Benny v. O'Brien doesn't say Mr. Benny WASN'T a natural born citizen. It cites Lynch v. Clarke with apparent admiration for its exhaustive treatment. The Court just found it unnecessary to go in that direction given this case was arising after passage of the 14th Amendment. And the NJ Courts lists as exceptions to the "subject to" clause "[p]ersons born in this country of foreign parents who are temporarily traveling here, and children born of persons resident here in the diplomatic service of foreign governments. Such children are, in theory, born within the allegiance of the sovereign power to which they belong or which their parents [plural] represent."
Obama having had a citizen mother and a father who was here as a resident student (not "temporarily traveling here") would no doubt pass muster with the NJ Court, too.
Once again, your attempt to throw up diversions fails.
It's called dicta, and it wasn't so compelling that the NJ court could abandon the residency criteria for the parents. Out of all the citations that Gray gives in the Wong Kim Ark decision, notice how he deftly avoids giving ANY direct citation from Lynch. Gray wasn't stupid.
Gray cites to Lynch three times, and the first of those is in direct support for Gray's contention (Part III of the opinion) that the U.S. had always followed the "same rule" as England, recognizing that children born here of alien parents were natural born citizens. Gray points out that the Lynch case was the first case where this "ancient and fundamental rule" was even questioned:
all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.
Minor punted the 14th amendment entirely.
No it didn't. Most of the discussion in the opinion centers around the question whether the 14th Amendment secured to someone like V. Minor the right to vote as one of the "P&I's" of citizenship. It observes that Minor's citizenship existed prior to enactment of the 14A and that (most significantly) citizenship did not then entail the right to vote. The 14th Amendment secures citizenship rights for all persons "born or naturalized in the U.S, and subject to its jurisdiction" (which would include Mrs. Minor), but the Amendment doesn't augment those rights to include rights which didn't previously exist.
Your summary is contradicted in the actual Supreme Court decisions. Gray affirmed Minor's citizenship holding.
But Gray didn't say the Minor court answered the question as to persons born of alien parents. In fact, Gray includes in his quote the portion where J. Waite says the Court is NOT answering that question. "For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.."
Luria affirmed the citizenship holding in Minor was directly releated to Article II eligibility.
Luria affirmed Minor's statement that "native" citizens are presidential eligible. Luria left out the bit in Minor about "citizen parents" that mesmerizes you. So the question under Luria is "per the SCOTUS, who are "native-born" citizens?" The SCOTUS decision in Minor tells us that children born here of citizen parents are "native-born." And the SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Ark tells us that persons born here of alien parents are "native born," too:
"[I]t 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.
Except there was nothing in the majority argument that made someone like Ark eligible.
So basically the reader here is forced to a choice: either 1) both Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan subscribed to a dissenting opinion which complained the majority opinion effectively makes someone like Mr. Wong (born of alien parents) presidential eligible, but both of them were too stupid to realize that nothing in the majority opinion actually said that, or 2) they both read "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," both see this statement follows immedately after "every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject," and both conclude that the majority is point blank saying "every child born in the U.S. of alien parents was a natural born citizen" because that conclusion is inescapable> The dissent was urging Vattel be applied as the rule of decision. The dissent lost the battle as to the meaning of "natural born citizen."
The dissent was responding to a suggestion made in the appeal based on dicta in the lower court decision.
Horsecrap. The dissent doesn't mention the lower court opinion at all. When Fuller writes "I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances" the "conclusion" he's objecting to is that of the Majority. That's what dissents do!. They take issue with the majority opinion reasoning and decision.
Your arguments smack of desperation and denial.
Otherwise, the dissent AGREED on the majority's principle for making someone like Ark a citizen.
This statement is pure stupidity. You cannot POSSIBLY have read the dissent and make this statement.
The dissent disagreed with the majority's conclusions 1) that our original Constitution's citizenship provisions traced to English/feudal law, arguing for Vattel instead and 2) that the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on children of aliens, arguing that while blacks were not subject to a foreign power, aliens who have not renounced allegiance to their homelands are still so subject. In short, the dissent disagrees with the majority on both principles upon which Gray established Wong's citizenship.
Nonsense. You're trying to connect unconnected dots.
Unconnected? Dude, you're in La-La Land here. The two statements I'm trying to get you to connect and explain are in consecutive sentences of the opinion. They couldn't possibly be any closer connected. Sheesh.
The terms "subject" and "citizen" may be "precisely analogous," . .
If I beat you over the head enough, small progress is made . .
. . . but the terms natural-born subject" and "natural-born citizen" are NOT.
You may not think so, but clearly J. Gray and the majority think so insofar as ascertaining birth status goes.
•That's the reason for the discussion about why Consitutional terminology, including "natural born citizen" (which he specifically cites) "must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution."He's supporting his argument that, as to children of aliens, "the same rule" applied as to "natural born citizen" as applied to "natural born subject."
•That's the reason Gray sets out to ascertain the meaning of "natural born citizen" by first tracing (Part II) its predecessor "natural born subject."
•That's the reason why Gray devotes Part III to showing that the "same rule" applied as to "natural born citizen."
•That's the reason why in Part III Gray puts NBS and NBC in side by side comparision in the Rhodes quote ("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. ")
•That's the reason Gray cites to the NC Supreme Court to say "subject" and "citizen" are "precisely analogous" terms.
The Minor court relied on the law of nations, not English common law to define natural-born citizen.
The statement in Minor you hinge your entire argument on begins "At common law . . "
Law of Nations? No, the Court mentions no such thing.
You even manage to screw up an argument based on your favorite sentence.
Ark cannot be a natural-born citizen,
Here, you're borrowing from Fuller's dissent. This is his argument. That argument LOST.
Do you honestly not understand that Gray had a huge legal conundrum.
And what legal conundrum is that? It's not that Wong can't be a NBC on account of Minor. For the upteenth time, Minor didn't purport to answer the question of NBC as to persons born of alien parents. It notes that matter is an open issue, states it has no need to address it in that case, and leave the question for another day. That day arrives with WKA, and Gray is free to answer the question the Minor court didn't answer.
Should it be that difficult to define birth citizenship under the 14th amendment??
It was a case of first impression (legal parlance for "the question hadn't come up in this way before.") So Gray undertakes to research and analyze it well. The "subject to" clause was a conundrum. If the dissent is correct that children born here of alien parents who have not renounced all ties to their homeland are not "subject to" U.S. jurisdiction and thus not citizens, then a sort of legal oddity might persist where the likes of Julia Lynch are ruled citizens under the common law, but children of non-white alien parents are ruled not-to-be citizens, despite the 14A. In which case, the 14A has failed to achieve its purpose. It's still a two-tiered citizenship world.
Gray I think perceives this problem and takes great pains to make the argument that carries the votes attain the winning majority.
Except that HE never actually says
That Gray makes a clear comparision between NBS and NBC to arrive at "the same rule"as to birth status of children of alien parents is obvious to me, to the two dissenting judges, to courts like Ankeny, and to all the other courts that have looked at WKA as to Obama and without the least hesitation cited WKA as proof Obama was NBC.
Your the only one who can't see this. It's not that you otherwise couldn't. It's just that you're desperately trying to prove a pre-conceived outcome and the WKA is the case that keeps being held up against your position.
Sorry, but Gray never says anywhere in the decision. I admire a good imagination, but that's all this is: imaginary.
He does, for those of us who know what he meant by "the same rule." Hardly, imaginary. He clearly meant something by that statement. And read in context, there's only one "rule" he could POSSIBLY mean: the rule that "every children born in the U.S. of alien parents was a natural born citizen."
You disagree. Yet you punt on answering the question yourself. That's how debate and discussion works. When there is disagreement, each side offers its view and supports that view with arguments to prove which view is the better-reasoned. Here, I have the interpretation and the argument to support it. You run away and throw up lots diversions and static.
It's called "cognitive dissonance."
IOW, you're creating an excuse to be intellectually dishonest before I even reply.
It's not an excuse. It's called a "remarkably accurate prediction." I predicted you wouldn't answer the question, and you didn't.
And try to answer this question.
I'm not playing this game where you duck questions and then turn around and demand I answer yours. You answer mine; then I'll answer yours. Fair enough? But I'll give you a hint as to my forthcoming answer: always ask "reading the citation in context, what point is the judge trying to support when he quotes the other case? Here's another hint: if you remain "mesmerized" you'll miss the point.
So, with that in mind, here it is again. Gray at the conclusion of Part II summarizes:
"therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject:"
Then in the immediate next sentence starting Part III he states:
"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."
Let's see if you are capable of connecting these two consecutive sentences and can answer this question: what "rule" was it that J. Gray is saying was "the same" in the U.S. which prevailed under the original Constitution?
If you merely wish to reply with "I don't know what he means by 'the same rule,'" I'll stop asking the question.
The court doesn't say he WAS a natural-born citizen. I pointed out the obvious, but intentional omission. Since nothing here declare Benny to be a natural-born citizen, then my point is true. He was ONLY declared to be a citizen and ONLY because he was born to resident aliens.
It cites Lynch v. Clarke with apparent admiration for its exhaustive treatment.
Not so much. It pointed out that the Supreme Court didn't uphold the views expressed in that case and another case, AND that the 14th amendment attached provisions that meant not everyone born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen, as was expressed by Lynch.
Those provisions by implication concede that there may be instances in which the right to citizenship does not attach by reason of birth in this country.Obama having had a citizen mother and a father who was here as a resident student (not "temporarily traveling here") would no doubt pass muster with the NJ Court, too.
Two facts must concur: the person must be born here, and he must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States according to the fourteenth amendment, which means, according to the civil rights act, that the person born here is not subject to any foreign power.
Obama's father was NOT a "resident student." There were three options: visitor, student and permanent resident. Obama Sr. was only admitted as a student. He was NOT a permanent resident. He was NOT a resident alien. His child would NOT qualify under the 14th amendment for citizenship by birth.
Gray cites to Lynch three times, and the first of those is in direct support for Gray's contention (Part III of the opinion) that the U.S. had always followed the "same rule" as England, recognizing that children born here of alien parents were natural born citizens.
Gray does NOT say children born here of alien parents were recognized as natural-born citizens. I'm not going to waste my time with someone who starts deliberately lying. The Benny vs. O'Brien quote proves my point. Benny was not declared to be a natural-born citizen and the NJ supreme court admits that it wasn't enough to be a citizen just by being born in the U.S. As I said before, Gray wasn't stupid. He used Benny as precedent to require permanent residence and domicil before he could apply 14th amendment citizenship by birth to Wong Kim Ark. But he already admitted much earlier in the decision that the 14th amendment does NOT define nor redefine natural-born citizen in any way, shape or form. He affirmed the exclusive definition by Minor: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Cruz cannot meet this definition. Neither can Obama.