“They have agreed they are Native Born Citizens.”
No. Only a total idiot could read the WKA decision and conclude they were talking about native citizens, AND that native citizens are different from NBC. The WKA decision addressed NBC at length, and like all the other legal decision and writings, considered native citizen and NBC to be interchangeable.
““And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign….That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. 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.”
Justice Story, concurring opinion,Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1829)
The WKA decision was based on the Lynch decision. It followed its arguments, updating them to include the passage of the 14th amendment. What Lynch argued has not been rejected in any court:
(page 246)
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,” &c. 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.
(pg 250)
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.
I will admit I didn’t read more than your first paragraph.
Barak is a Natural Born Citizen?
I will now go back and read your post.
“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign.”
Seriously???
LOL
So a divided allegience and responsibility, at birth, subsumes a singular and focused responsibility?
You can’t be serious. Really?
Barak is a Natural Born Citizen with no allegiances that would give him the ability to avoid, circumvent or avoid US law?
LOL
Get real.
Respectfully as a nOOb, compared to your membership on this board.
Sorry, I went back and read your response and have to ask again “Are you serious?”
Kent discusses priory of the Constitution and Barak was most certainly born sometime after that.
And the “Justice” opinion?
OMG?! LOL
“...and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance...”
You can’t be serious?
Maybe I don’t understand your intent of subject or proposition???
If I don’t, please...say so.
Respectfully.
V
LOL
I am good at copy paste but, I can’t make some great leap of intellectual convolution that allows a synthetic fact.
That’s pretty funny though.
No offense is intended and if it was I would Kick Buckeye in the .....
I admire his posts but, yours qualitatively don’t approach his.
Again, with respect.
Mr Rogers - Can you point me to the full opinion in Leake v. Gilchrist? I find only references to it.
Vendome - If the full opinion supports what Mr Rogers claims with his brief quote, I may have to give some serious consideration to it.