Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Didn't miss anything. That's the definition of natural-born British subject.
and you missed it again:
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.
Its clearly stated in Wong Kim Ark that the defintion of NBS in English Common Law was adapted for NBC in the English Colonies and later the United States.
you are clearly being dishonest when you continue to misrepresent the case.
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.
Its clearly stated in Wong Kim Ark that the defintion of NBS in English Common Law was adapted for NBC in the English Colonies and later the United States.
No, it is not. It's clearly stated that the U.S. Constitution did not change the fact that some of the subsequent U.S. citizens would STILL be natural-born British subjects if they qualified as such.
Not sure why you don't understand that.
Again, Ark was ruled a citizen because the WKA decision NEVER CHANGED the only SCOTUS definition of NBC, which is stated in Minor v. Happersett.
Minor wasn't about citizenship, never was, and they said they weren't going to deal with the matter. It wasn't their issue to solve.
Good grief! You're repeating the SAME reading comprehension error you made before.
So, again, we have to get you to actually READ what was written:
Quote:
"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. 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. "
M v. H stated that some authorities claim that children born within the jurisdiction regardless of their parents' citizenship status are citizens and that there are doubts about that. They then state that they do not address those doubts.
No, it is not. It's clearly stated that the U.S. Constitution did not change the fact that some of the subsequent U.S. citizens would STILL be natural-born British subjects if they qualified as such.
That is the most asinine interpretation conceivable.
The real silliness of trying to read meaning into the ambiguous dictum in Minor is that anything such court said about native children of aliens would have been superseded by Wong Kim Ark 23 years later where, by the way, no one thought Minor was precedent in any way when they talked about who was a natural born citizen. The majority in Wong Kim Ark cited Minor to show the Minor court "was not committed" to a view on children of aliens since it declined to resolve the doubts some had. The Wong Kim Ark court agreed with Minor that natural born citizen must be defined by the common law but Wong Kim Ark left no doubt that such meant the English common law as this discussion was not dictum and hence left no doubt about what it was saying. The question before the Wong Kim Ark court was whether a native child of aliens was a citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment. The Court said that the 14th Amendment was simply declaratory of pre-existing law under the original Constitution, hence it was necessary to define who was a citizen at birth, or natural born, under the original Constitution to determine what the Amendment was declaratory of. Thus the discussion of the law under the original Constitution was part of the ratio decidendi or what is precedent under such case.
After telling us that "natural born citizen" must be defined by the English common law, the Wong Kim Ark Court cited several pages of English authority making clear that Wong Kim Ark would have been a natural born subject before stating that the rule which would have made him a natural born subject "prevailed under our Constitution." The Court then cites authority that "natural born citizen" was in reference to the principle which referred citizenship to the place of birth and that "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject" meant the same thing, stating the law was the same in the United States and in England. The Court goes on to cite authority after authority saying we adopted the English jus soli rulefrom the beginnning of our republicbefore telling us the 14th Amendment adopted the same rule and was simply intended to make clear the rule was color-blind.
So we have two cases that say "natural born citizen" must be defined by the common law of the founders. One doesn't clarify what this means, the other spends 20 pages explaining what the common law meant in England and the United States. One is orbiter dictum, the other binding precedent. One cites no authority at all, the other cites pretty much every legal giant in England and the United States on the subject. One court declined to address children of aliens, the other spent the entire opinion on children of aliens. One Court followed the other and hence supersedes any implication with respect to natural born status of the former court. Simply stated, no competent lawyer would claim Minor, rather than Wong Kim Ark, is precedent as to whether a native child of aliens is natural born.
Neither, however, would be Natural Born Citizens, as each failed to have the total qualification of U.S. parent citizens (plural) while being born within the borders of the United States.
"After telling us that "natural born citizen" must be defined by the English common law"
Wong Kim Ark does not tell us that at all. Nowhere in the decision does it say that NBC must be defined by English common law.
Furthermore, as I just posted, it was the Founder's specific intent to NOT mimic the laws and policies of England, the country from which they had just become independent.
The FACT is that Minor v. Happersett is the only SCOTUS decision that defines Constitutional NBC:
Quote:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Furthermore, as we can tell by the case syllabus (prepared by the SCOTUS Reporter of Decisions), Minor having been born in the U.S. to two citizen parents thus making her a citizen was a direct holding of the case. To make that point, the M v. H Decision specifically cited the Constitutional definition of NBC.
The case syllabus states:
Quote:
"women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States"
The revision offers a glimpse into Jefferson’s attitude as he wrote the Declaration. He rejected the idea that the colonists were traitors to King George III; they were citizens of a nascent nation.
had nothing to do with not mimicking the English laws (and the Supreme Court disagrees with you as demonstrated by your constant ignoring of their findings in Wong Kim Ark).
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.
actually no, it wasn't. Jefferson didn't feel like a traitor and thought what they were doing was not a traitorous action.
No one said he was a traitor. He was clearly drafting the NEW tenets of a nascent nation, which most certainly did NOT mimic those of the country from which it had just declared its independence.
You just don't get it, do you?
From the article YOU cited:
Quote:
"they were citizens of a nascent nation."
Citizens, notsubjects. Jefferson deliberately veered away from English law.
The only SCOTUS definition of Constitutional NBC is this:
Quote:
"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're repeating the SAME reading comprehension error you made before. 
