Now you are just desperately making shit up. News flash - it is OK to be wrong and just because you do not like a fact does not make it any less true.
Re-read the paragraph.
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.
Allegiance in this context means in the realm of and under the protection of. People 'born in the allegiance of the King of England' are born in his realm and under his protection. The same concept goes for the US as specifically stated in paragraph 23. So all that means is that anyone born in the realm of the US and under its protection are natural born citizens.
Do not accept premise or definition of allegiance. Historically, allegiance focused on fathers allegiance or citizenship. Channel some Vattell; Law of Nations.
Again, just because you do not like a fact does not make it any less true. Your so-called acceptance of the premise or definition of allegiance is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Supreme Court of the USA very clearly stated that a person born within the borders of the USA are literally and specifically natural born citizens regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Period. Short of the Supreme Court taking that definition up again in a new case, or a Constitutional Amendment, this fact will not ever change.
The statement by Swayne is a reference made by Justice Horace Gray who was the author of the majority opinion of the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case. He was using that statement to make a point. What I quoted were Justice Gray's actual words.
US vs Wong Kim Ark was in 1898...23 years after Minor vs Happersett. And the fact that Minor vs Happersett was unanimous is irrelevant. Cases that are decided at 5-4 are just as solid law as unanimous ones.
In 1875 the court said a thing. And then in 1898 they clarified their statement on that thing. It has been established law ever since.
Allegiance, under common law, generally followed the father. Since her father was not a US citizen she is not a Natural born citizen of the US.
Now you are just desperately making shit up. News flash - it is OK to be wrong and just because you do not like a fact does not make it any less true.
Re-read the paragraph.
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.
Allegiance in this context means in the realm of and under the protection of. People 'born in the allegiance of the King of England' are born in his realm and under his protection. The same concept goes for the US as specifically stated in paragraph 23. So all that means is that anyone born in the realm of the US and under its protection are natural born citizens.
Do not accept premise or definition of allegiance. Historically, allegiance focused on fathers allegiance or citizenship. Channel some Vattell; Law of Nations.
LOL.
Again, just because you do not like a fact does not make it any less true. Your so-called acceptance of the premise or definition of allegiance is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Supreme Court of the USA very clearly stated that a person born within the borders of the USA are literally and specifically natural born citizens regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Period. Short of the Supreme Court taking that definition up again in a new case, or a Constitutional Amendment, this fact will not ever change.
Negative ghost rider; the pattern is full. SC precedent is born of two (plural) US citizen parents makes a natural born citizen.
Who is this Swayne of the Circuit Court? Minor vs Happersett refutes your premise and is unanimous SC opinion written by the then Chief Justice.
The statement by Swayne is a reference made by Justice Horace Gray who was the author of the majority opinion of the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case. He was using that statement to make a point. What I quoted were Justice Gray's actual words.
US vs Wong Kim Ark was in 1898...23 years after Minor vs Happersett. And the fact that Minor vs Happersett was unanimous is irrelevant. Cases that are decided at 5-4 are just as solid law as unanimous ones.
In 1875 the court said a thing. And then in 1898 they clarified their statement on that thing. It has been established law ever since.