Woman
speaker
325 appearances
1 recordings
1 series
first heard Apr 2026
last heard 1 Apr
Woman’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsRecordings per month over the last 12 months — 1 in all, peaking in Apr 2026 with 1.
Appearances
You can't make sense of the holding in the case without looking to the controlling rule of decision, which is the common law.
And I think my friend agrees that under English common law, domicile was not relevant.
and the children born to temporary visitors in the territory of the sovereign were always considered birthright citizens.
Well, I think, again, those were the stipulated facts in the case.
And it's clear we have textual evidence in the majority opinion that they were simply saying this is an a fortiori application of that controlling rule that comes from the English common law.
Justice Gray writes, again, after setting out the English common law rule and the exceptions with the single additional exception for children of members of Indian tribes,
that the amendment in clear words and manifest intent includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons of whatever race or color domiciled within the United States.
And as was pointed out earlier, the very next part of that same paragraph, he cites to Webster talking about Thrasher's case.
And he says, people who were born in this country owe allegiance
independently of a residence within, I'm sorry, foreign nationals owe allegiance independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence independently of any domiciliation and independently of taking any oath of allegiance, which is totally contrary to both the government's theory of dual allegiance or partial allegiance
and to the theory of domiciliation.
Well, Justice Leto, I'll give you two responses.
The first is that, again, it was a stipulated fact.
The second is that
Regardless of what the judgment in the case was, which again was an off-fortiori application of the rule of decision, the rule of decision in Wong Kim Ark has binding precedential effect.
Even if you think that Wong Kim Ark decided the case based on the stipulated facts, you have to follow that controlling rule of decision.
And if you follow that rule, you get to the same result for people without domicile.
Wong Kim Ark says six times,
in the first parts of the opinion, as well as on the page the government focuses on, that domicile is not relevant.
I liked your example from Justice Harlan's lecture here in DC.
Showing 121–140 of 325 · page 7 of 17
← Previous
Next →