final decision is an essential part, given that the discussion on this point is inconsistent is debatable. There is room for saying a true "birth tourism" baby isn't a citizen under Gray's opinion. Though probably less so for children of illegals, as they really WANT (for the most part) to stay here.

Gray goes into quite a bit of detail on the subject of reisdence and domicil. I had counted about 12 different references. Read the introduction of the case and then the conclusion. Both make it a point to include the permanent residence and domicil of the parents. The parents weren't citizens, so this was his way of making them subject to the jurisdiction under the 14th amendment.

(intro) His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to-wit, in California, within the United States, and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence, and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him [p653] therefrom ...

(the question as posed in the intro): 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,

Notice that the question is whether Ark becomes a citizen by virture of the first clause of the 14th amendment. If there truly was an ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth for children of aliens and that such a rule defined natural-born citizens, then certainly that rule would have been applied without the 14th amendment, right?? But let's look at the conclusion, which is carefully crafted to conform to the subject clause:

the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent 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

The question is framed to fit the subject clause of the 14th amendment and to satisfy that clause through permanent residence and domicil of the parents. Obama didn't have that. And obviously, neither does Cruz.

It wasn't before the 14th amendment. Here's the quote:

In a very recent case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a person born in this country of Scotch parents who were domiciled but had not been naturalized here was "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and was "not subject to any foreign power" within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 ...

And, true to what I said, neither this case (nor any other) ever ruled that a person born here to alien (European) parents was not a citizen. The child in the New Jersey case was ruled to be a citizen. When I referred to "before the 14A" I was speaking of the portion of the opinion Gray quotes wherein the NJ court was making a comparison of the legal standing of black and white persons before the enactment of the 14A:

The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens.

"Were" speaks to a time past -- before the 14th Amendment. The Court is giving its view of how black and white persons would have been treated then, but my point (again) is that there was never actually a case that ever held that the child of alien Euorpean parents born here was not a citizen. So Gray's statement -- "before . . . the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners . . . were native-born citizens of the United States." -- entails no contradiction.

Gray's whole point in reviewing English common law is to establish a legal foundation on which to buttress the 14th amendment. The court was faced with a treaty from China that explicitly disallowed foreign citizenship to its subjects. The Constitutions places treaties on the same level as the Constitution itself and the laws arising under it. IOW, the only way the Constitution can override a treaty would be if there was some stronger historically established legal principle to fall back upon. Gray's solution is what he called the "ancient" and "fundamental rule of citizenship by birth."

You're collapsing the opinion way too much here and connecting things that shouldn't be connected, while skipping past things that should be connected. Gray reviews the common law to show how it underpins the meaning of the 14th amendment's "born in" clause; not to buttress the Amendment against some treaty challenge. Here's the long, but necessary run through the reason Gray goes back to the common law.

But WKA traces the meaning of "born . . . in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction" by noting the common law origins of the phrase:

The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States."

* * *

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.

So Gray notes that words of the original constitution ("citizen of the U.S." and "natural born citizen") are defined in part by the affirmative statement in section 1 of the 14th Amendment. But then he states the rule that original Constitutional terms are to be understood in light of the history of the English common law, because that's the legal language understood and utilized by the Framers. So the English common law sheds light on the meaning of "natural born citizen," which in turn ties into the meaning of "born . . . in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14A.

The Court then again indicates the principle of consitutional interpretation by which terms used are understood by reference to English law, here citing to Smith v. Alabama

There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

Gray divides his opinion into 7 enumerated sections. Paying heed to this helps keep the logical flow of his argument clear when digesting this long opinion. After laying down the interpretative rule just noted, Gray in Part II traces the English law as it pertains to children of aliens, and summarizes that section thusly:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore 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.

Then starting Part III J Gray observes:

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 States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

This can ONLY mean (given that shortly after the Court states "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" to be "precisely analogous" terms) that the prevailing "rule" in the U.S. was that every child born of alien parents was a "natural born citizen." There is no plausible alternative reading here.

In Part IV Gray considered the U.S. Goverment (and dissent) argument that Vattel and the law of nations has somehow altered the ancient common law rule and concludes it has not. It's at the very end of Part IV that Gray summarizes the analysis in Parts II thorugh IV with the statement I've quoted:

Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.

He then turns in Part V to demonstrate how "born in the U.S. . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was a formal incorporation of the common law meaning of "natural born citizen" (same jus soli rule with the same exceptions, save for the addition of the additional case of Native Americans:

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

In Part VI Gray then turns to deal with the question whether the 14th Amendment applied equally to children born here of Asian parents. But by this point the common law analysis of Parts II and III is fairly distant. Part VI focuses soley on the legislative history of the Amendment; the common law isn't discussed.

Yes, and you'll notice Gray doesn't stop at those citations [Calvin's Case, etc.] as being controlling. If they were, then the decision could wrap up very tidily at that point. Instead, Gray continues another 45 pages trying to come up with a stronger legal justification to make Wong Kim Ark a citizen under the 14th amendment.

Well, of course, English case law is never going to be "controlling" in the sense of it being binding precedent. Gray undertakes the Part II analysis pursuant to the Smith v. Alabama rule of Consitutional interpretation that looks to English common law for the etymological and semantic basis of our original Constitutional terms, thus spending Parts II and III tracing the meaning of "natural born citizen" via the corresponding English term "natural born subject."

Gray's Part VI analysis is due to the Chinese Exclusion Act, which added a wrinkle pertinent to Mr. Wong that didn't exist generally as to the English/American common law rule that Gray sees as being incorporated into the 14th Amendment.

The parents weren't citizens, so this was his way of making them subject to the jurisdiction under the 14th amendment.

You here stop short analytically. It wasn't just that Wong's parents weren't citizens. Gray in Part II had roundly declared "therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject" and without missing a beat declared the "same rule" was true in the U.S. up through the Framing of the original Constitution and beyond. The issue here is that persons born in China could not be made to be citizens, so that adds an element to the analysis that isn't present in the case of non-citizen parents who were of European or African descent. Gray observes that the specific case of Chinese persons was debated before enactment of the 14th Amendment, so he takes some time to look at legislative history and subsequent cases dealing with the special circumstance of the Chinese.

If there truly was an ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth for children of aliens and that such a rule defined natural-born citizens, then certainly that rule would have been applied without the 14th amendment, right??

If one was a white person (like Julia Lynch) one might reasonably anticipate that the ancient and fundamental rule would hold true. However, blacks and chinese tended to have a different standard applied to them. Hence the need for the uniformity and certainly that legislation and Constitutional amendment affords.

The question is framed to fit the subject clause of the 14th amendment and to satisfy that clause through permanent residence and domicil of the parents.

It is unclear what Gray means by "domicile." He could mean it in merely the sense of "temporary residence." Support for that is found earlier in several parts of the common law discussions in Parts II and III. For exampe:

Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject[.]"

And he seems to indicate the same as to the Chinese:

Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.

In Part VII (to finish the list) Gray announces the decision in the case.

Obama didn't have that.

Obama had a citizen mother, which makes his case FAR stronger than Wong's. And this obviously isn't just my speculation and opinion: there are now a host of reported decisions which rather matter-of-factly apply Wong Kim Ark to find Obama is a NBC. And obviously, neither does Cruz.

The Cruz analysis goes off in a much different direction. That's for another time. This post is long enough.

And, true to what I said, neither this case (nor any other) ever ruled that a person born here to alien (European) parents was not a citizen.

You're missing the bigger picture. The question of citizenship to alien parents was still in front of this court which was trying to decide this issue well AFTER the passage of the 14th amendment. What Justice Gray called an "ancient and fundamental rule" was not being used as the guiding principle in this example.

The child in the New Jersey case was ruled to be a citizen. When I referred to "before the 14A" I was speaking of the portion of the opinion Gray quotes wherein the NJ court was making a comparison of the legal standing of black and white persons before the enactment of the 14A:

The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens.

It's not clear why the NJ court would even needed to talk about the "colored people." As stated by Gray, the child in question weas born of "Scotch parents." In the Minor court, Waite made no bones of the fact that women, specifically Virginia Minor, did not need the 14th amendment. If the rule for white people born of aliens was in effect prior to the 14th amendment, then the NJ court shouldn't have needed to talk about the 14th amendment and making sure it applied to all races the same. It was clearly possible according to the Minor court to be citizens without the 14th amendment, yet the N.J. was still using the 14th amendment to justify its own decision.

You're collapsing the opinion way too much here and connecting things that shouldn't be connected, while skipping past things that should be connected.

Nonsense. The court was split on its decision. The majority had to make a compelling argument in the face of the dissent that said the treaty prevailed, while at the same time figuring out a way to respect the unanimous Minor decision that exclusively defined natural-born citizens as born to citizen parents. The Minor decision had a two-part question it resolved in much fewer pages. Gray elaborated and meandered on the subject of citizenship and domicil to answer only one question. Why would the court waste it's time on unnecessary dicta?? The answer is that it didn't. It was trying to build a stronger legal argument to justify its decision.

Gray reviews the common law to show how it underpins the meaning of the 14th amendment's "born in" clause; not to buttress the Amendment against some treaty challenge.

Have you not read the decision??

The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

The above sentence can ONLY be true if the court has a compelling method for satisfying the subject clause.

So Gray notes that words of the original constitution ("citizen of the U.S." and "natural born citizen") are defined in part by the affirmative statement in section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

That's not completely true. He said the 14th amendment did NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens.

So the English common law sheds light on the meaning of "natural born citizen," which in turn ties into the meaning of "born . . . in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14A.

There's nothing in the decision that says this. Gray points to Minor, quotes its definition of natural-born citizen, and then never references the term again in the remainder of his decision. He couldn't. It did not apply to Ark.

Gray divides his opinion into 7 enumerated sections.

No kidding. You're starting to make my argument for me.

This can ONLY mean (given that shortly after the Court states "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" to be "precisely analogous" terms) that the prevailing "rule" in the U.S. was that every child born of alien parents was a "natural born citizen." There is no plausible alternative reading here.

Nonsense. The court NEVER says that "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" are precisely analagous terms. And nowhere in the decision does it say that every child born of alien parents was a natural-born citizen. Gray was hamstrung by Supreme Court precedent in the form of a unanimous ruling that exclusively defined natural-born citizen as "all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens." Gray gives that definition verbatim but NEVER says anything that you've speculated here. One has to connect a lot of unconnected dots to do that.

Obama had a citizen mother, which makes his case FAR stronger than Wong's.

Not at all. His mother didn't have permanent residence and domicil in the U.S., and she in fact emigrated with her second foreign national husband. Obama can neither satisfy the subject clause and he has never legally proved he was born in the U.S. And, true to what I said, neither this case (nor any other) ever ruled that a person born here to alien (European) parents was not a citizen. brt have permanent residence and domicil in the U.S., and she in fact emigrated with her second foreign national husband. Obama can neither satisfy the subject clause and he has never legally proved he was born in the U.S.

You're missing the bigger picture.

Actually, no. The big picture here is that J. Gray is citing to a case that determined that a child born here of alien Scottish parents was a citizen, just like Gray was finding the child born here of alien Chinese parents was a citizen. So both get to the same result. Your attempt to point to the New Jersey case as some great contradiction shows how desperate your attempt to avoid the plain reading of WKA gets.

The question of citizenship to alien parents was still in front of this court which was trying to decide this issue well AFTER the passage of the 14th amendment. What Justice Gray called an "ancient and fundamental rule" was not being used as the guiding principle in this example.

Though the New Jersey court nonetheless recognizes the principle, even though it finds the 14th Amendment sufficient on its face to answer the question presented. The Court cites with approval the pre-14A case of Lynch v. Clarke:

In Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583, Vice-Chancellor Sandford, after an exhaustive discussion of the subject, declared that every person born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States was a citizen thereof. This decision was rendered in 1844, before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment.

But the court didn't see the need to explore that in order to find Mr. Benny to be a citizen, finding that the language of the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment were sufficient to establish his citizenship at birth.

It's not clear why the NJ court would even needed to talk about the "colored people."

This comment is further proof you can't read a case beyond quote-mining particular passages.

It was undisputed that the purpose of the 14A was to make those blacks who had been born here citizens. The Court is making the point that if blacks born in the U.S. are citizens, then certainly white persons born here (like Mr. Benny) must be citizens at birth, too.

If the rule for white people born of aliens was in effect prior to the 14th amendment, then the NJ court shouldn't have needed to talk about the 14th amendment and making sure it applied to all races the same.

As noted, the NJ Court cites the Lynch case and it's "exhaustive discussion" with approval. However, a New York decision isn't binding on a New Jersey court. But without question the 14th Amendment DOES apply and supplies the rule of decision in that case.

It was clearly possible according to the Minor court to be citizens without the 14th amendment, yet the N.J. was still using the 14th amendment to justify its own decision.

Because a Court will always ground its decision on the strongest priniciple, and while the NJ Court appears to agree with the Lynch decision, the 14th Amendment furnishes the stronger argument upon which to base its ruling. The Court is simply focusing on the stronger of two consistent principles.

The majority had to make a compelling argument in the face of the dissent that said the treaty prevailed, while at the same time figuring out a way to respect the unanimous Minor decision that exclusively defined natural-born citizens as born to citizen parents.

In Post #304 I picked apart your "Minor's exclusive definition" argument. Simply repeating that warrants a yawn. But I'll repeat my summary, just for fun:

So it's not a "definition" (other than by way of partial inclusion) as they simply didn't consider the question in all facets. MvH is irrelevant -- affords no stare decisis (precedential) value -- in a case testing whether a person born of an alien parent(s) is "natural born." Utterly irrelevant. It didn't involve that question, didn't purport to answer that question, and explicitly stated it was NOT answering that question.

Just as Courts will seek to ground a decision on the strongest principle, Courts will also not seek to answer questions not presented by the case before it. J. Gray was presented with a question that the Minor court didn't need to address.

And the way J. Gray made his "compelling argument" led the dissent complain the majority just made someone like Mr. Wong presidential eligible

The Chief Justice of the Court that heard the arguments and participated in the Court deliberations understood the Majority had just analyzed Wong to be a NBC. He can see this. Why can't you?

Me: Gray reviews the common law to show how it underpins the meaning of the 14th amendment's "born in" clause; not to buttress the Amendment against some treaty challenge.

Have you not read the decision??

The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

And nothing in what you quote speaks about the common law. So my point holds true: the common law discussions in Parts II and III have nothing to do with the mention of the treaty in Part VI.

That's not completely true. He said the 14th amendment did NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens.

I note how you cut out from your reply the portion I quoted that makes your statement untrue. Here it is again:

The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States."

* * *

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.

Note the part where Gray says the Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words ("these words" referring to "the words" of the original constitution including "natural born citizen") "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 . . ." So the 14th Amendment is, in the Supreme Court's view, an affirmative "definition" in part of the original "natural born citizen." Deny this as you may, it's still true.

Me: So the English common law sheds light on the meaning of "natural born citizen," which in turn ties into the meaning of "born . . . in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14A.

There's nothing in the decision that says this.

Horsecrap. I laid this all out in my prior post. You just skip past it and cut it out of your reply and pretend it doesn't exist.

I showed: 1) how Gray says that to understand the meaning of Constitutional terms, one should look to the Gray language and history of the English common law; 2) how he traces the meaning of the English "natural born subject" (Part II), concluding "therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject:" 3) how Gray immediately thereafter (Part III) states "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 States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."; and 4) how Gray in Part V declares that the purpose of the 14th Amendment language "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was to retain the same jus soli principle as under the English and American common law rules along with the same exlusions for children of invaders and diplomats.

. . . points to Minor, quotes its definition of natural-born citizen, and then never references the term again in the remainder of his decision.

LOL. The opinion begins at p. 649. The so-called "definition" quote comes at p. 680, midway through Part V. The opinion ends at p. 705. Most of the "natural born" references come back in Parts II and III.

But let me ask: if this case (as you suppose) has nothing to do with consideration of Mr. Wong being "natural born," why are there over 30 references to "natural born" in the opinion? There is a connection Gray is making to "natural born citizenship" and the 14th Amendment. I truly don't think you know how to connect the dots here, despite his making it rather obvious.

Me: This can ONLY mean (given that shortly after the Court states "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" to be "precisely analogous" terms) that the prevailing "rule" in the U.S. was that every child born of alien parents was a "natural born citizen." There is no plausible alternative reading here.

You: Nonsense. The court NEVER says that "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" are precisely analagous terms.

The Court in Part III (the part where it's showing how the American common law rule as to birth citizenship was the same as under the English common law) cites with approval to the NC case of State v. Manuel:

The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:

Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."

And this follows Gray's citation to Smith v. Rhodes:

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 the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

Read in context, where Gray is asserting the "same rule" applied in the U.S. as in England up through the framing of the original Constitution, the import of these citations couldn't be clearer. Yes, Gray is affirming that in his view "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" are corresponding, analogous terms. Your level of denial is astounding.

And nowhere in the decision does it say that every child born of alien parents was a natural-born citizen.

Gray says at the conclusion of Part II summarizes:

"therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject:"

Then in the immediate next sentence starting Part III he states:

"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 States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

Let's see if you are capable of connecting the dots here and can answer this question: what "rule" was it that J. Gray is saying was "the same" in the U.S. which prevailed under the original Constitution?

I assert there is but one answer to that question: the "same rule" was that "every child born of alien parents was a natural born citizen."

And I predict your answer to this question will be a model of evasion and/or incoherence. But do try.

... but NOT natural-born citizens, and only citizens by being born to resident aliens in order to satisfy the subject clause.

Your attempt to point to the New Jersey case as some great contradiction shows how desperate your attempt to avoid the plain reading of WKA gets.
The Court cites with approval the pre-14A case of Lynch v. Clarke:

It's called dicta, and it wasn't so compelling that the NJ court could abandon the residency criteria for the parents. Out of all the citations that Gray gives in the Wong Kim Ark decision, notice how he deftly avoids giving ANY direct citation from Lynch. Gray wasn't stupid.

This comment is further proof you can't read a case beyond quote-mining particular passages.

It was undisputed that the purpose of the 14A was to make those blacks who had been born here citizens. The Court is making the point that if blacks born in the U.S. are citizens, then certainly white persons born here (like Mr. Benny) must be citizens at birth, too.

Yes, when and if born to resident aliens in satisfaction of the subject clause; nothing here says natural-born citizen.

Because a Court will always ground its decision on the strongest priniciple, and while the NJ Court appears to agree with the Lynch decision, the 14th Amendment furnishes the stronger argument upon which to base its ruling. The Court is simply focusing on the stronger of two consistent principles.

You're not helping yourself. The Minor court was presented an argument based on citizenship under the 14th amendment. Notice it didn't go into a discussion of permanent residence to satisfy the subject clause. Minor punted the 14th amendment entirely. The stronger principle for Minor is being a natural-born citizen. This principle doesn't apply at all in the NJ decision nor for Wong Kim Ark.

But I'll repeat my summary, just for fun:

Your summary is contradicted in the actual Supreme Court decisions. Gray affirmed Minor's citizenship holding. Luria affirmed the citizenship holding in Minor was directly releated to Article II eligibility.

And the way J. Gray made his "compelling argument" led the dissent complain the majority just made someone like Mr. Wong presidential eligible.

Except there was nothing in the majority argument that made someone like Ark eligible. The dissent was responding to a suggestion made in the appeal based on dicta in the lower court decision. Otherwise, the dissent AGREED on the majority's principle for making someone like Ark a citizen. The majority's affirmatiion of Minor's NBC definition clearly excluded Ark from eligibility.

And nothing in what you quote speaks about the common law. So my point holds true: the common law discussions in Parts II and III have nothing to do with the mention of the treaty in Part VI.

Your comments on common law are irrelevant. You said the court wasn't buttressing against a treaty challenge and I showed where they did.

You just skip past it and cut it out of your reply and pretend it doesn't exist.

Nonsense. You're trying to connect unconnected dots. I have a direct citation that specifically uses the term "natural-born citizen." It has a specific definition. NOTHING in what you quoted refers to natural-born citizen. Yes, England had a jus soli-based law that made children natural-born subjects, BUT it still required absolute obedience to the crown on the part of the parents. There's no analogy to this in the Constitution or U.S. law. The common law required perpetual obedience to the crown. There's no analogy to this in the U.S. The terms "subject" and "citizen" may be "precisely analogous," but the terms natural-born subject" and "natural-born citizen" are NOT. The Minor court relied on the law of nations, not English common law to define natural-born citizen. Ark cannot be a natural-born citizen, so Gray had to find a SEPARATE principle and satisfy the subject clause to supersede the treaty with China. He clearly avoids calling Ark a natural-born citizen. I know you want it to say this, but is just is NOT there.

LOL. The opinion begins at p. 649. The so-called "definition" quote comes at p. 680, midway through Part V. The opinion ends at p. 705. Most of the "natural born" references come back in Parts II and III.

Yes, but the only natural-born citizen references are to the Constituion and then to the Minor decision. And you're making my point for me. Gray went 25 pages on dicta AFTER he gave's Minor's definition. That's longer than the Minor decision was in its entirety. Do you honestly not understand that Gray had a huge legal conundrum. Should it be that difficult to define birth citizenship under the 14th amendment??

But let me ask: if this case (as you suppose) has nothing to do with consideration of Mr. Wong being "natural born," why are there over 30 references to "natural born" in the opinion?

Because it's a common phrase in English common law, and this where Gray went to create what he called "citizenship by birth" under the 14th amendment. He couldn't use "natural-born citizen" because there was a unanimous Surpreme Court decision that exclusively defined it in a manner that excluded Ark.

And this follows Gray's citation to Smith v. Rhodes:

Smith v Rhodes was commenting on the Supreme Court's holding in Shanks v Dupont, which affirmed that under the treaty of 1783, persons born in the U.S could be natural-born subjects of Great Britain, and NOT natural-born citizens. It was dependent on the allegiance (citizenship) of the parents. And this is what helps further destroy any notion that Wong Kim Ark could be a natural-born citizen.

Yes, Gray is affirming that in his view "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" are corresponding, analogous terms.

Except that HE never actually says this NOR does the citation which was actually explaining the DIFFERENCE between these terms. It's talking about people born in the U.S. Not everyone born in the U.S. is born a U.S. citizen under that citation. The 14th amendment changes this, but only in terms of being a citizen and not being a natural-born citizen. That is excluded as Gray notes in his nod to Minor "the Constitution does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens." You can't have it both ways.

I assert there is but one answer to that question: the "same rule" was that "every child born of alien parents was a natural born citizen."

Sorry, but Gray never says anywhere in the decision. I admire a good imagination, but that's all this is: imaginary.

And I predict your answer to this question will be a model of evasion and/or incoherence. But do try.

IOW, you're creating an excuse to be intellectually dishonest before I even reply. Sorry, but that's pathetic. Expect better of yourself. Read the decision. And try to answer this question. If Gray believed what YOU want to believe, why does he mention Virginia Minor being born to citizen parents in the holding of the Minor decision?? What would be the point??

... but NOT natural-born citizens, and only citizens by being born to resident aliens in order to satisfy the subject clause.

Benny v. O'Brien doesn't say Mr. Benny WASN'T a natural born citizen. It cites Lynch v. Clarke with apparent admiration for its exhaustive treatment. The Court just found it unnecessary to go in that direction given this case was arising after passage of the 14th Amendment. And the NJ Courts lists as exceptions to the "subject to" clause "[p]ersons born in this country of foreign parents who are temporarily traveling here, and children born of persons resident here in the diplomatic service of foreign governments. Such children are, in theory, born within the allegiance of the sovereign power to which they belong or which their parents [plural] represent."

Obama having had a citizen mother and a father who was here as a resident student (not "temporarily traveling here") would no doubt pass muster with the NJ Court, too.

Once again, your attempt to throw up diversions fails.

Gray cites to Lynch three times, and the first of those is in direct support for Gray's contention (Part III of the opinion) that the U.S. had always followed the "same rule" as England, recognizing that children born here of alien parents were natural born citizens. Gray points out that the Lynch case was the first case where this "ancient and fundamental rule" was even questioned:

all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.

Minor punted the 14th amendment entirely.

No it didn't. Most of the discussion in the opinion centers around the question whether the 14th Amendment secured to someone like V. Minor the right to vote as one of the "P&I's" of citizenship. It observes that Minor's citizenship existed prior to enactment of the 14A and that (most significantly) citizenship did not then entail the right to vote. The 14th Amendment secures citizenship rights for all persons "born or naturalized in the U.S, and subject to its jurisdiction" (which would include Mrs. Minor), but the Amendment doesn't augment those rights to include rights which didn't previously exist.

Your summary is contradicted in the actual Supreme Court decisions. Gray affirmed Minor's citizenship holding.

But Gray didn't say the Minor court answered the question as to persons born of alien parents. In fact, Gray includes in his quote the portion where J. Waite says the Court is NOT answering that question. "For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.."

Luria affirmed the citizenship holding in Minor was directly releated to Article II eligibility.

Luria affirmed Minor's statement that "native" citizens are presidential eligible. Luria left out the bit in Minor about "citizen parents" that mesmerizes you. So the question under Luria is "per the SCOTUS, who are "native-born" citizens?" The SCOTUS decision in Minor tells us that children born here of citizen parents are "native-born." And the SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Ark tells us that persons born here of alien parents are "native born," too:

"[I]t is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.

Except there was nothing in the majority argument that made someone like Ark eligible.

So basically the reader here is forced to a choice: either 1) both Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan subscribed to a dissenting opinion which complained the majority opinion effectively makes someone like Mr. Wong (born of alien parents) presidential eligible, but both of them were too stupid to realize that nothing in the majority opinion actually said that, or 2) they both read "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 States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established," both see this statement follows immedately after "every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject," and both conclude that the majority is point blank saying "every child born in the U.S. of alien parents was a natural born citizen" because that conclusion is inescapable> The dissent was urging Vattel be applied as the rule of decision. The dissent lost the battle as to the meaning of "natural born citizen."

The dissent was responding to a suggestion made in the appeal based on dicta in the lower court decision.

Horsecrap. The dissent doesn't mention the lower court opinion at all. When Fuller writes "I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances" the "conclusion" he's objecting to is that of the Majority. That's what dissents do!. They take issue with the majority opinion reasoning and decision.

Your arguments smack of desperation and denial.

Otherwise, the dissent AGREED on the majority's principle for making someone like Ark a citizen.

This statement is pure stupidity. You cannot POSSIBLY have read the dissent and make this statement.

The dissent disagreed with the majority's conclusions 1) that our original Constitution's citizenship provisions traced to English/feudal law, arguing for Vattel instead and 2) that the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on children of aliens, arguing that while blacks were not subject to a foreign power, aliens who have not renounced allegiance to their homelands are still so subject. In short, the dissent disagrees with the majority on both principles upon which Gray established Wong's citizenship.

Nonsense. You're trying to connect unconnected dots.

Unconnected? Dude, you're in La-La Land here. The two statements I'm trying to get you to connect and explain are in consecutive sentences of the opinion. They couldn't possibly be any closer connected. Sheesh.

The terms "subject" and "citizen" may be "precisely analogous," . .

If I beat you over the head enough, small progress is made . .

. . . but the terms natural-born subject" and "natural-born citizen" are NOT.

You may not think so, but clearly J. Gray and the majority think so insofar as ascertaining birth status goes.

•That's the reason for the discussion about why Consitutional terminology, including "natural born citizen" (which he specifically cites) "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."
•That's the reason Gray sets out to ascertain the meaning of "natural born citizen" by first tracing (Part II) its predecessor "natural born subject."
•That's the reason why Gray devotes Part III to showing that the "same rule" applied as to "natural born citizen."
•That's the reason why in Part III Gray puts NBS and NBC in side by side comparision in the Rhodes quote ("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. ")
•That's the reason Gray cites to the NC Supreme Court to say "subject" and "citizen" are "precisely analogous" terms.

He's supporting his argument that, as to children of aliens, "the same rule" applied as to "natural born citizen" as applied to "natural born subject."

The Minor court relied on the law of nations, not English common law to define natural-born citizen.

The statement in Minor you hinge your entire argument on begins "At common law . . "

Law of Nations? No, the Court mentions no such thing.

You even manage to screw up an argument based on your favorite sentence.

Ark cannot be a natural-born citizen,

Here, you're borrowing from Fuller's dissent. This is his argument. That argument LOST.

Do you honestly not understand that Gray had a huge legal conundrum.

And what legal conundrum is that? It's not that Wong can't be a NBC on account of Minor. For the upteenth time, Minor didn't purport to answer the question of NBC as to persons born of alien parents. It notes that matter is an open issue, states it has no need to address it in that case, and leave the question for another day. That day arrives with WKA, and Gray is free to answer the question the Minor court didn't answer.

Should it be that difficult to define birth citizenship under the 14th amendment??

It was a case of first impression (legal parlance for "the question hadn't come up in this way before.") So Gray undertakes to research and analyze it well. The "subject to" clause was a conundrum. If the dissent is correct that children born here of alien parents who have not renounced all ties to their homeland are not "subject to" U.S. jurisdiction and thus not citizens, then a sort of legal oddity might persist where the likes of Julia Lynch are ruled citizens under the common law, but children of non-white alien parents are ruled not-to-be citizens, despite the 14A. In which case, the 14A has failed to achieve its purpose. It's still a two-tiered citizenship world.

Gray I think perceives this problem and takes great pains to make the argument that carries the votes attain the winning majority.

Except that HE never actually says

That Gray makes a clear comparision between NBS and NBC to arrive at "the same rule"as to birth status of children of alien parents is obvious to me, to the two dissenting judges, to courts like Ankeny, and to all the other courts that have looked at WKA as to Obama and without the least hesitation cited WKA as proof Obama was NBC.

Your the only one who can't see this. It's not that you otherwise couldn't. It's just that you're desperately trying to prove a pre-conceived outcome and the WKA is the case that keeps being held up against your position.

Sorry, but Gray never says anywhere in the decision. I admire a good imagination, but that's all this is: imaginary.

He does, for those of us who know what he meant by "the same rule." Hardly, imaginary. He clearly meant something by that statement. And read in context, there's only one "rule" he could POSSIBLY mean: the rule that "every children born in the U.S. of alien parents was a natural born citizen."

You disagree. Yet you punt on answering the question yourself. That's how debate and discussion works. When there is disagreement, each side offers its view and supports that view with arguments to prove which view is the better-reasoned. Here, I have the interpretation and the argument to support it. You run away and throw up lots diversions and static.

It's called "cognitive dissonance."

IOW, you're creating an excuse to be intellectually dishonest before I even reply.

It's not an excuse. It's called a "remarkably accurate prediction." I predicted you wouldn't answer the question, and you didn't.

And try to answer this question.

I'm not playing this game where you duck questions and then turn around and demand I answer yours. You answer mine; then I'll answer yours. Fair enough? But I'll give you a hint as to my forthcoming answer: always ask "reading the citation in context, what point is the judge trying to support when he quotes the other case? Here's another hint: if you remain "mesmerized" you'll miss the point.

So, with that in mind, here it is again. Gray at the conclusion of Part II summarizes:

"therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject:"

Then in the immediate next sentence starting Part III he states:

"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 States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

Let's see if you are capable of connecting these two consecutive sentences and can answer this question: what "rule" was it that J. Gray is saying was "the same" in the U.S. which prevailed under the original Constitution?

If you merely wish to reply with "I don't know what he means by 'the same rule,'" I'll stop asking the question.

It pointed out that the Supreme Court didn't uphold the views expressed in that case and another case, . . .

LOL. This WAS the Supreme Court upholding the views expressed in Lynch v. Clarke: Gray was citing Lynch in support of the Court's determination that the "same rule" held true in the U.S. as held true under the English common law that every child born to alien parents was a "natural born" citizen/subject, respectively. That, after all was what Chancellor Sandford had reasoned in that case:

By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents…

* * *

The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” … The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

Observe how what Sandford says comports what Gray concludes in Part II and Gray's thesis for Part III that the "same rule" applied here. And Gray's citation to Lynch no doubt is one of the many reasons found by the dissent to complain the majority conclusion was that someone like Mr. Wong was thus presidential eligible.

AND that the 14th amendment attached provisions that meant not everyone born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen, as was expressed by Lynch.

C. Sandford in Lynch noted the exceptions to birth-citizenship for children of ambassadors, just as Gray in Part V stated was the purpose of the "subject to" clause of the 14A. So, again, the opinions are quite harmonious.

Two facts must concur: the person must be born here, and he must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States according to the fourteenth amendment, which means, according to the civil rights act, that the person born here is not subject to any foreign power.

There were three options: visitor, student and permanent resident.

How the INS may classify someone doesn't dictate how a court may analyze the question. Court determinations trump agency actions. A prime example is the WKA case: the Customs office took one view of Mr. Wong's status; the SCOTUS took another. Obama Sr. was here as more than just a temporary visitor and intended to stay while permitted to continue his studies.

His child would NOT qualify under the 14th amendment for citizenship by birth.

His child DID qualify. The U.S. voters (twice), the Congress (twice), the Electoral College (twice), and multiple courts (including federal circuit courts and state supreme court) have concluded Obama qualified.

Gray does NOT say children born here of alien parents were recognized as natural-born citizens.

He says it when he says "the same rule" held true in the U.S. under the original constitution and doing so immediately after he says that the "rule" in England was that "every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject."

•That's the reason for the discussion about why Consitutional terminology, including "natural born citizen" (which he specifically cites) "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."
•That's the reason Gray sets out to ascertain the meaning of "natural born citizen" by first tracing (Part II) its predecessor "natural born subject."
•That's the reason why Gray devotes Part III to showing that the "same rule" applied as to "natural born citizen."
•That's the reason why in Part III Gray puts NBS and NBC in side by side comparision in the Rhodes quote ("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. ")
•That's the reason Gray cites to the NC Supreme Court to say "subject" and "citizen" are "precisely analogous" terms.

He's supporting his argument that, as to children of aliens, "the same rule" applied as to "natural born citizen" as applied to "natural born subject."

I'm not going to waste my time with someone who starts deliberately lying.

Yeah, it's pretty apparent by now that you need to manufacture an exit strategy. You're argument is systematically being dismantled.

It's clear that you have NO CLUE as to what the SCOTUS means when it says: ""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 States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established." And because you don't account for what the Court says there, you misconstrue the reason it cites to the cases it does. Cases like Lynch v. Clarke support the "rule" that every child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a natural born citizen. But you remain in your head-in-the-sand posture that pretends none of this was part of the opinion.

If I were you, I'd find a way to bail out, too.

If ever you figure out an answer to the question you've ducked and run out on several times now, ping me. But to answer that, you'd need to cease being a Birther, so I'm not holding my breath you'll ever honestly address the question.

... except that Gray never says "natural-born citizen/subject" whether interchangeably or in tandem. In fact, the only time these two are cited is to show that they are DIFFERENT. Again, you're making up something only because you want to believe it, but the reality is that it's not there in any shape or form.

That, after all was what Chancellor Sandford had reasoned in that case:

By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents…

* * *

The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” … The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

You're making my argument for me. Gray doesn't touch even touch this delusional crap with a 10-foot-pole. If it was compelling and had ANY legal precedent, he could have quoted it verbatim. Instead, he simply says Lynch was one of the cases that went the FARTHEST in declaring children born in the U.S. as citizens. Sandford's musings presidential eligibility is nothing more than speculative dicta with no biding power. He poses a question. He's not making a declaration. "I think not" is not a legally binding expression of law. Plus, we have a unanimous Supreme Court ruling that said this was simply not so.

Observe how what Sandford says comports what Gray concludes in Part II and Gray's thesis for Part III that the "same rule" applied here.

Yes, the "same rule" applied here ... it made persons born in the U.S. subjects of Great Britain. The "rule" is not about making all children born in the country of aliens into natural-born citizens. Gray affirmed Minor's definition to a T. He paraphrased Lynch on a nothing more than a general observation.

And Gray's citation to Lynch no doubt is one of the many reasons found by the dissent to complain the majority conclusion was that someone like Mr. Wong was thus presidential eligible.

Nonsense. The dissent agreed with the basis of making persons into citizens under the 14th amendment except those whose citizenship was limited by treaties that said otherwise. There's nothing in the majority opinion that made Wong Kim Ark eligible. Nothing.

C. Sandford in Lynch noted the exceptions to birth-citizenship for children of ambassadors, just as Gray in Part V stated was the purpose of the "subject to" clause of the 14A. So, again, the opinions are quite harmonious.

It's only "harmonious" when you ignore that Gray recognized that NBC is exempt from the birth clause of the 14th amendment.

How the INS may classify someone doesn't dictate how a court may analyze the question.

The INS is following how the law classified aliens. Why a court not follow the same law??

Court determinations trump agency actions. A prime example is the WKA case: the Customs office took one view of Mr. Wong's status; the SCOTUS took another. Obama Sr. was here as more than just a temporary visitor and intended to stay while permitted to continue his studies.

He did NOT have permanent residence and domicil, and you have no court decision to show that he was found to be anything but a nonresident alien.

His child DID qualify. The U.S. voters (twice), the Congress (twice), the Electoral College (twice), and multiple courts (including federal circuit courts and state supreme court) have concluded Obama qualified.

You're resorting to circular logic. The U.S. voters don't determine 14th amendment citizenship. They, like the rest of your list simply took any claims at face value and assumed Obama qualified without Obama providing any legal evidence to show he qualified. In fact, his own website dispute this idea by saying his citizenship at birth was governed by British law.

He says it when he says "the same rule" held true in the U.S. under the original constitution and doing so immediately after he says that the "rule" in England was that "every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject."

That doesn't say "natural born citizen. Do you not know how to read??

•That's the reason for the discussion about why Consitutional terminology, including "natural born citizen" (which he specifically cites) "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."

He didn't say that natural born citizen must be interpreted in the light of the common law. He was talking about the birth provision of the 14th amendment, which he already admitted did NOT say who are natural-born citizens.

•That's the reason Gray sets out to ascertain the meaning of "natural born citizen" by first tracing (Part II) its predecessor "natural born subject."

Except he never says this in any shape or form. This is more of your wishful thinking, but not a direct citation of anything.

•That's the reason why Gray devotes Part III to showing that the "same rule" applied as to "natural born citizen."

Again, he does NOT say this. He's trying to build a case for how to define what Gray called "citizenship by birth." This phrase, he says, is defined by the 14th amendment. NBC is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution.

•That's the reason why in Part III Gray puts NBS and NBC in side by side comparision in the Rhodes quote ("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. ")

Not exactly. This quote shows that these are DIFFERENT terms entirely. This is in reference to people born in the United States and it acknowledges that such people could be natural-born subjects and NOT natural-born citizens. Rhodes was quoting Shanks v. Dupont, which said:

All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown. All those who then adhered to the British Crown were deemed and held subjects of that Crown. The treaty of peace was a treaty operating between the states on each side, and the inhabitants thereof; in the language of the seventh article, it was a firm and perpetual peace between his Britannic majesty and the said states, "and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other." Who were then subjects or citizens, was to be decided by the state of facts. If they were originally subjects of Great Britain and then adhered to her, and were claimed by her as subjects, the treaty deemed them such. If they were originally British subjects, but then adhering to the states, the treaty deemed them citizens. Such, I think, is the natural and indeed almost necessary meaning of the treaty; it would otherwise follow that there would continue a double allegiance of many persons -- an inconvenience which must have been foreseen and would cause the most injurious effects to both nations.

Do you see the part that says "natives or otherwise." This means the treaty affected people who were born in the United States and not just those who immigrated to the U.S. It also says you can't be both. Obama's father adhered to the crown. This makes Obama a natural-born subject and not a natural-born citizen. It does not do what you want it to do.

•That's the reason Gray cites to the NC Supreme Court to say "subject" and "citizen" are "precisely analogous" terms.

The problem is that "precisely analogous" does not mean "exactly the same." Subjects are subjects to a crown. Subjects must have actual obedience to the crown. Subjects must have perpetual allegiance to the crown. Citizens do not have any of these requirements. It's not the same. And Gray acknowledges in Part V that there is a very specific definition of "natural-born citizen" is NOT precisely analogous. You have no way around this. A unanimous Supreme Court decision is binding. Gray could NOT declare Wong Kim Ark or any child born to aliens to be a natural-born citizen. And he clearly does not make any such declaration anywhere in the decision.

He's supporting his argument that, as to children of aliens, "the same rule" applied as to "natural born citizen" as applied to "natural born subject."

Sorry, but this is false. There's nothing in this decision that says this.

Yeah, it's pretty apparent by now that you need to manufacture an exit strategy. You're argument is systematically being dismantled

An "exit strategy" for what?? No one else here is taking up your argument. It's been destroyed by me, and you're only resort is to make up things that are not said anywhere in the decision.

It's clear that you have NO CLUE as to what the SCOTUS means when it says: ""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 States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

The "same rule" doesn't say anything about natural-born citizens. This is a problem you cannot overcome. It might create citizens, and certainly it does under the 14th amendment, but it does not and cannot create natural-born citizens.

And because you don't account for what the Court says there, you misconstrue the reason it cites to the cases it does. Cases like Lynch v. Clarke support the "rule" that every child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a natural born citizen. But you remain in your head-in-the-sand posture that pretends none of this was part of the opinion.

I've got a unanimous Supreme Court decision plus a direct affirmation of that decision from Justice Gray that supports my "opinion." You, on the other hand, only have a badly played game of connect the dots, a vivid imagination and a few outright falsehoods.

If I were you, I'd find a way to bail out, too.

If ever you figure out an answer to the question you've ducked and run out on several times now, ping me. But to answer that, you'd need to cease being a Birther, so I'm not holding my breath you'll ever honestly address the question.

False bravado and pointless labeling aren't substitutes for actual logic and reason. You're the one who needs to "honestly address" the posts. Inserting "natural-born citizen" into a ruling where it was never used is not "honestly addressing" anything.

Things certainly have gotten quiet here since my last visit.

... except that Gray never says "natural-born citizen/subject" whether interchangeably or in tandem.

To the contrary, Gray devotes an entire section of his opinion to putting these concepts side-by-side. He even cites with approval from a case calling NBS and NBC "precisely analogous terms." One can only imagine the mental processes that you go through to keep denying the obvious.

fact, the only time these two are cited is to show that they are DIFFERENT.

So you think that when Gray analyzes NBS and NBC as "precisely analogous" terms you think he's emphasizing how they are different? Are you serious?

You are either dishonest or you lack basic reading comprehension skills. There's no other way to explain how you can miss a point so badly.

You're making my argument for me. Gray doesn't touch even touch this delusional crap with a 10-foot-pole. If it was compelling and had ANY legal precedent, he could have quoted it verbatim.

So in opinion you already critique as being too long, you here try to argue Gray should have quoted more from Sandford's lengthy opinion? LOL. You are desperate to come up with a semblance of a coherent argument on any point.

Gray refers to the matter of the birth status of children of alien parents being "elaborately argued" in Lynch and cites to the case three times. This is no doubt one of the many reasons the dissent found the majority opinion made someone like Mr. Wong presidential eligible.

One point that eludes you, since you apparently have no legal training or experience, is that a judge normally won't cite another opinion which contains reasoning or a conclusion fundamentally odds with the judge's reasoning. (Sometimes a court will cite such a case, but then takes pains to limit the earlier opinion to a specific point. In WKA, Gray doesn't indicate any issue with Lynch.)

Instead, he simply says Lynch was one of the cases that went the FARTHEST in declaring children born in the U.S. as citizens.

Again, you can't read. Gray makes the point the "ancient and fundamental" jus soli rule wasn't even challenged until 1845, and then cites the "elaborately argued" Lynch case to show it roundly affirmed that rule.

Nonsense. The dissent agreed with the basis of making persons into citizens under the 14th amendment except those whose citizenship was limited by treaties that said otherwise.

There's nothing in the majority opinion that made Wong Kim Ark eligible. Nothing.

There are many things in the majority that indicate that. I'm pointing them out to you. You just insist on keeping your head stuck in the sand so you can pretend those things aren't there. In your simplistic analysis it seems so long as there isn't a statement that spoon feeds it directly to you a la "we declare Mr. Wong is a natural born citizen," it will remain a mystery to you to explain why the dissent sees the majority's opinion as compelling that conclusion.

It's only "harmonious" when you ignore that Gray recognized that NBC is exempt from the birth clause of the 14th amendment.

This is yet another of your erroneous talking points. I've corrected you twice already on this point. You keep ignoring the correction. Here it again:

The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States."

* * *

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.

Note the part where Gray says the Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words ("these words" referring to "the words" of the original constitution including "natural born citizen") "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 . . ." So the 14th Amendment is, in the Supreme Court's view, an affirmative "definition" in part of the original "natural born citizen." Deny this as you may, it's still true.

Gray connects the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment directly. He says latter provides definition to the former. So your claim is incorrect. But I'm sure you'll keep ignoring this correction. You are adept at that.

You're resorting to circular logic. The U.S. voters don't determine 14th amendment citizenship.

As just shown, the 14th Amendment birth clause ties into the Article II NBC clause. But we all know as to eligibility that NBC is the key phrase. On that there are but three possibilities for determination: 1) We the People (the voters), 2) the Electoral College/Congress or 3) the Courts. As to President Obama, all three have determined he is a NBC.

They, like the rest of your list simply took any claims at face value and assumed Obama qualified without Obama providing any legal evidence to show he qualified.

Given there were no doubts being raised about his eligibility by Congress, the media, nor even his Democrat or Republican rivals, why shouldn't the voters take at face value the statements attesting to his birth status? What would be the voters'reason for doubt? That a few internet cranks and malcontents keep pounding the table in objection? That's not much of a reason.

In fact, his own website dispute this idea by saying his citizenship at birth was governed by British law.

It was also governed by U.S. law since he was born in the U.S. As to eligibility, U.S. law governs. Not British law. Most voters could understand that much, even if you can't.

That doesn't say "natural born citizen. Do you not know how to read??

So you're reading the "same rule" statement to mean that Gray is claiming that under our original Constitution every person born in the U.S. to alien parents was a "natural born subject?? How you make the arguments you do while keeping a straight face is beyond me. That is absurd and laughable. The Constitution refers to NBC's. He can ONLY be read to be saying that the "same rule" under our Constitution was that every child born to alien parents was a natural born citizen.

He didn't say that natural born citizen must be interpreted in the light of the common law.

I've quoted above (again) the specific text where he says what I claimed. Read it.

This quote shows that these are DIFFERENT terms entirely.

Ummm, right. Calling the terms "precisely analogous" means in your mind "these are different terms entirely." Dishonest. Dense. Delusional. So hard to settle on one adjective here.

Rhodes was quoting Shanks v. Dupont, which said: " . . . the treaty deemed them citizens."

So here you skip past the portion of Rhodes Gray actually quotes and jump back even further to quote a portion of Shanks Gray doesn't cite where Shanks is discussing an England-U.S. treaty which obviously has no relevance to Wong. And you think you are making a relevant point . . . how?

Your total cluelessness as to how Judge's draft opinions and how properly to read them makes further dialogue here pointless. You just grasp at whatever straw is handy, toss that up, and think you've made an argument.

The problem is that "precisely analogous" does not mean "exactly the same."

Since I'm not arguing for equivalence, there is no problem. But the terms have a corresponding meaning with the respective systems: a child born in the US is deemed "natural born" in the way corresponding to the rule by which a child in England was deemed "natural born." So just as a child born in England to alien parents was a NBS, the same rule here was that a child born to alien parents was a NBC.

This is simple. But I think your problem here is you have no clue what an analogy signifies. It means a similarity between two sets of things. In saying they are "precisely analogous terms" Gray is signifying a similarity between the birth rule as to NBS and NBC. In your stupdity you keep asserting Gray finds them dissimilar. Until you correct that basic error you will never grasp what Gray is saying.

And Gray acknowledges in Part V that there is a very specific definition of "natural-born citizen" is NOT precisely analogous. You have no way around this. A unanimous Supreme Court decision is binding.

I don't need a way around it. I need but observe that the Minor court didn't involve the question of the birth status of children of alien parents and so therefore the Minor opinion doesn't purport to say whether such are or are not NBC. You're trying to argue the Minor court made a definition as to a question that it expressly said it wasn't answering. Your position is legally absurd.

So in that way I deflate your argument entirely and just keep walking straight ahead.

You, on the other hand, only have a badly played game of connect the dots, a vivid imagination

Except that the dissent in WKA, Ankeny and the Obama cases since all connect the dots in the same way. (A shocker, isn't it, that all those with a legal education come out the same way here, while you end up in a different spot?) The attempt by you, the legal layperson here, to personalize this and claim I'm misreading the cases comes with "FAIL" stamped all over it.

Things certainly have gotten quiet here since my last visit.

Your arguments were defeated. What else would need to be said?

To the contrary, Gray devotes an entire section of his opinion to putting these concepts side-by-side. He even cites with approval from a case calling NBS and NBC "precisely analogous terms." One can only imagine the mental processes that you go through to keep denying the obvious.

If it's so obvious, give a DIRECT quote using these exact terms were they are put side-by-side. The only thing that was "precisely analogous" were the terms "citizen" and "subject." The rest of this is your desperate imagination playing a dishonest game of connect-the-dots.

So you think that when Gray analyzes NBS and NBC as "precisely analogous" terms you think he's emphasizing how they are different? Are you serious?

Absolutely serious. You're not being honest because Gray does NOT analyzed NBS and NBC as precisely analogous. You're creating an argument based on a false premise.

So in opinion you already critique as being too long, you here try to argue Gray should have quoted more from Sandford's lengthy opinion? LOL. You are desperate to come up with a semblance of a coherent argument on any point.

No, I didn't say this at all. Focus. I said if the part of Sandford's opinion on NBC was compelling, Gray would have quoted it verbatim. He clearly avoided doing this in any shape or form.

Gray refers to the matter of the birth status of children of alien parents being "elaborately argued" in Lynch and cites to the case three times.

He cites "to the case" but he avoids citing any verbiage from the case. Calling it "elaborate" doesn't mean anything. He also cites to Minor and cites FROM Minor verbatim on an exact definition of NBC. One of these has legal precedent. The other does not. Do you understand which one??

One point that eludes you, since you apparently have no legal training or experience, is that a judge normally won't cite another opinion which contains reasoning or a conclusion fundamentally odds with the judge's reasoning.

You're making my argument for me. This explains why Gray does nothing more than paraphrase the Lynch ruling instead of giving any full citations.

Again, you can't read. Gray makes the point the "ancient and fundamental" jus soli rule wasn't even challenged until 1845, and then cites the "elaborately argued" Lynch case to show it roundly affirmed that rule.

This doesn't help your argument. The Lynch case is NOT persuasive or compelling. When Gray says that the rule wasn't challenged, all he is saying is that he doesn't have much to go on in order to make Wong Kim Ark a citizen. It's why he continues for pages and pages and pages trying to build a justification. Second, he cites a New Jersey case that completely contradicts the conclusion in Lynch.

There are many things in the majority that indicate that. I'm pointing them out to you. You just insist on keeping your head stuck in the sand so you can pretend those things aren't there. In your simplistic analysis it seems so long as there isn't a statement that spoon feeds it directly to you a la "we declare Mr. Wong is a natural born citizen," it will remain a mystery to you to explain why the dissent sees the majority's opinion as compelling that conclusion.

No, you're trying to connect unconnected dots while ignoring that Gray deferred to the Minor definition of NBC and that Gray tied it specifically to Article II in the Constitution. He could not use that to make Ark a citizen, so there's no way he could make Ark a natural-born citizen. All natural-born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are natural-born citizens. That's a problem for you. You're trying to conclude the latter when the Ark decision says the opposite, that when construing the 14th amendment, it does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens.

The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States."

Yes, this is true. Nobody disagrees. The Constitution uses these terms, but when construing the 14th amendment it the birth clause, it does NOT define nor redefine natural-born citizen. Gray admits this when he cites Minor.

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."

Read this. It does NOT mention the term natural-born citizen. It does use THIS term from the previous paragraph "citizens of the United States." The Constitution defines "citzens of the United States" in the 14th amendment. It does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens.

So the 14th Amendment is, in the Supreme Court's view, an affirmative "definition" in part of the original "natural born citizen."

False. Gray explicitly said the opposite. Read this:

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.

Do you understand now?? Can you be HONEST now?? In one paragraph, Gray says the Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these terms except in how "citizens of the United States" is defined in the 14th amendment. In a negative declaration, he says that when the 14th amendment was construed, it did NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. That specifically states the opposite of what you want to believe.

Gray connects the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment directly.

Only to say the 14th amendment does not say who shall be natural-born citizens. Here it is again ... a DIRECT quote:

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.

As just shown, the 14th Amendment birth clause ties into the Article II NBC clause.

You didn't show that at all. I showed the opposite.

But we all know as to eligibility that NBC is the key phrase. On that there are but three possibilities for determination: 1) We the People (the voters), 2) the Electoral College/Congress or 3) the Courts. As to President Obama, all three have determined he is a NBC.

This is a circular conclusion. Neither nor voter nor the electoral college has done anything to determine Obama to be an NBC. The only courts to make this conclusion have done so on a basis that is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's unanimous rulings on eligibility.

Given there were no doubts being raised about his eligibility by Congress, the media, nor even his Democrat or Republican rivals, why shouldn't the voters take at face value the statements attesting to his birth status?

Because ignorance is no way to conduct an election.

What would be the voters'reason for doubt? That a few internet cranks and malcontents keep pounding the table in objection? That's not much of a reason.

Self-delusion and willful ignorance is not a reason to ignore Supreme Court precedents, and labeling people as cranks for providing irrefutable legal precedent serves no one any good.

It was also governed by U.S. law since he was born in the U.S. As to eligibility, U.S. law governs. Not British law. Most voters could understand that much, even if you can't.

No, the Supreme Court cited a treaty that says those whose citizenship is under British allegiance are governed by their laws in terms of natural-born status. And second, Obama has never provided any evidence in a court that his birth was governed in any form by U.S. law. Most voters would understand that, even if you can't.

So you're reading the "same rule" statement to mean that Gray is claiming that under our original Constitution every person born in the U.S. to alien parents was a "natural born subject??

Gray cited the ruling that supports this.

How you make the arguments you do while keeping a straight face is beyond me. That is absurd and laughable. The Constitution refers to NBC's. He can ONLY be read to be saying that the "same rule" under our Constitution was that every child born to alien parents was a natural born citizen.

The Constitution doesn't say everyone born in the U.S. ware NBCs. It says that Constitution was formed by "We the people of the United States" for "ourselves and our posterity." This doesn't say the children born of aliens are somehow NBCs. "Ourselves and our posterity" means citizens and the children of citizens. It does NOT include subjects and children of subjects born in the U.S. That's why Gray has to defer to the allegiance quote: those born in the United States under the allegiance of the crown were natural-born subjects, not natural-born citizens.

So here you skip past the portion of Rhodes Gray actually quotes and jump back even further to quote a portion of Shanks Gray doesn't cite where Shanks is discussing an England-U.S. treaty which obviously has no relevance to Wong. And you think you are making a relevant point . . . how?

I didn't skip past Rhodes. I explained for your benefit what Rhodes was referring to. Rhodes says, "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." First, this isn't talking about persons born in England. It's talking about people born in the U.S. who are still in the allegiance of the crown. These people are natural-born subjects and NOT natural-born citizens. It's an either-or proposition. You can't be both. Under this proposition, Obama is a natural-born subject. The "rule of common law" makes people born in the U.S. of persons born with allegiance to the crown into subjects of that crown and NOT NBCs.

.... a child born in the US is deemed "natural born" in the way corresponding to the rule by which a child in England was deemed "natural born."

This simply is not true. Gray cites a case where children born of aliens were not considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States unless the parents had NO allegiance to their home country. This means that not only were the children not natural-born citizens, but that the 14th amendment wouldn't come into play until they satisfied this criteria. We already know the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be NBCs.

But I think your problem here is you have no clue what an analogy signifies. It means a similarity between two sets of things.

Your problem is that I DO know what analogy means and that you're argument is based on trying to make these terms completely equivalent and not just analogous. I have no problem with saying that NBS is "analogous" to NBC, but they are not defined the same way, and I've shown this in multiple ways using explicit language and direct quotes to support this fact.

Except that the dissent in WKA, Ankeny and the Obama cases since all connect the dots in the same way.

The dissent defines NBC the same way as Minor:

Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

Ironically, Ankeny tries to downplay Vattel as an 18th century treaty that "conflicts" with the court's interpretation of NBC, but the ONLY direct interpretation Ankeny gave is from the Minor decision, and they say exactly what Gray said:

In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that: The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.

Second, Ankeny admits that Wong Kim Ark did NOT declare Ark or anyone else to be an NBC on the basis of birth to noncitizens:

We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language ...

Now, YOU'VE tried to make the argument that Wong Kim Ark ties the 14th amendment to defining NBC in Article II language, and the Ankeny court clearly said it did not. They weren't so stupid to insist that there was ANY legal precedent to support such an idea, and it explains why Ankeny did NOT declare Obama to be an NBC. Any court that did so on the basis of Ankeny or Wong Kim Ark has no legal precedent behind it. NONE. Instead we have a clear definition of NBC from Minor: all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens. s opinion on NBC was compelling, Gray would have quoted it verbatim. He clearly avoided doing this in any shape or form.i

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.