... except that Gray never says "natural-born citizen/subject" whether interchangeably or in tandem. In fact, the only time these two are cited is to show that they are DIFFERENT. Again, you're making up something only because you want to believe it, but the reality is that it's not there in any shape or form.
That, after all was what Chancellor Sandford had reasoned in that case:
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.
You're making my argument for me. Gray doesn't touch even touch this delusional crap with a 10-foot-pole. If it was compelling and had ANY legal precedent, he could have quoted it verbatim. Instead, he simply says Lynch was one of the cases that went the FARTHEST in declaring children born in the U.S. as citizens. Sandford's musings presidential eligibility is nothing more than speculative dicta with no biding power. He poses a question. He's not making a declaration. "I think not" is not a legally binding expression of law. Plus, we have a unanimous Supreme Court ruling that said this was simply not so.
Observe how what Sandford says comports what Gray concludes in Part II and Gray's thesis for Part III that the "same rule" applied here.
Yes, the "same rule" applied here ... it made persons born in the U.S. subjects of Great Britain. The "rule" is not about making all children born in the country of aliens into natural-born citizens. Gray affirmed Minor's definition to a T. He paraphrased Lynch on a nothing more than a general observation.
And Gray's citation to Lynch no doubt is one of the many reasons found by the dissent to complain the majority conclusion was that someone like Mr. Wong was thus presidential eligible.
Nonsense. The dissent agreed with the basis of making persons into citizens under the 14th amendment except those whose citizenship was limited by treaties that said otherwise. There's nothing in the majority opinion that made Wong Kim Ark eligible. Nothing.
C. Sandford in Lynch noted the exceptions to birth-citizenship for children of ambassadors, just as Gray in Part V stated was the purpose of the "subject to" clause of the 14A. So, again, the opinions are quite harmonious.
It's only "harmonious" when you ignore that Gray recognized that NBC is exempt from the birth clause of the 14th amendment.
How the INS may classify someone doesn't dictate how a court may analyze the question.
The INS is following how the law classified aliens. Why a court not follow the same law??
Court determinations trump agency actions. A prime example is the WKA case: the Customs office took one view of Mr. Wong's status; the SCOTUS took another. Obama Sr. was here as more than just a temporary visitor and intended to stay while permitted to continue his studies.
He did NOT have permanent residence and domicil, and you have no court decision to show that he was found to be anything but a nonresident alien.
His child DID qualify. The U.S. voters (twice), the Congress (twice), the Electoral College (twice), and multiple courts (including federal circuit courts and state supreme court) have concluded Obama qualified.
You're resorting to circular logic. The U.S. voters don't determine 14th amendment citizenship. They, like the rest of your list simply took any claims at face value and assumed Obama qualified without Obama providing any legal evidence to show he qualified. In fact, his own website dispute this idea by saying his citizenship at birth was governed by British law.
He says it when he says "the same rule" held true in the U.S. under the original constitution and doing so immediately after he says that the "rule" in England was that "every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject."
That doesn't say "natural born citizen. Do you not know how to read??
•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 didn't say that natural born citizen must be interpreted in the light of the common law. He was talking about the birth provision of the 14th amendment, which he already admitted did NOT say who are natural-born citizens.
•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."
Except he never says this in any shape or form. This is more of your wishful thinking, but not a direct citation of anything.
•That's the reason why Gray devotes Part III to showing that the "same rule" applied as to "natural born citizen."
Again, he does NOT say this. He's trying to build a case for how to define what Gray called "citizenship by birth." This phrase, he says, is defined by the 14th amendment. NBC is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution.
•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. ")
Not exactly. This quote shows that these are DIFFERENT terms entirely. This is in reference to people born in the United States and it acknowledges that such people could be natural-born subjects and NOT natural-born citizens. Rhodes was quoting Shanks v. Dupont, which said:
All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown. All those who then adhered to the British Crown were deemed and held subjects of that Crown. The treaty of peace was a treaty operating between the states on each side, and the inhabitants thereof; in the language of the seventh article, it was a firm and perpetual peace between his Britannic majesty and the said states, "and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other." Who were then subjects or citizens, was to be decided by the state of facts. If they were originally subjects of Great Britain and then adhered to her, and were claimed by her as subjects, the treaty deemed them such. If they were originally British subjects, but then adhering to the states, the treaty deemed them citizens. Such, I think, is the natural and indeed almost necessary meaning of the treaty; it would otherwise follow that there would continue a double allegiance of many persons -- an inconvenience which must have been foreseen and would cause the most injurious effects to both nations.
Do you see the part that says "natives or otherwise." This means the treaty affected people who were born in the United States and not just those who immigrated to the U.S. It also says you can't be both. Obama's father adhered to the crown. This makes Obama a natural-born subject and not a natural-born citizen. It does not do what you want it to do.
•That's the reason Gray cites to the NC Supreme Court to say "subject" and "citizen" are "precisely analogous" terms.
The problem is that "precisely analogous" does not mean "exactly the same." Subjects are subjects to a crown. Subjects must have actual obedience to the crown. Subjects must have perpetual allegiance to the crown. Citizens do not have any of these requirements. It's not the same. And Gray acknowledges in Part V that there is a very specific definition of "natural-born citizen" is NOT precisely analogous. You have no way around this. A unanimous Supreme Court decision is binding. Gray could NOT declare Wong Kim Ark or any child born to aliens to be a natural-born citizen. And he clearly does not make any such declaration anywhere in the decision.
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."
Sorry, but this is false. There's nothing in this decision that says this.
Yeah, it's pretty apparent by now that you need to manufacture an exit strategy. You're argument is systematically being dismantled
An "exit strategy" for what?? No one else here is taking up your argument. It's been destroyed by me, and you're only resort is to make up things that are not said anywhere in the decision.
It's clear that you have NO CLUE as to what the SCOTUS means when it says: ""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."
The "same rule" doesn't say anything about natural-born citizens. This is a problem you cannot overcome. It might create citizens, and certainly it does under the 14th amendment, but it does not and cannot create natural-born citizens.
And because you don't account for what the Court says there, you misconstrue the reason it cites to the cases it does. Cases like Lynch v. Clarke support the "rule" that every child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a natural born citizen. But you remain in your head-in-the-sand posture that pretends none of this was part of the opinion.
I've got a unanimous Supreme Court decision plus a direct affirmation of that decision from Justice Gray that supports my "opinion." You, on the other hand, only have a badly played game of connect the dots, a vivid imagination and a few outright falsehoods.
If I were you, I'd find a way to bail out, too.
If ever you figure out an answer to the question you've ducked and run out on several times now, ping me. But to answer that, you'd need to cease being a Birther, so I'm not holding my breath you'll ever honestly address the question.
False bravado and pointless labeling aren't substitutes for actual logic and reason. You're the one who needs to "honestly address" the posts. Inserting "natural-born citizen" into a ruling where it was never used is not "honestly addressing" anything.
... except that Gray never says "natural-born citizen/subject" whether interchangeably or in tandem.
To the contrary, Gray devotes an entire section of his opinion to putting these concepts side-by-side. He even cites with approval from a case calling NBS and NBC "precisely analogous terms." One can only imagine the mental processes that you go through to keep denying the obvious.
fact, the only time these two are cited is to show that they are DIFFERENT.
So you think that when Gray analyzes NBS and NBC as "precisely analogous" terms you think he's emphasizing how they are different? Are you serious?
You are either dishonest or you lack basic reading comprehension skills. There's no other way to explain how you can miss a point so badly.
You're making my argument for me. Gray doesn't touch even touch this delusional crap with a 10-foot-pole. If it was compelling and had ANY legal precedent, he could have quoted it verbatim.
So in opinion you already critique as being too long, you here try to argue Gray should have quoted more from Sandford's lengthy opinion? LOL. You are desperate to come up with a semblance of a coherent argument on any point.
Gray refers to the matter of the birth status of children of alien parents being "elaborately argued" in Lynch and cites to the case three times. This is no doubt one of the many reasons the dissent found the majority opinion made someone like Mr. Wong presidential eligible.
One point that eludes you, since you apparently have no legal training or experience, is that a judge normally won't cite another opinion which contains reasoning or a conclusion fundamentally odds with the judge's reasoning. (Sometimes a court will cite such a case, but then takes pains to limit the earlier opinion to a specific point. In WKA, Gray doesn't indicate any issue with Lynch.)
Instead, he simply says Lynch was one of the cases that went the FARTHEST in declaring children born in the U.S. as citizens.
Again, you can't read. Gray makes the point the "ancient and fundamental" jus soli rule wasn't even challenged until 1845, and then cites the "elaborately argued" Lynch case to show it roundly affirmed that rule.
Nonsense. The dissent agreed with the basis of making persons into citizens under the 14th amendment except those whose citizenship was limited by treaties that said otherwise.
There's nothing in the majority opinion that made Wong Kim Ark eligible. Nothing.
There are many things in the majority that indicate that. I'm pointing them out to you. You just insist on keeping your head stuck in the sand so you can pretend those things aren't there. In your simplistic analysis it seems so long as there isn't a statement that spoon feeds it directly to you a la "we declare Mr. Wong is a natural born citizen," it will remain a mystery to you to explain why the dissent sees the majority's opinion as compelling that conclusion.
It's only "harmonious" when you ignore that Gray recognized that NBC is exempt from the birth clause of the 14th amendment.
This is yet another of your erroneous talking points. I've corrected you twice already on this point. You keep ignoring the correction. Here it again:
The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States."
* * *
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it 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.
Note the part where Gray says the Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words ("these words" referring to "the words" of the original constitution including "natural born citizen") "EXCEPT insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens . . ." So the 14th Amendment is, in the Supreme Court's view, an affirmative "definition" in part of the original "natural born citizen." Deny this as you may, it's still true.
Gray connects the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment directly. He says latter provides definition to the former. So your claim is incorrect. But I'm sure you'll keep ignoring this correction. You are adept at that.
You're resorting to circular logic. The U.S. voters don't determine 14th amendment citizenship.
As just shown, the 14th Amendment birth clause ties into the Article II NBC clause. But we all know as to eligibility that NBC is the key phrase. On that there are but three possibilities for determination: 1) We the People (the voters), 2) the Electoral College/Congress or 3) the Courts. As to President Obama, all three have determined he is a NBC.
They, like the rest of your list simply took any claims at face value and assumed Obama qualified without Obama providing any legal evidence to show he qualified.
Given there were no doubts being raised about his eligibility by Congress, the media, nor even his Democrat or Republican rivals, why shouldn't the voters take at face value the statements attesting to his birth status? What would be the voters'reason for doubt? That a few internet cranks and malcontents keep pounding the table in objection? That's not much of a reason.
In fact, his own website dispute this idea by saying his citizenship at birth was governed by British law.
It was also governed by U.S. law since he was born in the U.S. As to eligibility, U.S. law governs. Not British law. Most voters could understand that much, even if you can't.
That doesn't say "natural born citizen. Do you not know how to read??
So you're reading the "same rule" statement to mean that Gray is claiming that under our original Constitution every person born in the U.S. to alien parents was a "natural born subject?? How you make the arguments you do while keeping a straight face is beyond me. That is absurd and laughable. The Constitution refers to NBC's. He can ONLY be read to be saying that the "same rule" under our Constitution was that every child born to alien parents was a natural born citizen.
He didn't say that natural born citizen must be interpreted in the light of the common law.
I've quoted above (again) the specific text where he says what I claimed. Read it.
This quote shows that these are DIFFERENT terms entirely.
Ummm, right. Calling the terms "precisely analogous" means in your mind "these are different terms entirely." Dishonest. Dense. Delusional. So hard to settle on one adjective here.
Rhodes was quoting Shanks v. Dupont, which said: " . . . the treaty deemed them citizens."
So here you skip past the portion of Rhodes Gray actually quotes and jump back even further to quote a portion of Shanks Gray doesn't cite where Shanks is discussing an England-U.S. treaty which obviously has no relevance to Wong. And you think you are making a relevant point . . . how?
Your total cluelessness as to how Judge's draft opinions and how properly to read them makes further dialogue here pointless. You just grasp at whatever straw is handy, toss that up, and think you've made an argument.
The problem is that "precisely analogous" does not mean "exactly the same."
Since I'm not arguing for equivalence, there is no problem. But the terms have a corresponding meaning with the respective systems: a child born in the US is deemed "natural born" in the way corresponding to the rule by which a child in England was deemed "natural born." So just as a child born in England to alien parents was a NBS, the same rule here was that a child born to alien parents was a NBC.
This is simple. But I think your problem here is you have no clue what an analogy signifies. It means a similarity between two sets of things. In saying they are "precisely analogous terms" Gray is signifying a similarity between the birth rule as to NBS and NBC. In your stupdity you keep asserting Gray finds them dissimilar. Until you correct that basic error you will never grasp what Gray is saying.
And Gray acknowledges in Part V that there is a very specific definition of "natural-born citizen" is NOT precisely analogous. You have no way around this. A unanimous Supreme Court decision is binding.
I don't need a way around it. I need but observe that the Minor court didn't involve the question of the birth status of children of alien parents and so therefore the Minor opinion doesn't purport to say whether such are or are not NBC. You're trying to argue the Minor court made a definition as to a question that it expressly said it wasn't answering. Your position is legally absurd.
So in that way I deflate your argument entirely and just keep walking straight ahead.
You, on the other hand, only have a badly played game of connect the dots, a vivid imagination
Except that the dissent in WKA, Ankeny and the Obama cases since all connect the dots in the same way. (A shocker, isn't it, that all those with a legal education come out the same way here, while you end up in a different spot?) The attempt by you, the legal layperson here, to personalize this and claim I'm misreading the cases comes with "FAIL" stamped all over it.