What, giving up on Story? I seem to recall seeing some St. George Tucker writings that you wouldn't like either, but i'm not going to go to a whole lot of trouble to find them. I'll bet i've got them bookmarked, but my forest of bookmarks is now too big to manage.
I expect someone will stumble across them again directly.
As for that "natural law" stuff, you are treating the Monarchy's version of it as if it was *OUR* version of it.
Sure, if you accept the Premise that the King is put there by God, then all the rest follows. Born to be the King's servant? Check. Perpetual allegiance? Check. Yup, it all follows from your base assumptions. But if you change the assumptions, what then follows?
Now what was Blackstone again? Wasn't he a British Subject?
I can see him leaning towards favoring the Monarchy.
The immediate exchange was about Tucker.
And why would I give up on Story? In Inglis he articulates very clearly the jus soli principle; and in the first and greatest SCOTUS case on citizenship, that quote is cited verbatim in support of the view that the common law in American recognized that same rule as in England. The dissent in WKA wanted to claim Story for their side, too. But Fuller couldn't really make the argument that the more general language from Shanks contradicted the clear language from Inglis.
I seem to recall seeing some St. George Tucker writings that you wouldn't like either, but i'm not going to go to a whole lot of trouble to find them.
Blah, blah. I showed you where Tucker point-blank says U.S. law is in agreement with Blackstone's statement that the children of aliens born in the realm are natural born subjects. To that you have yet to comment. (Not much to say is there with all that cognitive dissonance choking off the words.)
But, true to your usual form, I'm sure you'll find some passages from Tucker that aren't on point, post those alongside a photo of Tucker, do your magic hand-wave and declare you've "spanked me."