Replies

What the The Supreme Court ACTUALLY says:

This SUPPORTS my point. Thanks for shooting your own arugment in the foot. READ IT.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

The first part of this citation says specifically it is a reference to the Constitution ... specifically the 14th amendment. Then it cites the citizen clause and the verb of the sentence, which you omitted. Here's the ENTIRE first part of the passage:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration 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,
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.

The 14th amendment contemplates two sources of citizenship. This does NOT contradict the earlier statement that NBC is defined OUTSIDE the Constitution. Gray is now ONLY talking about birth as defined BY the Constitution through the 14th amendment. He does not call it natural born citizenship, nor does he suggest that it is the same concept. The next passage is STILL talking about the 14th amendment. He is pointing out that the 14th still reserves naturalization authority to Congress, but that that it defines the circumstances for what he calls "citizenship by birth." READ IT.

Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.

BUT, here is the COMPLETE quote:

The complete quote referencing Minor still says that NBC is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution. The definition in question, which is quoted, is a verbatim match of Vattel and NOT English common law. Again, the Minor definition did NOT cite ANY English common law. When it said "at common law" it is referring to the Law of Nations since that definition is where their definition of NBC OBVIOUSLY came from.

Which is what I told you before: Every body, regardless of parentage born here, is born in the allegiance of the US (with two exceptions) and if you are born here in the allegiance of the U.S, then you are a natural born citizen.

Sorry, but this is simply not true and the citation of U.S. v Rhodes is acutally a citation from Shanks v. Dupont which recognized that persons born in the United States could be British subjects ... and not just those who were born to foreign ministers, etc. It applied to ANYONE who adhered to the Crown. READ IT:

All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states, were virtually absolved from their allegiance to the British crown, and those who then adhered to the British crown, were deemed and held subjects of that crown.

Understand it. All thoses natives or otherwise ... those born in the country who adhered to the British crown were subjects of the crown. Being born in the allegiance of the United States meant ADHERING to the American states as it says above.