Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 654Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 655
Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 655
And now you are going to quote court cases at me. None from people who were actually part of the constitutional convention or ratifying conventions.
What are you — a natural born jackass?
All of those are by the U.S. Supreme Court, approvingly citing holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in prior cases. They all explicitly state the applicability of the common law.
That the justices were not at the Constitutional Convention is worth of a Fizbin Medal at an idiot's convention.
Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 655
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. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 161.
Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 655
II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," " faith" or "power," of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual—as expressed in the maxim, protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects.
Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 658
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.III. 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.
Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 660
"Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth." 3 Pet. 164.I was noticing that when I was perusing the debates on the 14th amendment, they were citing William Rawle. (And Vattel)
Rawle was deliberately LYING. Everything linked to him is the fruit of a poisoned tree.
And *THIS* is why I don't take your later court cases seriously. They've all been poisoned by Rawle.
This is why nobody can take you seriously. You are probably just tryuing to impress O'rly. Can't tell if you've been slammin' your face with powdered donuts or you just visited the White House.
I like to think so.
All of those are by the U.S. Supreme Court, approvingly citing holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in prior cases. They all explicitly state the applicability of the common law.
So? That they hold august positions and that other people respect them does not make them correct.
That the justices were not at the Constitutional Convention is worth of a Fizbin Medal at an idiot's convention.
Their opinions are hearsay. People who were present are first hand witnesses.