Scalia Flummoxed About Natural Born Citizenship (Mr. Constitution claims he doesn't know)

>> “I think this was posted several days ago.” <<

.
It should be posted at least once each day until IQs rise to an acceptable level.

Yeah, you and you alone know the truth. You and your brave band of birther brothers, incapable of winning an argument in ANY of the 50 states. Utah ignores you. Texas ignores you. Alabama & Arizona ignore you - but YOU alone know the truth.

OK. Live in your fantasy world. Just be honest enough to admit what it is - fantasy.

There is no reason to believe James Madison wrote the letter you ascribe to him, using a pseudonym from 20 years earlier. When the case was investigated, the man was found to be a US citizen. Why?

““Sir
I have the honor to enclose several affidavits and certificates just handed to me by Mr. Cheves the Representative in Congress from the City of Charleston proving that James McClure now detained in France as a British Prisoner of War was born in Charleston since the Revolution. To these Papers is annexed a Certificate of W[illiam] Johnson Esq. one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States before whom the affidavits were taken stating “that agreeable to the laws and usage of the United States, the said affidavits and Certificates are sufficient to establish the fact that James M McClure above named is a Citizen of the United States.” As such he must be considered by this Government. You will therefore interpose your good offices in his behalf and obtain his release from confinement as soon as possible.

I have [the honor] James Monroe”

Repeat:

“James McClure...was born in Charleston since the Revolution....“that agreeable to the laws and usage of the United States, the said affidavits and Certificates are sufficient to establish the fact that James M McClure above named is a Citizen of the United States.”

When they detained him, they SCREWED UP. Upon investigation, he was released. Yet you claim he was NOT a US citizen unless naturalized - which is NOT the basis of the letter securing his release.

Your inability to face facts is why you are a LOSER. James McClure was determined to be a US citizen by birth, and released. President Madison’s administration had him released, and gave a public statement about why: “James McClure...was born in Charleston since the Revolution”.

But facts will never sway birthers. It is your ability to ignore facts that makes you birthers, and nutjobs, and thus results in 50 of 50 states rejecting you & your ideas. 535 of 535 members of Congress reject your wacko ideas. And every court to date has rejected them.

Does it get lonely in your asylum?

It is an accepted fact that Rogers is either an idiot, or a deliberate disinformer.

I wouldn't go that far. He is a person who advocates a position because of an emotional entanglement with it. He is blinded by his emotional attachment. I suspect many who advocate for his position are likewise blinded by emotional attachment.

Ha! Just the kind of response I expected. You cannot accept that two founders explicitly reject your theory.

“You left out “all of the American Government textbooks in use in the US prior to 1970.”

They are still accessible through the Library of Congress.”

The Swiss writer De Vattel was dead before the Constitution was written, and is not mentioned, quoted, cited in the Constitution itself.

Textbooks are not law.

The framers and founders could have defined the terms, but did not.

So now valid differeing opinions occur. We had better get to the USSC and get it settled. Don’t be surprised if it results that natural born citizen = native born citizen. That is, after all, the basis for Obama, like it or not.

>> “The framers and founders could have defined the terms, but did not.” <<

.
Childish comment.

They didn’t define any of the terms in the constitution; they didn’t need to; they were common usage.

The fact that there are destroyers that seek to weaken the constitution does not detract from its meaning. Natural Born was well understood, and taught in school because it was precise, and important.

Those that seek to inject English Common Law into a nation of sovereign citizens seek to dissolve that nation. Common Law was for the colonies, and rejected for the nation deliberately.

The chief framers were disinclined to all things british. Those elements of common law that were of Roman origin are still found in our laws, but those things that are corrosive to personal sovereignty and liberty have been largely expunged. (leftists of course disagree; they hate both)

BTW - there is NO evidence Madison wrote the letter you claim he did. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that he would resurrect a 20 year old alias.

Bottom line: James McClure was found to be a US citizen based on his birth in the US. And that is consistent with US law from before there was a US:

“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.”

Oh, but wait! You reject the US Supreme Court as having any authority...

It’s now an accepted fact here that whatever Rogers posts is nonsense.

Funny, I heard the same about you. I also know you are a coward because you didn't have the guts to say this to Mr. Rogers himself. Nice!

I understand that you are trying to pervert the Constitution of the United States - a document I defended for 20+ years in uniform and attempting to do as a civilian. You have no authority and you have no idea of what you are talking about. You make up laws that suit your agenda. You are an empty lantern.

As far as anchor babies, they may or not be qualified because their parents are here illegally - that is a matter to be decided. It was never an issue in the 1700’s. When a man like Madison himself says “born of the soil is the law of the United States,” and not some off the wall Vattel crap, that sort of makes you a liar doesn’t it?

Another thing, genius, at least 20% of American citizens at the time of the Revolution were Loyalists, never supported the revolution much less shed blood for it, yet were eligible to be the president.

The way I was raised, if you had a beef with someone or criticized someone you did it to his face like a man, not a coward. You belittled Mr Rogers, a patriot, yet you didn’t include him to read your stupid remarks. Nice!

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814):

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830):

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875):

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.

States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):

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.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Article II SuperPac

In the cases you cited not one says that two citizen parents are a requirement. Everyone knows that if you are born in U.S. of two citizen parents, you are of course NBC. These courts agreed with that but none of the courts ever said that nobody else is a NBC. That’s like saying GM makes blue cars. Does that mean the red cars are not cars?

Minor v. Happersett makes it abundantly clear that there are only two kinds of citizen: natural born, and naturalized. The former meaning those citizens from birth and the latter those made citizens later. Applying that definition in the later part of the Minor text, it is obvious that the Minor court didn’t decide the question of whether the children of aliens born in the US were citizens or not. US v. Wong did, and in the affirmative.

Lynch v. Clarke New York in 1844 (which you neglected to mention) on the other hand does speak of “parental” qualifications – and not conducive to your arguments:

This case is important because it was among those cited by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark as well as other lower court decisions such as Munro vs. Merchant (N.Y. 1858).

“By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents…

The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. 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,” … 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. 246)

http://books.google.com/books?id=ERgvAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA251#v=onepage&q&f=false

relying on bad judicial precedent rather than an actual understanding of the correct meaning of the 14th amendment

So it is your position that if you don't like the court decision, you feel free to just ignore it. Do you even listen to yourself?

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Basically, a child born in the United States , even if the child of illegals, is a natural born citizen

No, you already said yourself that the child has to be under the jurisdiction of the United States to be a citizen. This is where the confusion comes in where people believe that to be whithin the geographical bounds of a country is to be under the jurisdiction of that country.

I understand that you are trying to pervert the Constitution of the United States - a document I defended for 20+ years in uniform and attempting to do as a civilian. You have no authority and you have no idea of what you are talking about. You make up laws that suit your agenda. You are an empty lantern.

And you are a fool. You do not know what I know, You are not familiar with my arguments, yet you believe you understand enough to discuss this topic. You know not, and know not that you know not.

As far as anchor babies, they may or not be qualified because their parents are here illegally - that is a matter to be decided. It was never an issue in the 1700’s. When a man like Madison himself says “born of the soil is the law of the United States,” and not some off the wall Vattel crap, that sort of makes you a liar doesn’t it?

You Presume to speak for Madison. He first says that Had South Carolina had a law regarding citizenship, this question would never have to be addressed by the Congress. The implicit point here is that a positive law trumps custom. He then goes into a long explanation about how Mr. Smith's family were among the first settlers, and his inheritance is in South Carolina. The salient point which you do not have the wit to comprehend is that Mr. Madison is arguing a Jus Sanguinus claim for his citizenship.

Another thing, genius, at least 20% of American citizens at the time of the Revolution were Loyalists, never supported the revolution much less shed blood for it, yet were eligible to be the president.

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of American History. The loyalists suffered greatly here in the United States. Many of them ended up fleeing to Canada because of the discrimination they faced from those who backed the U.S. Others went back to England.

The way I was raised, if you had a beef with someone or criticized someone you did it to his face like a man, not a coward. You belittled Mr Rogers, a patriot, yet you didn’t include him to read your stupid remarks. Nice!

Mr Rogers is an obsessed, passion driven nut who keeps putting out the same drivel regardless of what evidence is presented to him which contradicts it. He has been barbecued by opposing facts so many times people are sick of looking at his sh*t. Mr. Rogers has a personal interest in believing what he believes. You, on the other hand, are just an ignorant fool who believes crap that people have told you.

Grow Up! Research this stuff yourself! Quit listening to what you've been told, figure out the truth! Here, i'll give you some help! Back in 1844, a New York Court ruled that because the State of New York did not have a citizenship law, they would use English Common law to decide that a child born in New York of an English father was an American citizen.

In 1845, the legislature of the state of New York responded by creating a citizenship law. Guess what? It prevents the children of transient aliens from being citizens!

So okay genius, if your understanding of American law is correct, How did the state of New York Exclude the children of Transient Aliens from citizenship? What happened to your "born on the soil" theory?

The only time citizen parents is required is if their baby was born in a foreign land, the child took on the citizenship of the parent.

So the citizenship of the parents is obviously the overriding factor as that negates the fact that the child was born oversees. It's apparent that the citizenship of the parents is a prerequisite at all times whether born on American soil or not.

If you have the courage and are willing to learn (unlike liberals) the following citations along with their references disprove what you presently believe about NBC. These are all written in easily understood English.

1. “The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term Natural Born Citizen means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.

Congressional Research Service

2. In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.’ ‘We find no warrant for the opinion [169 U.S. 649, 663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.’ 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649

3. Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15
[15] We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.

Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-court-of-appeals/1501011.html

4. “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution,Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett ,88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

5. “Every person born -within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen,

Judicial and Statutory Definitions of Words and Phrases, pg. 4664 (1904)

6. “The country where one is born, how accidental so ever 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 there out 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)

7. The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States.

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, pg. 86 (1829)

8. “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

9. “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state; and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)

10. “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)

11. “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, pg. 86 (1829)

12. “It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.”

The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)

13. “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”

Justice Curtis, dissenting, Dredd Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). (This decision was thrown out but because of this paragraph because it was used in KWA.

14. “The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. …”

Attorney General Bates, Opinion of Citizenship, (1862)

15. “In like manner every one who first saw the light on the American soil was a natural-born citizen; but the power of naturalization, which, under the king, each colony had claimed to regulate by its own laws, remained under the confederacy with the separate states.”

George Bancroft, History of the United States, from the Discovery of the American Continent: The American Revolution., pg. 439 (1866)

16. “Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution…Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the King; and aliens are such as are born out of it.” …… “It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, ‘founded in reason and the nature of government’ … The English Law made no distinction … in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward.”

Rep. Wilson, 1866 Civil Rights Act debates. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115, 1117 (1866)

There are many more.

So the citizenship of the parents is obviously the overriding factor as that negates the fact that the child was born oversees. It's apparent that the citizenship of the parents is a prerequisite at all times whether born on American soil or not.

Absolutely not! Citizen parents ONLY matter if the child is born overseas of U.S. citizens. Otherwise, born on the soil grants immediate NBC. See my previous comment (#137)

BTW - there is NO evidence Madison wrote the letter you claim he did. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that he would resurrect a 20 year old alias.

Who else would dare? Publius was one of the widely known writers of the Federalist Papers. Hamilton was dead, John Jay was retired, (and he didn't write much after his head injury from the Doctors riot.) Madison was the only one left, and the letter follows the official US Government position perfectly. The letter writer also make a point to mention that South Carolina did not have a citizenship law, something that Madison mentioned some years earlier when defending Mr. Smith.

I think you are quaking in your boots for fear that the letter writer is very much indeed, James Madison.

Bottom line: James McClure was found to be a US citizen based on his birth in the US. And that is consistent with US law from before there was a US:

That is a blatant lie. He was found to be a US citizen ONLY after proof (beyond being born in South Carolina which was the proof already presented to Ambassador Armstrong, and was deemed insufficient.) was provided from South Carolina.

You are just refusing to accept the fact that proof of birth in South Carolina WAS REJECTED as proof of American Citizenship.

“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.

The law also goes on to say that you shall have perpetual allegiance to the King, and that you are required by law to pay tithes to the Anglican Church. The point, which you are too stubborn to realize, is we threw off the laws of English Subjectude, and replaced them with new laws on American Citizenship. We specifically and intentionally eschewed the term "Subject", and replaced it with the far less known, and much less commonly used word (for that time period) "Citizen."

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.”

Madison disagrees with you.

“What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed.
What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.”
Letter to Geo Washington October 18, 1787

Lynch v. Clarke New York in 1844 (which you neglected to mention) on the other hand does speak of “parental” qualifications – and not conducive to your arguments:

You've got your talking points down, but you don't know actual facts of history. The reasoning of the court was that BECAUSE New York did not have a citizenship law, the court CHOSE to use English Common law to decide the case. The State Legislature of New York immediately thereafter created a citizenship law which would have prevented the Lynch v Clarke decisions had it been in effect when the decision was made. I posted you a copy earlier.

FIGURE IT OUT! The very fact that a state could produce a citizenship law which rejects the native born children of foreign citizens ought to be a clue for you. According to YOUR theory, such a thing is impossible. That ought to tell you that it is your theory which is defective.