Nonsense. All children of citizens is NOT a consequence of citizenship by birth. It's the other way around. Citizenship by birth is a consequence of being a child of a citizen; it's the only way someone could become a citizen if born outside of the country, which was the same as for inside of the country at the time the quote was written. If what you wanted to believe was true, then there was no need for the 14th amendment.
Rawle wrote that quote in the year 1829, more than FORTY YEARS after the Constitution was ratified.
Context is key. The rest of the quote immediately prior to the part you're focused on emphasizes how people became citizens upon the adoption of the Constitution. It doesn't say it's talking about the present day:
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.
The quote is simply a continuation of who became natural-born citizens immediately after the adoption of the Constitution, just as I said. By the next generation, the only natural-born citizens would be those persons born of citizen parents. If what you wanted to desperately believe was true, there would have been no need for the birth clause in the 14th amendment. And we KNOW DEFINITIVELY from U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that your misinterpretation of Rawle's commentary was not a common belief, otherwise, there would have been no need on the part of the government to deny Wong Kim Ark's birth citizenship — yet they did. And even the Wong Kim Ark decision admits by way of legal citation that the children of aliens were not considered to be citizens at birth prior to the 14th amendment because they were not subject to the jurisdiction.
the lawmaking power ... has denied to [aliens] what pertains to other American citizens -- the right of transmitting citizenship to their children -- unless they shall have made themselves residents of the United States or, in the language of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, have made themselves "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
A second citation refers to Scottish parents who had to meet a domicil requirement to satisfy the subject clause, meaning citizenship by birth to aliens is not automatic nor natural-born citizenship.
In a very recent case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a person born in this country of Scotch parents who were domiciled but had not been naturalized here was "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and was "not subject to any foreign power"Why are you so committed to an idea that is clearly not in accordance with the history of the intention of the Founding Fathers, that you are willing to try and twist the English language until it breaks (misrepresenting the voices of our early leaders and legal experts along the way) in order to try and prop up what is obviously a false meme?
The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens.
Dude, this whole question smacks of desperation. There's no twisting of history or the intention of the founders. It was expressed in clear and unambiguous terms in Minor v. Happersett when it called "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens" the "nomenclature" of the framers of the Constitution. Here's my question to you. If what you believed about Rawle is true, why does the Minor court unanimously rely on a citizenship definition that is based upon birth to citizen parents?? Why do they not simply accept Virginia Minor's argument of being a 14th amendment citizen at birth?? What would be the need for talking about being born to parents who were citizens?? br
Of course there was. There were a lot of people who denied that black people born in the United States were citizens by birth (or at all).
Heck the US Supreme Court had even commented that black people weren't citizens and couldn't BECOME citizens! All because of their RACE.
And THAT is why the 14th Amendment was passed,
As for Minor v. Happersett, that's been covered to the point of nausea. The case simply doesn't give any definition of natural born citizen. Even if it did, it wouldn't have been a precedent, because it wasn't on point for that case.
And even if it had been a precedent, it would've been overturned by Wong.
Speaking of which, the entire decision in Minor v. Happersett was completely overturned anyway by the NINETEENTH Amendment.
Look, I know I can't convince you of anything. You're a birther.
But I am telling you, and telling you true: You could hardly argue a more wrongheaded position if you were out there trying to convince people the earth is flat and not round.
And we KNOW DEFINITIVELY from U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that your misinterpretation of Rawle's commentary was not a common belief, otherwise, there would have been no need on the part of the government to deny Wong Kim Ark's birth citizenship — yet they did.
It was a common belief. What Rawle writes is in accord with, for example, the extensive discussion on the topic done by Chancellor Sandford in Lynch v. Clarke.
And even the Wong Kim Ark decision admits by way of legal citation that the children of aliens were not considered to be citizens at birth prior to the 14th amendment because they were not subject to the jurisdiction.
Here's where your reading of WKA is simply wrong. J. Gray states exactly the opposite of what you assert:
Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.
So the WKA Court makes explict that even prior to the enactment of the 14th Amendment, (white) children of aliens parents were native (natural) born citizens. Was Rawle stating something different? Probably few readers would take his "all persons" to mean other than white persons. His readership, no doubt, was white. The ambiguity was perhaps intentional as it was not likely his purpose in that treatise to press the highly controversial race question.
In a very recent case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey . . .
The comment in that case about children of slaves being like white children of aliens is obiter dicta, perhaps at most indicating one of those voices that made the matter "earnestly controverted." But the WKA Court makes clear, as I've quoted above, the better view was that children of (white) aliens were -- before the 14th Amendment -- native born citizens.
Here's my question to you. If what you believed about Rawle is true, why does the Minor court unanimously rely on a citizenship definition that is based upon birth to citizen parents?? Why do they not simply accept Virginia Minor's argument of being a 14th amendment citizen at birth?? What would be the need for talking about being born to parents who were citizens??
Because Viriginia Minor's argument was that the by virtue of being a "citizen" as stated by 14th Amendment, she was entitled to the "privileges and immunities" of such citizenship, which she interpreted as including the privilege of voting. The Court analyzed the common law to show that Minor unquestionably was a citizen even before the 14A, and that such citizenship before did not include the inherent right to vote. Since the 14A was declaratory of existing law (as to white persons), her being a citizen under the 14A gave her no greater privileges than before.
So it's not that the Court stated she was NOT a 14th Amendment citizen; it simply affirmed that falling within the Amendment afforded her no greater right to vote than she had as a citizen under the common law.