“Sailors Snug Harbor dancing sailors-1-” by Halfcentury – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sailors_Snug_Harbor_dancing_sailors-1-.jpg#/media/File:Sailors_Snug_Harbor_dancing_sailors-1-.jpg
The following article was written by guest author Frank Arduini, aka “Historian Dude”. Frank has been engaging in a month long comment battle with Birther attorney Mario Apuzzo at the Western Free Press on an article about the eligibility of Ted Cruz. As one might have expected when Mario Apuzzo gets involved the discussion became all about the eligibility of Barack Obama instead of the subject of the original article. Of course Apuzzo thinks neither of them is a natural born citizen despite the fact that every Birther challenge against Barack Obama on eligibility including the ones Mr. Apuzzo has litigated have failed.
The number of comments there is approaching 3500! For your reading enjoyment:
Mario Apuzzo Esq.: Virtual Reality Litigator by Frank Arduini
Birther attorney Mario Apuzzo was, at one time, among the more active litigators of the birther movement. But after an unbroken string of failures at every level from administrative law courts to SCOTUS, Apuzzo “retired” in 2012 to the safety of the Internet where he is protected from genuine legal review or potential judicial sanction. In the subsequent two years he has committed hundreds of thousands of words online trying to argue and reargue the cases that he previously lost in court. And on the Internet (and especially on his own blog where he is a ruthless moderator and the sole judge) he always “wins.”
At the beginning of March 2015, Apuzzo was called out by name on the conservative blog The Western Free Press by author Greg Conterio challenging Apuzzo’s assertions that Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz was ineligible for the Presidency. The comments section quickly exploded in a generalized festival of birther/obot argument that as of this writing has lasted more than a month and garnered well over 3,000 posts. A significant part of the “discussion” has been an ongoing contest between Apuzzo and this author (posting under the UserID “HistorianDude”) focused on the central foundation of Apuzzo’s entire argument: that Article II of the Constitution defined “natural born citizen” not according to English common law, but according to an as yet undemonstrated “American common law” that had emerged between the Declaration of Independence and the framing of the Constitution. As part of this argument, Apuzzo has conceded that, under English common law the children of aliens born on national soil became natural born subjects. He has also conceded that the definition of NBC found in Article II of the Constitution is derived from “the common law.” But, he baldly asserts that the “common law” in question had magically (and anachronistically) been redefined to conform with a treatise on international law by the 18th century legal theorist Emer de Vattel.
Of course, any competent lawyer knows that this is not how common law is created. A nation may certainly incorporate other sources of law into their own via statute. But common law derives from case law, the judgments of previous courts that create legal precedent binding on those courts that follow. For the English common law definition of natural born citizen to have been altered or replaced by a new “American common law” definition, there must have been case law created during the eleven years between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that generated that change. And of course, this would have been a particularly neat trick since, under the Articles of Confederation there was no national judicial system at all wherein such case law might have been created.
For more than a month this author has repeatedly challenged Apuzzo to demonstrate the case law from between 1776 and 1787 that must exist for his alleged “American common law” to be more than fiction. Failing that, Apuzzo was challenged to identify a single English language document or source that agreed with his favored definition of natural born citizen. He has failed to meet either challenge.
Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor: An Inglis Lesson for Apuzzo
To fill the gap Apuzzo’s favored method of argument is to cite much later cases, often badly misrepresenting them, and insist that they somehow reflect a different common law than English common law. That “different common law” is then retroactively ascribed without evidence to Article II of the Constitution. It is a complete non-sequitur, on occasion demanding the violation of basic laws of physics. This essay is inspired by one such attempt.
After a month of frustration, and seeking desperately to shift the unmet challenge from his own back to that of his tormenter, Apuzzo brought up an 1830 inheritance case called Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor. He wrote:
“Since it is common law that you have requested of me, I have the following question. In Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830), the U.S. Supreme Court gave the scenario wherein the child was born in New York, after July 4, 1776 and when it was American territory, hence, before September 15, 1776, when the British took possession of New York, to a British father and mother. In that scenario, did the majority of the Court rule that he was an American citizen or an alien? Please explain what source the Court relied upon to come to its conclusion.”
Certainly Mario’s intention here was to use Inglis to assert that a different common law was in operation in the time period considered by the case. The standard birther misrepresentation of the case asserts that “the majority ruled that, even if the plaintiff had been born in U.S.-controlled territory, he was a British subject by birth and not an American citizen, due to the fact that his parents were British subjects, not U.S. citizens.” If that were true it would certainly support a claim that the common law had changed by the time the Inglis decision was made; i.e. by 1830. Since that hardly helps Apuzzo meet his challenge, missing the necessary time frame by some 43 years, I could be justified in making that observation alone and ending the discussion. But in actuality, exploring the birther misrepresentation reveals the case to be further evidence of the persistence of English common law through the Revolutionary period long after the Declaration of Independence, further narrowing the window within which Apuzzo’s unidentified case law would necessarily have to occur.
Let me begin the actual analysis of Inglis by taking Apuzzo’s counter challenge head on. I will directly answer his questions, and only then engage in the more comprehensive discussion that justifies the answers. Mario’s first question was phrased as a classic conservative dichotomy, an either/or question with two and only two options:
Q1: Did the majority of the Court rule that he was an American citizen or an alien?
Of course, in the real world things are rarely as simple as either/or. The answer to that question requires more subtlety than the question possessed when it was asked:
A1: The majority ruled that Inglis was an alien “at the time of descent cast.” They offered no ruling at all regarding his status at birth.
What does that mean? “At the time of descent cast”?
Inglis was an inheritance case in which a man named John Inglis was claiming a large inheritance from an American relative that might otherwise have been donated to a charity for aging sailors. One of the factors that would have derailed his claim was that under prevailing law, only US citizens could inherit land. So the citizenship status of Inglis was important to the case, but only his citizenship at the moment of actual inheritance; i.e. “at the time of descent cast.” It did not matter what his citizenship might have been one week prior or one week later. So since the direct issue before the court was whether or not he was a citizen at the moment of inheritance, which is the ruling the court made. The majority found that Inglis was an alien “at the time of descent cast” and therefore unable to inherit.
But we will see as this essay progresses that the court actually made no ruling at all regarding John Inglis’ citizenship at birth. The determination of his national character would, in the court’s opinion, be independent of the common or statutory law normally determinative of status at birth. This is because something special was happening at the time, the American Revolution.
Apuzzo’s second question was this:
Q2: What source did the Court rely upon to come to its conclusion?
Apuzzo’s intent here is twofold. First, he is fully aware (and I fully agree) that the source cannot have been the English common law. Secondly, he believes he has an ace up his sleeve in that one of the sources cited is, you guessed it, Emer de Vattel. It does not appear to occur to Apuzzo that the citation is to a section of Vattel’s book, which has nothing whatsoever to with the “definition” that he wishes to anachronistically graft onto the common law. Nor does he consider that Vattel is cited not as an application of common law, but as an application of international law. So again, recognizing the actual subtlety of the court decision, the direct answer (which will be explained in detail in a moment) is:
A2: As to existence of a general right for people to voluntary choose their allegiances during or immediately after a revolution their source was international law. As to Inglis’s subsequent nationality “at the time of descent cast,” their conclusion was based on the specific details of his actions subsequent to achieving majority as an adult, many years afterwards.
Apuzzo prefaced his questions with a reference to common law in the effort to position himself against the challenge to his imaginary “American common law.” Unfortunately, any genuinely careful review of the Inglis decision (or at least in the part of the decision relating to John Inglis’s nationality) quickly reveals that it had exactly nothing whatsoever to do with the common law.
Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor is one of a handful of early SCOTUS cases that dealt with unique circumstances of the Revolutionary period, a time in which the new United States and Great Britain were engaged in the bloody business of dividing into two separate and sovereign nations; a period of Anglo-American history sometimes called “The Great Divorce.” The circumstance of citizenship during a revolutionary transition was and remains completely unconsidered by the common law. There existed no body of case law with which to guide the Justices that pertained to a situation in which a single nation was splitting into two, and where the common law criteria of allegiance / citizenship / subjecthood were suddenly rendered ambiguous and arbitrary. As Justice Story pointed out in his worthy dissent, “The case of the separation of the United States from Great Britain… has been treated on many occasions, both at the bar and on the bench, as a case sui generis.”
The decision regarding John Inglis’ nationality did not rest on any application of the common law, nor did it create common law. Nor did it rest upon any existing statute. Instead it was built on the recognition that the unique circumstances of revolution necessarily but only temporarily suspended the common law and gave to each adult (well, each adult male at least) the temporary power of voluntary election for themselves and their minor dependents as to which of the two subsequent nations they would adhere.
The rationale for the suspension of the common law is found, to no one’s surprise, in treatises of international law such as Vattel’s Law of Nations. Justice Thompson specifically cites to Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 3, Section 33 where we read that those unaccepting of a new revolutionary government
“are under no obligation at all to submit to the new government: they may quit a society which seems to have dissolved itself in order to unite again under another form: they have a right to retire elsewhere, to sell their lands, and take with them all their effects.”
To modern sensibilities that sounds very much like any ordinary right to expatriate. In the 18th century however, it was a radical idea, and allowed only as the consequence of profound political upheaval.
Justice Thompson, writing for the majority, was explicit that prior to the Declaration of Independence the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America.
“It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects.”
Thompson was equally explicit that the end of the suspension was demarcated by a reassertion of the English common law. He was also quite clear that the window for election was a narrow one. And once the window was closed, the rules of English common law as to citizenship by birth returned to force.
To make this point, Thompson cited in detail the case of McIlvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 4 Cranch 211, wherein a Mr. Coxe had missed the window of opportunity to elect British subjecthood once the State of New Jersey asserted its obligation to provide “protection” via the Act of 4 October, 1776. Hence the window of opportunity for voluntary election remained open in New Jersey for a mere 3 months, at which point
“the doctrine of allegiance became applicable to his case, which rests on the ground of a mutual compact between the government and the citizen or subject, which it is said cannot be dissolved by either party without the concurrence of the other. It is the tie which binds the governed to their government, in return for the protection which the government affords them.”
These are of course the ancient rules of the English common law. The last sentence in particular is a touchstone proving a direct correlation to the formulation that William Blackstone reflected in his Commentaries in 1765 using much the same language, though not yet adjusted to reflect a republican government rather than a monarchy:
“Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.”
Thompson was equally clear that they were the post-fenestral rules not just in New Jersey, but elsewhere on US soil in those territories which were under the jurisdiction and the protection of the newly independent States.
In the case of New York, the specific “window of opportunity” was almost shockingly short. For the portion of the state not under British occupation, the window closed a mere 12 days after independence with the resolutions of the convention of New York of 16 July, 1776, declaring “that all persons abiding within the State of New York, and deriving protection from the laws of the same, owe allegiance to the said laws, and are members of the state.” But during that window (in the opinion of the court) John Inglis’ father Charles had made his election for both himself and his son. He elected that they would adhere to Great Britain.
For John Inglis himself, as a very young child, it was not a case of his state automatically following that of his father via jus sanguinis. His father deliberately made a provisional election for him as was his father’s prerogative as parent of a minor child.
This point cannot be stressed too firmly and it was made explicitly by the court; the election that Charles Inglis made for his son John was not permanent but provisional. The decision in Inglis did not declare that John Inglis was an alien at birth. It did not declare that his status “at the time of descent cast” was imposed through any automatic operation of common or statutory law. The court was instead clear that even for a minor child citizenship or alienage post revolution was ultimately dependent on a conscious election by the child himself, upon reaching his own majority, to either ratify or reject the provisional election made by his father. The fact that Inglis was an alien “at the time of descent cast” was not a result of the election made for him by his father in 1776. He could just as easily have ended up a citizen of the United States in spite of that election.
Inglis (the court opined) was British because Inglis chose to be British, not his father. The court concluded that Inglis had (by his actions if not his words) made the election to confirm a British character and reject an American one. By the time of this legal action, it had long been too late to change his mind.
The case certainly created no new common law, as it is clear that the window of election was a parentheses, on either side of which English common law operated in full.
Should it be argued that Inglis created new common law simply by virtue of being case law, any alleged common law it created can have had nothing to do with the general rules of birthright citizenship, or the specific definition of natural born citizenship? The case is completely silent on the latter, and English common law regarding the former was reasserted by the time that the revolution was over and the opportunity for voluntary election had ended. While Inglis (a case which was settled a half century after the Treaty of Paris) certainly shows that the rules of that limited window could be considered and applied long afterwards, even that possibility became moot upon the death of the last member of the “divorce generation.” It could conceivably had been useful again had the Civil War ended with a southern victory, but it did not. It could conceivably be useful should some unforeseen future fragmentation of the United States occur, but that is pure speculation. In the circumstances of a stable political regime, such common law would be entirely without application or affect, not to mention redundant.
This is (of course) the reason that the majority decision in Inglis has been largely ignored in subsequent discussions and case decisions on citizenship. It provides little of value that could inform general discussions or case decisions, limited as it is to a unique period of revolution that has never had a subsequent analog. So Chancellor Sandford’s decision in Lynch v. Clark, and Justice Gray’s decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark ignored the majority ruling from Inglis as a stone from which no edifying water could be squeezed, and instead relied on Justice Story’s worthy dissent.
Inglis therefore is useless today as a challenge to the English common law definition of natural born citizen that rules Article II of the Constitution, or for determining birthright citizenship during any era of normal national circumstance. The relevant common law for those purposes, English common law, was left untouched by the events of the Revolution and by the decision in Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor.
RC Radio Blog 
If you’re going to claim to ascribe to something at least take the time to get Taney’s name right. Of course you stand behind one of the worst decisions in the court history which had to be overthrown by a constitutional amendment.
What a moron…………Taney KNEW it would take a Constitutional Amendment to overthrow the laws in the Constitution………………idiots……….why bother discussing anything with you guys …. do you not GRASP what he is saying here;
” … It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted. … ” 60 U.S. 393 [pg405]
…if he had ruled otherwise then the SCOTUS would have been the cause of the Civil War rather than the actions of the divided sides………….moron………….
I didn’t make your point. You seem to claim someone in the statutes which you have yet to quote from and provide which revision you’re trying to talk about somehow made Chester A Arthur and his mother a citizen when there’s nothing in British nationality law that would allow for automatic citizenship of the mother let alone do what you claimed it did.
So you’ll just ignore that and move on. Extensive consideration? Was this as extensive as your consideration of Talbot V Janson where you lied about Rutledge’s opinion for over a year?
Of course you can’t reconcile standing caselaw with shit you’ve deluded yourself into believing. There was no judicial kidnapping. Wong Kim Ark was born a citizen based on his birth in California. There was no “subversion” The chinese exclusion act only presented the naturalization of people of chinese descent. Wong Kim Ark had no need to be naturalized. Chester A Arthur once again was legally and lawfully the President.
You are such a waste of space ……… Chet’s daddy was a British subject and married Chet’s momy, impregnated her and Chet was born BEFORE his daddy naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, so;
1)Lil’ Chet’s daddy was a British Subject
2) Lil’ Chet’s daddy married Lil’ Chet’s mommy
3) the marraige made Lil’ Chet’s mommy a British subject, INSOFAR as U.S. Law’s of the time were concerned, under the then practiced Doctrine of Coverture….<period
4) Lil' Chet was born as a British subject, INSOFAR as U.S. Law's of the time were concerned….<period
5) Lil' Chet's daddy naturalized and Lil' Chet and his wife / mommy became U.S. Citizens along with daddy, INSOFAR as U.S. Law's of the time were concerned….<period
Now, I am NOT saying British Law has ANYTHING to do with anything other than Lil' Chet's daddy was a British Subject when Lil' Chet's was born.
Fear to acknowledge? I acknowledge what you say is retarded and has no basis in US law. I know the laws. Would you like to present something to back up your claim? What’s that? No?
You don’t even seem to know during which periods the laws said what.
You once again seem confused where did I ever say the 14th amendment was what made Chester A Arthur a natural born citizen? He was a natural born citizen based on his birth on US soil. Before the 14th the states controlled the process. The 14th merely overturned the bad decision of Scott V. Sanford that muddied existing US Law to prevent african americans from being citizens.
Oh yes I remember some 5 months ago you were through with us after you claimed we were lying for pointing out you lied about Talbot V. Janson and what Rutledge opinion said. You ran off then only to come back 5 months later showing your complete incompetence. I expect to see you again in September then?
You say;
” I acknowledge what you say is retarded and has no basis in US law.”…………..
Show me specifically which U.S. laws that I “CONSTRUE” that you say are not laws upon which ‘legal basis’ can not be found.
Is it the Preamble…well, it’s NOT law but is cite-able as to principles, ideals and intents.
Is it A1S8C4 …????….A2S1C5 ….???? …. the 1790 Act, et seq, …….???? ….. the doctrine of Coverture ….???? …. the Cable Act ….????
Where are my interpretations found to be lacking in legal basis …. ?????
Poor Craig trying to stand behind one of the worst court decisions in the history of the United States which basically said black people were property. Existing laws didn’t give citizenship to black people. It did give citizenship to those born in the United States which is why the amendment was needed. To restate what already was.
Poor Steven still not understanding court decisions and picking the racist angle.
” … It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted. … ” 60 U.S. 393 [pg405]
Do you have no understanding of what that passage implies ….. ?????
You actually find fault with one of the few SCOTUS decisions that interpreted the existing LAW rather than to MAKE LAW ….. and here I bother at all to engage with you for any reasons at all…???
Steve just quoted Judge Anerson again? Can’t you even remember a couple of days ago? Your quote is the same argument used by Obama’s defense, to which the Judge agreed.
Btw, please cite and quote your supposed Queen Anne statutes, or were you just lying?
You have no idea what you are talking about because you don’t bother to think and just spew out distorsions spewed out by others that spew out obfuscations of what I or they have said in the past, present or anticipate being said in the future……….
Regardless of whose Motion or arguments for or against the following STANDS as the CONCLUSION that the final determination of the Order was formed by;
Judge Thomas Anderson of USDC for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division in Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA; as he HELD in a Ruling on Motions in a Case at Bar;
“… ANALYSIS .. It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. “
And;
“…The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case. Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …”[pg 6/7/8] ”
That says that under the circumstances of the “0”s birth is contested and, by not saying there is no reason to think that the Judge goes on to say that the ISSUE is substantial ….
….. what you do not grasp is that if a Federal Judge can NOT say that the “0” is a U.S. natural born Citizen, they can NOT say ANY ONE is a U.S. natural born Citizen.
That was what I found from the Administrative Appeals Court when I sought to have the USCIS acknowledge me as a U.S. natural born Citizen, providing them with several generations of birth certs attesting to my birth circumstances. The best that the Administrative Appeals Court Judge would say is that I am a “native-born U.S. Citizen”.
That is why the Adjudicative Fact stands;
” Currently there is no uniformly acknowledged legal, i.e., enforceable, identification of birth circumstances that constitutes being in conformity with the Constitutional term of words, (U.S.{implicit}) natural born Citizen, as set out in the Constitution and construed under federal law.”(SLC)
Steve whined: “You are such a waste of space ……… Chet’s daddy was a British subject and married Chet’s momy, impregnated her and Chet was born BEFORE his daddy naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, so;
1)Lil’ Chet’s daddy was a British Subject
2) Lil’ Chet’s daddy married Lil’ Chet’s mommy
3) the marraige made Lil’ Chet’s mommy a British subject, INSOFAR as U.S. Law’s of the time were concerned, under the then practiced Doctrine of Coverture….<period
4) Lil' Chet was born as a British subject, INSOFAR as U.S. Law's of the time were concerned….<period
5) Lil' Chet's daddy naturalized and Lil' Chet and his wife / mommy became U.S. Citizens along with daddy, INSOFAR as U.S. Law's of the time were concerned….<period
Now, I am NOT saying British Law has ANYTHING to do with anything other than Lil' Chet's daddy was a British Subject when Lil' Chet's was born."
So you're just going to stamp your feet and tell us it's that way simply because you said it was? I remember the last few times you said something was one way only to for you to be shown how much you were in error. Like say what Thomas Anderson actually said or when you claimed Rutledge made a statement he didn't make.
3. No the marriage didn't make her a british subject. She would have had to naturalize in Britain. Tell me Steve how could the Doctrine of Coverture effect Chester A. Arthur's mother all the way in Vermont?
Chester A. Arthur's mom was already a US Citizen at birth by virtue of her having been born in Vermont. She had no need to become a citizen again. Like I said you seem confused. Chester A. Arthur was born a US Citizen subject to US jurisdiction based on his birth in Vermont.
Steve complained: “Show me specifically which U.S. laws that I “CONSTRUE” that you say are not laws upon which ‘legal basis’ can not be found.
Is it the Preamble…well, it’s NOT law but is cite-able as to principles, ideals and intents.
Is it A1S8C4 …????….A2S1C5 ….???? …. the 1790 Act, et seq, …….???? ….. the doctrine of Coverture ….???? …. the Cable Act ….????
Where are my interpretations found to be lacking in legal basis …. ?????”
You’ve already shown the laws you’ve misconstrued. Yes each and every one of them you’ve misconstrued. The Doctrine of Coverture has no basis in US law. The Cable Act only undid a 15 year error that was committed during the expatriate act of 1907. The loss of citizenship for American citizen women wasn’t the law before 1907.
Steve whined: “You actually find fault with one of the few SCOTUS decisions that interpreted the existing LAW rather than to MAKE LAW ….. and here I bother at all to engage with you for any reasons at all…???”
You do know that “existing law” isn’t the law anymore. Black people have rights to be citizens despite you not wanting that to be so.
Idiot moron and an asshole to boot….
I did not say OR imply that the Law affirmed by the Taney Opinion is STILL the Law, all I point out is that it was NOT up to the SCOTUS to CHANGE the Laws of the COTUS but to express them as they find them and apply them as they are ………….NOT to make NEW LAW, like Justice penumbra zone Gray did……..
Poor Steven: The courts won’t listen to him, no one in power will listen to him, congress won’t listen to him. And now he can’t get anyone else to listen to him. The law continues to be on my side. Obama remains president. Chester A. Arthur remains in the history books as President.
Steven remains someone most people have never heard of. You still don’t understand what Anderson’s order actually meant do you? Even after we held your hand and walked you through it. His order was that it was a federal court issue and not a state court issue. Plain and simple.
Poor Steven. So what are you going to do with your false knowledge?
You’re really claiming the Father of the Constitution James Madison didn’t know what was actually in the constitution? You do know the 1790 act was repealed? He said that the 22nd of May 1789
Post constitution there was no way citizens could be made? Are you sure?
Nowhere in the constitution or state constitutions were your claims backed up. Parental citizenship did not matter.
I said PLACE alone, there you go obfuscating what I said………..” because POST the Ratification of the COTUS there was ABSOLUTELY NO MEANS that PLACE ALONE could bestow U.S. Citizenship on ANYONE …..zero, zip, nada ……….
Show me the law that provided for a child to be born a U.S. Citizen without consideration of the parents status between 1790 and 1868 ..with the 14th “collectively naturalizing” those whose parents are not already U.S. Citizens by policy …………
…other than “foundlings”, being raised as if U.S. Citizens until age of majority or parents located……..
That quote of Madison was made in the House of Reps PRIOR to the Congress enacting the 1790 “an Act to ESTABLISH an uniform Rule of naturalization” and THEREFORE is superseded by the Act…………..
Virginia 1783
“Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That all free persons, born within the territory of this commonwealth; all persons not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under the act intituled “An act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth;” and also all children wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner herein after mentioned;…”
That is STATE CITIZENSHIP and has NOTHING to do with Federal Citizenship; , see US v Villatto, Collett v Collett, Talbot v Janson …….all of which held that the Federal Laws superseded State Laws insofar as U.S. Citizenship is concerned…..so show me the qualifications “who have obtained a right to citizenship under the act intituled “An act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth; …….but take note those children declared to be ” born citizens ” were the children of parents that were already citizens…..
…
Steve said: “Idiot moron and an asshole to boot….
I did not say OR imply that the Law affirmed by the Taney Opinion is STILL the Law, all I point out is that it was NOT up to the SCOTUS to CHANGE the Laws of the COTUS but to express them as they find them and apply them as they are ………….NOT to make NEW LAW, like Justice penumbra zone Gray did……..”
It’s funny how you make an implication and when called out on it try to back away from it. Sorry but you’re not in birther land you’re going to be held to a standard.
…and your in the 0’bot utopia and have NO STANDARDS except the ends justifies the means and lies are not lies they’re popaganda authorized by rule # 1……
You imputed what you consider that I implied rather than to allow the paragraph from the Scott v Opinion to speak for its-self in the context of the subject matter and the times it was expressed in……..which I posted without comment, …. so as to allow it to speak for its-self ….. and you consider it RACIST for the Courts to OBEY the LAws as they find them….
…. you guys do not take the historic laws as you find them giving them the effects intended in the times of their usage, you contort and distort them to fit the context of the times you are in to fit the needs of the end you seek……
Steve Said: “That quote of Madison was made in the House of Reps PRIOR to the Congress enacting the 1790 “an Act to ESTABLISH an uniform Rule of naturalization” and THEREFORE is superseded by the Act…………..”
Naturalization is when someone is born elsewhere and becomes a citizen later on. The 1790 act has to do with that. The statement about overseas births has nothing to do with Obama or Arthur and had nothing to do with what Madison said. Try to keep up.
steve said: “That is STATE CITIZENSHIP and has NOTHING to do with Federal Citizenship; , see US v Villatto, Collett v Collett, Talbot v Janson …….all of which held that the Federal Laws superseded State Laws insofar as U.S. Citizenship is concerned…..so show me the qualifications “who have obtained a right to citizenship under the act intituled “An act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth; …….but take note those children declared to be ” born citizens ” were the children of parents that were already citizens…..”
There is no such thing as state citizenship anymore all state citizens became US citizens upon enactment of the constitution. None of the cases you’ve mentioned bolster your claim. In fact Talbot V. Janson held that Talbot could have dual citizenship. Poor steven still clueless.
Steve said
I responded
Steve Responded
So I provided what Steve said needed to be looked at, and his reply is that it does not reply. I will summarize the above, for those people who forget after a few words:
Steve – what are the state laws
Northland – these
Steve – those are state not federal, doesn’t count.
How much does it cost to put hyperdrive on goalposts?
The Constitution did not make citizens. Citizens made the Constitution.
You appear to be having a conversation with yourself …….. State Citizens did indeed Frame the Constitution and then Ratify it and in doing so said this;
” … We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. … ”
… and in doing so INSTITUTED a NEW NATION and a NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP, incorporating the then existing State Citizens, and NO OTHERS. Thereafter the subsequent laws enacted under the enumerated powers authority of A1S8C4 established the laws that controlled the perpetuation of U.S. Citizenship, and no others.
New State Citizens had to be naturalized under the provisions of the 1790 et seq Acts in order to be U.S. Citizens, (no federal laws barred a subset of State Citizenship, that being reserved to the States).
The 1790 Act provided in its provisions that “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise”(SLC), which immediately applied to the existing State Citizens cum U.S. Citizens upon the Ratification of the COTUS, meaning that all children born to the wife of a U,S, Citizen father were born as U.S. natural born Citizens, anywhere in the world from March of 1790 to January of 1795 and the children under the age of majority of newly naturalized aliens during that period were considered as U.S. Citizens along with their father..
Nowhere does PLACE convey U,S, Citizenship at birth UNLESS U.S. Citizen parents are present and the child is theirs………!!!!!
Maybe Steve could point to any of the “founding generation” that ever stated you had to have citizens as parents to be born a citizen. Taney’s ruling won’t help him as it only covers denying citizenship from those of a certain race. The 1790 Naturalization law, is Naturalization, not native or natural born citizenship (not to mention, they pulled the NBC language shortly after).
Come on Steve, you claim they all felt a certain way, but have not once shown any of them saying that. We have shown the opposite.
What morons you 0’bots are……….
The 1790 Act covered BOTH, in words that say so and words that require it;
1st; All ‘native persons” were either ALREADY Citizens, having been State Citizens, then MADE U.S. Citizens upon Ratification of the COTUS or they were otherwise excluded altogether;
2nd; ALL others were ALIEN’s, insofar as the 1790 Act was concerned, and subject to it’s provisions in order to acquire U.S. Citizenship or they were otherwise excluded altogether;
1a; The children of U.S. Citizens PARENTS were born as U.S. natural born Citizens anywhere in the world from March 1790 to January 1795; (children born to unwed mothers were considered “illegitimate” and required “legitimation” by adoption and or marriage to acquire the Citizenship of the father.
2b; The minor children of an ALIEN father remained ALIEN until the father naturalized; ” … And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States….”
Now, what other classes of persons are you saying acquired U.S. Citizenship at birth irrespective of the citizenship status of one or both parents…???????????????????
The 1790 act begins, “that any alien, being a free white person…” It covered only aliens, not those already citizens or born citizens.
Your intentional obtuseness for annoyance sake is childish in keeping with most of your 0bot positions, i.e., head comfortably fitted up your ass ………
Both existing Citizens and wnnabes are provided for in the provisions of the Act that creates and ESTABLISHES an uniform Rule among them, i.e.,
“Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, (existing and wannabe), then so too are their children, at birth, (by existing Citizens), or otherwise. (And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States….)
Now, which class or persons are you saying are exempt or otherwise not provided for under the Act …. ?????????????????????????????????????
….or are you seriously suggesting that the children of newly naturalized aliens can be made U.S. Citizens concurrently with the alien father but the children of U.S. Citizens can not be born citizens under the uniform Rule of birthright citizenship…??? or that a child of existing U.S. Citizen parents can be born as a U.S. Citizen when out of the limits of the U.S. but NOT when they are born within the limits….?????
I really don’t know what hole you think you see, or want to see, but the established uniform Rule pretty much speaks for its self …….. listen, hear, learn … repeat….
Oh, and those minor children who were aliens? They are the children the alien brought with him not those already born here as they would have already been citizens.
You say;
” … Oh, and those minor children who were aliens? They are the children the alien brought with him not those already born here as they would have already been citizens. ….”
Show me the words that express what you conjure up…!!!…IT SAYS MINOR CHILDREN with no words distinguishing between foreign or native born …….. show me where, under the COTUS and A1S8C4 anyone is made anything other than under the “established uniform Rule”……..
… there is no carry-over of State Laws that do not conform to the provisions of the FEDERAL LAW, insofar as U.S. Citizenship is concerned…………show me the LAW that says what you think was the means of acquiring U.S. Citizenship at birth by virtue of PLACE ALONE, irrespective of parents citizenship status…………..show me !!!!! ……Queen Anne Statutes … ???? …… Vattel …..???? ….
….. what do you think “an uniform Rule” IS, once it is “ESTABLISHED” ….anyway…????
Still waiting for your historic American law that defines Natural Born Citizens (at birth, not naturalized) as requiring 2 parents. You have provided no law, only your opinion.
Scott v Stanford does not stand for anything any more. It was overruled. It has ceased to be. It is shuffled off this mortal coil. It is a deceased ruling. Deal with it. A majority of the America said it was a bad decision and made it go away. Funny, the same has not happened to the WKA ruling.
We the People of the United States of America say you are wrong. Too bad for you.
Citizenship, of any sort, is in the 1st instant the product of a POLITICAL DETERMINATION.
The word “naturalization” embodies the Political concept of citizenships means of acquiring the politically determined forms of citizenship, whether it be automatic upon some event, by process taken by an individual or group, derivative, i.e., “communicable”, from person to person and or any other means that may be devised for cause by the process of political determination.
The PARENTS of a U.S. natural born Citizen are necessarily ALREADY U.S. Citizens by whatever means and as such are invested with the ability to pass their U.S. Citizenship to their children at birth by the “established uniform Rule” which provides;
“Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so to are their children, at birth, (by U.S. Citizen parents), or otherwise, ( ” … And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States….”), (anywhere in the world, (once the parent and or parents are U.S. Citizens).
Now, quick, go find an exception that you think is not provided for in the construction of the effects of the Laws I assert here….quick, run along and find some hole in the logic and reason of the simple truth……………
The Constitution instituted no “new citizenship.”
The Declaration of Independence did.
Moron…….read this and get your head out of your ASS…….;
” … We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. … ”
Again, if you want your 1776 date of U.S. Citizenship, you can keep your 1776 date of U.S. Citizenship, but for ALL purposes under the COTUS it was calculated in the “retroactive sense” TO the date of Ratification of the COTUS.
Under the Articles of Confederation and perpetual union the style of reference was the United States of America and each of the STATE CITIZENS of the various STATES were collectively parties to the Confederation and did indeed refer to one another as United States Citizens, HOWEVER, it was an imperfect Union and noting the deficiencies a Constitutional Convention was convened with the result being a Document that ESTABLISHED a NEW FORM of Government among the Nations of the World.
Now, you can mock the significance of the Ratification and Establishment of the COTUS for the United States but it became and is the point in time from which all things Constitutional are calculated from, including U.S. Citizenship as PROVIDED for under the COTUS.
Nothing in the preamble mentions citizenship. Maybe you need a quicker summary.
“The whole Confederation thing sorta sucks, so here is a Constitution for a new Federal Government that we think will work better.”
It does not state anything about citizenship. The closest it gets is to give the federal government the authority to decide how foreigners may become citizens (naturalization). Those born as citizens cannot be naturalized.
“We the people of the United States, in order to ……. secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Truncated to the pertinent part for the slow witted…….
……”ourselves” being, at the least, the existing State Citizens who would then be the Founding Generation, i.e., First,(1st) U.S. Citizens under the COTUS and the word “posterity” assumed to include the progeny of the 1st generation as well as any additions the Congress might provide for under the soon to be “established an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}) naturalization “.
I would NOT have cited the Preamble without cause. Although the Preamble is NOT LAw it is useful in understanding the intents, purposes, principles and ideals that gave rise to the various provisions of the COTUS.
In this instant the truncated part suggests that the Founders anticipated being party to the Constitutional society as a Citizen of it and also anticipated that their progeny would share in the Blessings of Liberty likewise.
But I understand if you do not ‘feel’ it that way……..
Steven claimed: “What morons you 0’bots are……….
The 1790 Act covered BOTH, in words that say so and words that require it;
1st; All ‘native persons” were either ALREADY Citizens, having been State Citizens, then MADE U.S. Citizens upon Ratification of the COTUS or they were otherwise excluded altogether;
2nd; ALL others were ALIEN’s, insofar as the 1790 Act was concerned, and subject to it’s provisions in order to acquire U.S. Citizenship or they were otherwise excluded altogether;
1a; The children of U.S. Citizens PARENTS were born as U.S. natural born Citizens anywhere in the world from March 1790 to January 1795; (children born to unwed mothers were considered “illegitimate” and required “legitimation” by adoption and or marriage to acquire the Citizenship of the father.
2b; The minor children of an ALIEN father remained ALIEN until the father naturalized; ” … And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States….”
Now, what other classes of persons are you saying acquired U.S. Citizenship at birth irrespective of the citizenship status of one or both parents…???????????????????”
Then you obviously can’t read since the 1790 act had 1. to do with those not born in the US thus not anyone who would be born citizens. It was a naturalization act and has no relevance to the discussion.
But I’ll posit a question to you. In your syphilitic mind what would be the status of a child born of a rape where the attacker was unknown? You’ve proven you have no idea what the 1790 act said since it didn’t cover those who were born in the US.
IDIOT, the child would be ILLEGITIMATE insofar as the Laws of the U.S. were concerned and would subsequently acquire citizenship by “naturalization” at the age of majority if the mother never married or the citizenship of a husband that the woman might marry or, if surrendered as a “Foundling”, be raised as if a U.S. Citizen until the age of majority and then naturalize ………. every State had some form of Foundling Laws and the chances are the child of that woman you you raped would turn the child over as a Foundling ……… times and conditions were much different regarding children of unwed mothers, aka BASTARDS.
…… so you discard and dismiss the entire 1790 Act to establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}) naturalization (the means by which the political determination to make citizens is preformed). over the concern of one (1) unfortunate woman and ignoring the uniformity of the newly established United States common-law of U.S. Citizenship…?????
So what exactly are you doing with your claims Steven? Are you taking them to court? What’s that? No? You failed there already as the courts determined your claims had no merit.
The proposition of Constitutional Law as construed from the COTUS and its Laws made in pursuance thereof has NOT been presented in Petition of any sort to any Court of Federal Agency for any purpose, as of yet……..
What I will do and when I will do it has not yet been determined, however, how I will do it has been patterned and various pleadings & motions mostly prepared.
I am a poor man and it is very expensive to advance a case through the Court systems, in time, materials and dollars to the Courts and travel.
Looking back I see that I could have gone further than I had as shown by the Holding of Judge Anderson of the USDC Western Tenn, but the arguments based on the premise of the Original condition of the British Statutes or on the natural law proposition of Vattel will neither be sustained as the controlling legal authorities on the subject of U.S. Citizenship generally or the nature of a U.S. natural born Citizen specifically. Neither of the two alternate premises take into consideration the Separation of Powers Doctrine implicit in the Construction of the COTUS combined with the historically unprecedented identification of a specific form of Citizenship being made REQUIRED for a specific Office of Government to the EXCLUSION of all other forms of citizenship that may exist or be provided for.
So, although the issue was brought into the open by the dual-citizen at birth usurper the “0”, the ” … adjudicative FACT is that there is NO uniformly acknowledged legal, i.e., enforceable identification of specific circumstances that constitutes being in conformity with the usage and intent of the term of words in A2S1C5, (U.S. {implicit}) natural born Citizen. …”(SLC)
…. as set out in the COTUS and construed under federal law … while the status of the issue raises the question of the legitimacy of the occupation of the Office of POTUS by ANYONE insofar as the Constitution, as established and as it stands now, is concerned.
You see, if the legality of the status of Citizenship as YOU would have it is true, then the Clause A2S1C5 is WITHOUT EFFECT when no distinction exists between “citizen by any means” is equivalent to “natural born Citizen” for the purpose as used in the Clause.
If the Clause has no effect insofar as the distinction of ‘citizenships’ is concerned then too age and residency are without purpose and the door to the White House is open to any interloper whatsoever, with or without U.S. Citizenship making usurpation no longer possible with no means of identifying the offense.
We went through the 1790 naturalization act the last time you were here and you still didn’t know how to read it back then.
Well, if you like you interpretation of the 1790 Act, you can keep your interpretation of the 1790 Act …. no problem………..I am curious though, given that the title of the Act and the Constitutional Clause that gives the POWER to the Congress to enact the Act both use the same words, i.e.; ” to establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}) naturalization …” what is you understanding of the grammatical and Statutory construction of the combination of words expressed as ” ” to establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}) naturalization …”
Don’t hold back, give it your best shot…………
Steve said: “Your intentional obtuseness for annoyance sake is childish in keeping with most of your 0bot positions, i.e., head comfortably fitted up your ass ………”
It’s adorable when you try to make yourself out to be bigger than you are. I’m not the one being obtuse here, you are. Your misunderstanding of the naturalization act, the anderson order as well as Talbot V Janson is just a few of your many problems.
Actually no, the naturalization act of 1790 has nothing to do with people who are existing citizens.
Here I’ll hold your hand and walk you through it. The first section has to do with aliens and their children not born on US soil. Both of these are not citizens of the US at birth and have to be naturalized.
The second part has to do with children born of citizens overseas. So again the naturalization act of 1790 has nothing to do with existing citizens and those born citizens on US soil.
So like you showed 5 months ago you don’t actually understand what the naturalization act of 1790 actually said and what it means.
What you’re trying to quote isn’t what the act actually says. Aliens weren’t citizens of the US their children were naturalized only upon their naturalization. Those born beyond the seas of citizens has no relation to those who were born in the US. Thus the act has nothing to do with those born in the US.
Steven said: “or are you seriously suggesting that the children of newly naturalized aliens can be made U.S. Citizens concurrently with the alien father but the children of U.S. Citizens can not be born citizens under the uniform Rule of birthright citizenship…??? or that a child of existing U.S. Citizen parents can be born as a U.S. Citizen when out of the limits of the U.S. but NOT when they are born within the limits….?????”
Where did I say any of that? This is a problem you continue to have. You misread something and then make assumptions based on you not understanding the English language.
Where did I say those born on US soil wouldn’t be born US citizens? That’s something you made up on your own. The naturalization act doesn’t have anything to do with those born on US soil. Once again it has to do with those not born on US soil thus no relevance to the discussion of Obama or Arthur.
Well, obtuse is the right word when it comes to your understanding of STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, the language and vernacular the the Framers of the COTUS were familiar with and understood that the words used in statutory provisions meant things and carried with them certain effects when applied to people, places and things.
But, just asking, are you saying that the children of U.S. Citizens born abroad are made U.S. Citizens under one rule and when the children are born within the U.S. there is another rule….???
I see “an uniform Rule”, but I just can not seem t find that other rule that only covers the United States when a child is born in the dirt, ahhh, uuurrrr, soil, i mean born it the soil…..WHERE is that Rule written down in the way MOST laws are written down in a Republic….after all, it’s only citizenship we discussing, ……… you know, one out of many, the We the people of the collective sovereigns………… where’s that rule hang out so I can join in your parade……..
Steven said: “IDIOT, the child would be ILLEGITIMATE insofar as the Laws of the U.S. were concerned and would subsequently acquire citizenship by “naturalization” at the age of majority if the mother never married or the citizenship of a husband that the woman might marry or, if surrendered as a “Foundling”, be raised as if a U.S. Citizen until the age of majority and then naturalize ………. every State had some form of Foundling Laws and the chances are the child of that woman you you raped would turn the child over as a Foundling ……… times and conditions were much different regarding children of unwed mothers, aka BASTARDS.”
So you’re basically saying that a child born of rape would be essentially stateless in your mind. So you failed that question.
You’re really trying to claim that a product of a rape would be essentially stateless until that child could be naturalized?
That is the stupidest thing you’ve said.
Okay I pose another scenario. Say a child is conceived of two citizen parents and the father dies before the child’s birth. What then would be the status of the child since both parents wouldn’t be US citizens at the child’s birth.
How about Tom Vilsack current Secretary of Agriculture who ran in the democratic primaries in 2008. Do you think he’s eligible to be President?
You say, after a bit of distorting what I said;
“You’re really trying to claim that a product of a rape would be essentially stateless until that child could be naturalized?..”
Dolt, I offered three (3) scenario’s that would play out …….. “illegitimacy” IS a condition of Statelessness by definition MORON ……… and there WERE various scenarios that cured that form of Statelessness, the two (2) MOST prevalent being the marraige of the mother to a husband that adopts the child and thereby “legitimizes” the child and turn over by the mother , openly or anonymously, to those that care for Foundlings. Then there is merely living with the unwed mother ’til the age of majority and naturalizing.
Steve said: “Well, if you like you interpretation of the 1790 Act, you can keep your interpretation of the 1790 Act …. no problem………..I am curious though, given that the title of the Act and the Constitutional Clause that gives the POWER to the Congress to enact the Act both use the same words, i.e.; ” to establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}) naturalization …” what is you understanding of the grammatical and Statutory construction of the combination of words expressed as ” ” to establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}) naturalization …”
Don’t hold back, give it your best shot…………”
I’m not the one having trouble reading it you are. It was a naturalization act that solely had to do with people not born in the US. It has no relevance to the conversation.
You say;
“I’m not the one having trouble reading it you are. It was a naturalization act that solely had to do with people not born in the US. It has no relevance to the conversation……………”
Show me the limiting words in the Enumerated Powers Section of the COTUS that LIMITS the word “naturalization” to it VERB SENSE only to the exclusion of its NOUN SENSE of being the Political Concept of Citizenship and the means by which they are made.
Show me the limiting words that restrict the persons, places or means other than int be uniform in its Rule and appropriate to impose throughout the United States.
So you don’t even know what your argument even is: “You say, after a bit of distorting what I said;
“You’re really trying to claim that a product of a rape would be essentially stateless until that child could be naturalized?..”
Dolt, I offered three (3) scenario’s that would play out …….. “illegitimacy” IS a condition of Statelessness by definition MORON ……… and there WERE various scenarios that cured that form of Statelessness, the two (2) MOST prevalent being the marraige of the mother to a husband that adopts the child and thereby “legitimizes” the child and turn over by the mother , openly or anonymously, to those that care for Foundlings. Then there is merely living with the unwed mother ’til the age of majority and naturalizing.”
You clearly tried claiming the product of a rape was illegitimate under US law and would be essentially stateless until they naturalized. That was completely stupid on your part. Sorry but once again the product would be born a US citizen by virtue of its birth on US soil. So you’re basically claiming only a marriage would legitimize the child’s status? That once again is stupid.
You were wrong as usual.
I notice you didn’t answer the question about Vilsack or about the death of a father before the child was born.
Show me the Law in effect post 1790 up to 1866 that says a person is born a citizen irrespective of the parent fathers citizenship status under the doctrine of Jus Soli, by whatever name………
There is NOT separate naturalization laws based on PLACE, there was ONLY an established uniform Rule that provided for every needs and circumstances that normally arise within a civil society.
Show me the words that expand the rights of aliens to have their baby’s become anchor babies prior to 1866……….
If you can NOT show the ACTUAL LAW you rely on then quit spreading fabrications and revisions of U.S. history…
Steve claimed: “Show me the Law in effect post 1790 up to 1866 that says a person is born a citizen irrespective of the parent fathers citizenship status under the doctrine of Jus Soli, by whatever name………
There is NOT separate naturalization laws based on PLACE, there was ONLY an established uniform Rule that provided for every needs and circumstances that normally arise within a civil society.
Show me the words that expand the rights of aliens to have their baby’s become anchor babies prior to 1866……….
If you can NOT show the ACTUAL LAW you rely on then quit spreading fabrications and revisions of U.S. history…”
So you’re going to misdirect? Show us where the law somehow changed between the articles and confederation and the constitution that somehow made a two citizen parent requirement.
Your whole stateless child nonsense is laughable and has no application in US law. It is a complete fabrication by you.
I notice you can’t answer about Vilsack nor about a child born of a father who died before his birth thus using your illogical the father couldn’t pass along his citizenship to that child.
Naturalization has nothing to do with those born on US soil who are born citizens. Naturalization has to do with non citizens becoming citizens.
William Rawle would know more than you being as he was there during the founding generation and was appointed the DA for Pennsylvania by President George Washington: “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. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that he so continues till the age of discretion, when he is at liberty to put himself under what government he pleases. How far the adult possesses this power will hereafter be considered, but surely it would be unjust both to the state and to the infant, to withhold the quality of the citizen until those years of discretion were attained. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”
Have you considered getting therapy?
You say;
So you’re going to misdirect? Show us where the law somehow changed between the articles and confederation and the constitution that somehow made a two citizen parent requirement.
Your whole stateless child nonsense is laughable and has no application in US law. It is a complete fabrication by you.
I notice you can’t answer about Vilsack nor about a child born of a father who died before his birth thus using your illogical the father couldn’t pass along his citizenship to that child.
Naturalization has nothing to do with those born on US soil who are born citizens. Naturalization has to do with non citizens becoming citizens.
William Rawle would know more than you being as he was there during the founding generation and was appointed the DA for Pennsylvania by President George Washington: “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. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that he so continues till the age of discretion, when he is at liberty to put himself under what government he pleases. How far the adult possesses this power will hereafter be considered, but surely it would be unjust both to the state and to the infant, to withhold the quality of the citizen until those years of discretion were attained. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”
Have you considered getting therapy? ………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
So you start off by saying; ” So you’re going to misdirect? …” and then you proceed to misdirect from the questions of the post you are responding to failing to show an ACTUAL LAW that supports your rhetoric on the nature of nonsense and ridiculousness.
Do you really think the Founding generation fought the greatest army in the world at the time to then just open it’s doors and call every aliens child a “U.S. Citizen” without regard to the parents political character or of knowing their intentions.
You contort the COTUS into a suicide pact in the manner of a liberal-progressive-Dem0rate-socialist-communist-jihadist ….. were you born that way or is it by choice.
You offer a quote by Wm Rawle without the original source, but taking as if authentic it is OBVIOUS that he is speaking of the effects of the State Laws he was familiar with and made those statements either before the 1790 Act was published or did not take cognizance of it.
Rawle, apparently said this 1st;
” … William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 84–101 1829 (2d ed.)
The power to establish an uniform system of naturalization is also an exclusive one.
In the second section of the fourth article it is provided that the citizens of each state, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, and the same rule had been ambiguously laid down in the articles of confederation. If this clause is retained, and its utility and propriety cannot be questioned, the consequence would be, that if each state retained the power of naturalization, it might impose on all the other states, such citizens as it might think proper. In one state, residence for a short time, with a slight declaration of allegiance, as was the case under the former constitution of Pennsylvania, might confer the rights of citizenship: in another, qualifications of greater importance might be required: an alien, desirous of eluding the latter, might by complying with the requisites of the former, become a citizen of a state in opposition to its own regulations, and thus in fact, the laws of one state become paramount to that of another. The evil could not be better remedied than by vesting the exclusive power in congress. ….”
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships23.html
That makes the later passages incorrect in his own words, “The power to establish an uniform system of naturalization is also an exclusive one.”
I would not be here arguing my position if there where but one LAW in the COTUS of enacted under the authority of A1S8C4 that said “PLACE alone makes a U.S. Citizen at birth irrespective of any other attending circumstances”, or some such, such as; The Doctrine of Jus Soli shall be the Rule throughout the U.S.”……….
………….IT IS NOT THERE, no where, zero, zip ,nada ….. it is ONLY found in misguided rhetoric and various court opinions that RESORT to foreign law rather than the COTUS and Laws made in pursuance thereof.
Show me the LAW that you rely on and NOT unsupportable rhetoric or STFU.
Steven said: “So you start off by saying; ” So you’re going to misdirect? …” and then you proceed to misdirect from the questions of the post you are responding to failing to show an ACTUAL LAW that supports your rhetoric on the nature of nonsense and ridiculousness.”
No misdirect at all you changed the subject simply because your nonsense had no basis for it.
No actual law supports your contention which is why you failed repeatedly in court.
Steven said: “Do you really think the Founding generation fought the greatest army in the world at the time to then just open it’s doors and call every aliens child a “U.S. Citizen” without regard to the parents political character or of knowing their intentions.”
You seem confused they were worried about someone coming here and naturalizing. Specifically a foreign prince being down on his luck, coming to america and then naturalizing and taking over. Yes they specifically allowed for people born here to be citizens as William Rawle stated the view of what the constitution was. Their political character was created by their birth on US soil.
Steven said: “You contort the COTUS into a suicide pact in the manner of a liberal-progressive-Dem0rate-socialist-communist-jihadist ….. were you born that way or is it by choice.”
Wow so you really think all those words mean the same thing then?
Steven said: “You offer a quote by Wm Rawle without the original source, but taking as if authentic it is OBVIOUS that he is speaking of the effects of the State Laws he was familiar with and made those statements either before the 1790 Act was published or did not take cognizance of it.”
Nope, the quote was from his book a view of the Constitution written in 1829. This was after the 1790 act which you continually misunderstand.
Naturalization has nothing to do with those born on US soil within the states. Thus your bit about naturalization about what Rawle said had no relevance to Obama. The constitution consolidated the states and made naturalization a federal matter.
Steven said: “That makes the later passages incorrect in his own words, “The power to establish an uniform system of naturalization is also an exclusive one.””
Nowhere is my quote contradicted by your quote. An alien is one born overseas who wasn’t a US citizen at birth. As you can see in my quote Rawle clearly stated that it was the view of the founders that children of aliens born on US soil were natural born citizens. You continue to confuse being born a citizen with naturalization.
Steven said: “I would not be here arguing my position if there where but one LAW in the COTUS of enacted under the authority of A1S8C4 that said “PLACE alone makes a U.S. Citizen at birth irrespective of any other attending circumstances”, or some such, such as; The Doctrine of Jus Soli shall be the Rule throughout the U.S.”……….”
Yes if only one single court would take you seriously, you wouldn’t be here making a fool of yourself. The problem is that no court will take you seriously because the law simply isn’t on your side. A1S8C4 doesn’t support you.
Jus Soli is the rule of citizenship in the US.
Steven claims: “.IT IS NOT THERE, no where, zero, zip ,nada ….. it is ONLY found in misguided rhetoric and various court opinions that RESORT to foreign law rather than the COTUS and Laws made in pursuance thereof.”
And so here we are back to Steven claiming he is the sole arbiter of what it means to be a natural born citizen. He claims he knows better than the courts, the law, the founders, etc. The problem is that there is no caselaw to support your nonsense.
Sorry but I can continue to make you look like a slobbering fool all I want.
I stopped reading you post because it is obvious that you do not read or comprehend anything you read.
That being made plain when you suggest I failed in the courts because of the positions I assert now.
I have NEVER argued the Constitutional proposition of law regarding the subject of U.S. Citizenship in general and the attending requisite circumstances that produces a U.S. natural born Citizen as required at A2S1C5 resorting to and relying solely on the COTUS, including the Preamble, and the Acts and Laws made in pursuance thereof.
What you FAIL to understand that once the COTUS was Ratified, and with that Adoption ALL of the EXISTING State Citizens became also U.S. Citizens and thereafter ONLY the Congress had the authority to “MAKE” a person a U.S. Citizen, at birth or otherwise.
ALL rhetoric, mis-interpretations, mis-understandings, mis-applications, misconceptions that may seem to say otherwise aside, the ACTUAL LAWs are the controlling legal authority under the Supremacy Clause of the COTUS and the questions raised rise to the level of being a substantial federal issue that remains unlitigated on the merits.
Steven claims: “I stopped reading you post because it is obvious that you do not read or comprehend anything you read.”
Coming from the guy who got caught lying about the Anderson decision and Talbot V Janson this continues to be funny.
You have continuously lied about what others have said here and show you have a general misunderstanding about everything that is said to you.
You have argued bullshit here and have yet to make a coherent argument. Do you think somehow if you capitalize random words it makes you sound sane? It doesn’t. In fact it makes you instead look crazy.
You tried arguing nonsense in court just as you are arguing nonsense here. Do you think you’d be any more successful taking the rants you’ve made here into court?
I’m not the one failing to understand what the constitution actually did, this is entirely your problem.
Incorrect anyone born in the US not of a diplomat or invading army parents was born a citizen. As William Rawle stated this is how it has always been. It was birthers who tried changing the definition to meaning only born to two citizen parents when their claims about the birth certificate failed publicly.
None of your claims have won in court. Other birthers have made the same idiotic claims you’ve made and failed miserably.
I notice you still haven’t address Tom Vilsack or a child born of a father who dies before its birth.
I stopped responding to your posts because you have not, can not, show what LAW you rely on, other than the Collective naturalization statute at 8 USC 1401 as construed from the 14ths declaratory born citizen collective naturalization provision which justice Waite found that Lil’ Virginia didn’t need because she was born of parents who themselves were U.S. Citizens..
Oh, hell, I meant to write that in Sesame Street language and vernacular so you might be able to keep up…….. oh, well…..
Tom Vilsack … you mean this one; ” Born on December 13, 1950 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Tom Vilsack was placed in a Roman Catholic orphanage. He was adopted in 1951 by Bud and Dolly Vilsack. Bud Vilsack was a real-estate agent and insurance salesman.” …. ADOPTED, ergo made the same Citizenship as the adopting parents by statutes on adoptions, replete with the right of expatriation at the age of majority should his bio-daddy’s blood running through his veins compel him to do so, or for any other cause,
As for the little bastard you’re so concerned with, well, it would depend somewhat upon what his mommy did about the situation, i.e., get married, get on with life as is and let her son take care of his political character when he came of age or rely on a States Foundling Laws and turn him over for adoption ……….. why, do you like them really young and unsupervised…..???
What realm of insanity have I wandered into?
First of all, I actually know a little about Irish legal history, because I freaking live and grew up here in Ireland. Chester Arthur’s dad was not a “British Subject” as some idiot calls it. Officially and legally he was English. That was becasue the Act of Union in 1800 united Ireland and England into the one country, with the Parlimant at Westminister. It wasn’t until 1922 that Sublin got its Parliment back
That meant that all british law applied to Ireland and overwrote the Brehon Law that had been en vouge before that.
So our citizenship law was the same as English law up untill the moment we declared Independance in 1947, bar some limited changes enacted by the Irish parliment which had nothing to do with citizenship.
So Chester Arthur’s dad was legally an Englishman. Period.
Also Irish law was changed from the English model in a law that came into force Jan 1st 2004. It was changed so that you needed one citizen parent to becone a citizen if born on the Island or Ireland.
Before that you didnt need any. In fact, the reason the law was changed was becasue women were getting themselves smuggled into Ireland while Pregnant so they could give birth to an Irish citizen and claim right of Residence. According to you the law we tightened up, which we inhereted from the English, was a losening of the law to one citizen parent.
When in fact women were stepping off the boat with no husband at all and spawning Black Irishmen.
Oh yeah, the English themnselves changed Jus Soli in 1984. STUNNINGLY parentage made no difference there either
Australia changed their Law in 2005. Stunning THEY had a Jus Soli system
But you are saying that the US UNIQUELY did not have a Jus Soli system coming out of English rule. It was the only ex British Colony that did not… becasue you elected a Black President who happened to be Born on US Soil.
AND! AND!! the private investigator Hired by the opposition party to dig up dirt on Chester Arthur never mentioned his fine coverture. ALl the smears that were dug up were that he mught have been Born in CANADA like Ted Cruz.
Seriously, dude, you need help.
I am a genuine Green blooded Irishman with an irish name that streatches back 1000 years, O’Shaughnessy, and I say you are full of shit.
Re. Chet the Usurper……… like the BC issue spread by the “0” and his sycophants, the “place” of birth issue was spread by Chet himself while he burned all the documents he could find regarding his daddy’s naturalization well after Chet was born. The same circumstance that is found in the bio of Lil’ Marco, the wannabe usurper & the son of the ineligible for citizenship until the law changed in the 70’s cuban refugee daddy.
Everything else you had to say is just more bullshit………..show me the federal law that made “jus soli” the OTHER rule of U.S. Citizenship……….show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ……
So, according to Steve, anybody born after 1795 is not a Natural Born Citizen since all the later acts failed to call any of the classifications, Natural Born Citizens. Wow, think of all of all the usurpers we had.
See, that goes DIRECTLY to your inability to listen, hear and learn…………
In order for what you suggest to be true is that all of the time between March 1790 and January 1795 the ONLY place that U.S. natural born Citizens were being born was BEYOND the limits of the U.S., which is a specious bastardization of the Act in whole when it is expressly provided that once an alien father is made a U.S. Citizen then so to are those minor children present with him, without regard as to where they may have been born, foreign or native.
You are saying that the existing U.S. Citizen fathers did not have the SAME benefit as a newly naturalized alien father ….. that their children present with them would not be U.S. Citizens when native born….???
That would be contrary to the CONCEPT of an uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship that the Framers clearly had in mind when they wrote the ENUMERATED POWERS SECTION of the COTUS at A1S8C4.
One (1) Rule for ALL persons; “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their Children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world.” being the general Rule with exceptions, exclusions, restrictions, provisions and provisos affecting processes, circumstances, places and or persons as may be deemed necessary and proper from time to time.
Show me the Jus Soli doctrine in ANY ACT of the U.S. Congress under the authority of A1S8C4…..Well, punk, can you….????
Uniform rule meant the same naturalization rule for all of the states. Different naturalization rules for different states created problems so the power to create a single, uniform law for all states was given to the new Congress. Different states had different rules such as length of residency. The Constitution remedied this.
A new law for born citizens was not needed since, as we have seen from their earlier colonial/state laws and comments such as from Madison, they were all following the common law rule of jus soli.
You say;
” … Uniform rule meant the same naturalization rule for all of the states. Different naturalization rules for different states created problems so the power to create a single, uniform law for all states was given to the new Congress. Different states had different rules such as length of residency. The Constitution remedied this. …”
That is half of the equation the way you state it, as if “naturalization” is something distinct and unrelated to “citizenship and the state of citizenship”,
The whole of the word naturalization is the “who, where, when, how, and why” any given person or persons are eligible for citizenship and WHAT the acquisition entitles a person who is “made” a citizen.
All of you guys are very careful to separate the benefit of “birthright citizenship” in spite of the fact that it was given a dry foot with the 1790 Act.
.show me the federal law that made “jus soli” the OTHER rule of U.S. Citizenship……….show me the law
And, just like over here in the Republic of Ireland, UNTIL A LAW IS PASSED THAT CHANGES IT the rule in force is that of the English law that was in force at the moment of independance. Just like it was the case in Australia, and in fact every single British colony.
Te law that was in force till Jan 1st 2004 here in Ireland was Jus Soli, without that concept bieng written down anyhere or a law passed mentioning it.
Same for the United States of America. As Alexander Hamilton, in a discussion of the meanings of Constitutional terms having to do with taxation, noted, “where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.”
And as Tucker Noted
“A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. ‘Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.’”
The very well known writer was Colonel George Nicholas, first professor of law at Kentucky’s Transylvania University (1799) in his letter here http://books.google.com/books?id=fIEvAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA69&dq=%22ascertain+the+change+which+was+made+in+it%22+intitle:life+intitle:and+intitle:events&hl=en&sa=X&ei=prK-T7CjEYKQsQLTr7HUCQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Fun times
But you fail to correctly interpret the provisions of the 276 word 1790 Act, what its words say and what effects those words then require.
Instead you want to say that there is an UNWRITTEN LAW in the newly established CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, that is, a Rule of Law government within the constraints of the Constitution. that controls the destiny of anyone born on its soil while the Congress has the power over the subject of U.S. Citizenship with the power to say who is or is not a U.S. Citizens along with the power to say how, when and where, EXCEPT FOR CHILDREN born on the soil….?????.
The uniform Rule of the 1790 Act, “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world.” solves the lack of a Jus Soli rule, which there ain’t one in the U.S., not even the 14th is a Jus Soli provision because of the qualifier, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
Sorry, ain’t buy’n your two (2) uniform rules proposition …..
Speaking of Tucker, Tucker does say where Clildren are aliens of their parents are not citizens… France
“The children of aliens, born here in England, are generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.”
Note he points out that France is DIFFERENT from the US constitution in concidering the parents.
Lovely day, isn’t it.
Look, foreign laws or ancient & historical references to the term of words are of little interest to me on the subject of a U.S. natural born Citizen given that once that form of citizenship was singled out for a specific purpose in the “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision” of A2S1C5 of the COTUS any relation to any prior reference to the term of words lost their significance under U.S. Law because nowhere in the history of the term of words were THEY singled out as the qualifying criteria for an Executive Office of a Government.
In ALL of the ORIGINAL historical references it required a child to be born to the wife of a “member of the subject society”, (city man, Citizen), within, or returning to, that domain of the subject society.
That is true even of the ORIGINAL STATE in the English / British Statutes and likely so most civil societies throughout history.
But even all of its history is not relevant when the CIRCUMSTANCES have never changed and those SAME circumstances are UNAVOIDABLE under the provisions of the 1790 Act, when correctly construing the established uniform rule contained in its words and the effects it words then require.
“show me the law”
Why the hell would they need to write a law if there was a law that said the same thing that already existed.
Show me the Irish law that said Jus Soli existed in Ireland prior to 2004. It clearly did, so it shoould be no problem to you to find it.
“Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world.”
All that states is that once a person naturalizes then their children also became citizens. It says nothing about whether or not their children could not already have been citizens by virtue of birth on US soil. It also btw does not say t5hat their spouses also become US Citizens, so clearly that does not show that your concept of the wife following the citizenship of the husband was in any way accepted.
“In ALL of the ORIGINAL historical references it required a child to be born to the wife of a “member of the subject society”, (city man, Citizen), within, or returning to, that domain of the subject society.
That is true even of the ORIGINAL STATE in the English / British Statutes and likely so most civil societies throughout history.”
Really? Not according to Calvins Case in 1612, where it said that the issue of a frenchman (enemy of England at thye time” in the domains of the king was a Natural Born Subject
And your comment that “ALL of the original historical references” is very interesting as I have already provided 2 that said exactly the opposite. So therefore ALL did not. But since you have ignored all that as youa re a pathetic little fantasist. here are a few more of the ORIGINAL hi8storical references
“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795)
want another? Ok
“that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”
Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805)
More?
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826)
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
Hey stop running! There’s more!
“The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution, and, by that principle, the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned, such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States. The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute.
The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle…. But the law of France rejects the principle of the English law, and of our own laws, that birth within the limits and jurisdiction of France, makes a Frenchman, or a natural-born citizen or subject of France, absolutely,…”
Horace Binney, American Law Register, 2 Amer.Law Reg.193, 203, 204, 206, 208 (February 1854).
Oh believe me I have a lot more original sources to throw at you, fantasist.
You say;
“Why the hell would they need to write a law if there was a law that said the same thing that already existed.”
OK, show me the LAW that already existed pre-Ratification of the COTUS that was acceptable to the Congress under A1S8C4
..and your inane attempt to convolute the ORIGINAL STATE of a ‘natural born Citizen” is only pointing out that the various “controlling legal authorities” construct the status of their countries “citizens & citizenship” to suit the needs of their countries.
But with all of your exceptions that prove the Rule you STILL do not show me the LAW that would supercede the authority of the enumerated power given to the Congress at A1S8C4 nor have you shown any limiting language that would preempt the interpretation of the statutory construction of the Clause, A1S8C4 or the provisions of the 1790 Act……….
You offer RHETORIC, I offer ACTUAL LAW under the Supremacy Clause of the COTUS ….
Oh and just before you scream that Tucker said England, he is quoting Blackstone in that sentance, I edited out the 10 footnote.
“slcraignbc says:
April 14, 2015 at 7:13 pm
You sir are a despicable person to distort the nature of the Scott v Sandford Opinion as to being RACIST………
……….are you really so obtuse and not understand that if the SCOTUS had ruled otherwise it would have been the CAUSE of the Civil War the moment a Judgement was published that said Black Slaves were or could be U.S. Citizens in spite of what the COTUS provided for….????
STFU asshole ……….. liberal-progressive-socialist-commie-jihadist-bastard’
You forgot big nose.
Good thing we avoided that civil war you said would have happened. Oh, wait.
You remain true to character, i.e., either obtuse or an obfuscator ………
I said that had the Taney Court Ruled in the opposite they would have been the “cause” of the Civil Was, …………, perhaps I should have said the “immediate cause”, although you have a distorted view of the history of the case, of race and of , well, just about every subject that I’ve seen your comments on, so I don’t suppose any truth registers with you.
Steven said: “I stopped responding to your posts because you have not, can not, show what LAW you rely on, other than the Collective naturalization statute at 8 USC 1401 as construed from the 14ths declaratory born citizen collective naturalization provision which justice Waite found that Lil’ Virginia didn’t need because she was born of parents who themselves were U.S. Citizens..
Oh, hell, I meant to write that in Sesame Street language and vernacular so you might be able to keep up…….. oh, well…..
Tom Vilsack … you mean this one; ” Born on December 13, 1950 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Tom Vilsack was placed in a Roman Catholic orphanage. He was adopted in 1951 by Bud and Dolly Vilsack. Bud Vilsack was a real-estate agent and insurance salesman.” …. ADOPTED, ergo made the same Citizenship as the adopting parents by statutes on adoptions, replete with the right of expatriation at the age of majority should his bio-daddy’s blood running through his veins compel him to do so, or for any other cause,
As for the little bastard you’re so concerned with, well, it would depend somewhat upon what his mommy did about the situation, i.e., get married, get on with life as is and let her son take care of his political character when he came of age or rely on a States Foundling Laws and turn him over for adoption ……….. why, do you like them really young and unsupervised…..???
”
You stopped responding because you have no flipping clue what you’re talking about. You can’t even read simple court cases let alone the US code. You seem confused by what naturalization actually means. Nowhere in Minor V Happersett was the status of “lil virginia’s” parents even mentioned. You keep repeating this lie but you have yet to back it up. We don’t know what the status of Virginia’s parents were since they werent even mentioned in the case. Nor did their citizenship even matter.
You seem confused since Vilsack was a foundling. We have no idea who his real parents were nor what their citizenship status was. So now you’re adjusting your original claim to now say that if a kid is adopted he magically becomes a natural born citizen under your illogical claims. You seem entirely inconsistent.
Do you always call kids bastards? It sounds like you’re a bitter little man. In the scenario where the father died before birth how exactly would the kid be considered a bastard? Do you even know what the word bastard even means. Actually the definition that you would try clinging to of needing two citizen parents at birth would be defeated since the father would be dead and thus not have two citizen parents at birth. So I’m asking you again what status would that child have according to your theories?
You said,
Bla bla bla bla , Bla bla bla bla , Bla bla bla bla , Bla bla bla bla , Bla bla bla bla , Bla bla bla bla , Bla bla bla bla , Bla bla bla bla , Bla bla bla bla , Bla bla bla bla , Bla bla bla bla , Bla bla bla bla , Bla bla bla bla , Bla bla bla bla , Bla bla bla bla , Bla bla bla bla , Bla bla bla bla , Bla bla bla bla , Bla bla bla bla , Bla bla bla bla ,
I say;
show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law how me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law how me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law ………..show me the law
Steven said: “Re. Chet the Usurper……… like the BC issue spread by the “0” and his sycophants, the “place” of birth issue was spread by Chet himself while he burned all the documents he could find regarding his daddy’s naturalization well after Chet was born. The same circumstance that is found in the bio of Lil’ Marco, the wannabe usurper & the son of the ineligible for citizenship until the law changed in the 70’s cuban refugee daddy.”
And you continue to lie. arthur didn’t “burn all his documents”. In fact Chester A. Arthur’s naturalization papers have been apart of the Library of congress for over a century. It was well known that his father didn’t naturalize until almost two decades after his birth. It didn’t actually matter. It’s why the democrats tried to place him as being born in Canada since the citizenship of the parents didn’t actually matter but rather the place of birth.
Except you know that Rubio was born in the US and is a natural born citizen. You believe the dumbest shit.
Now who’s the liar………….you say ; In fact Chester A. Arthur’s naturalization papers have been apart of the Library of congress for over a century. ”
You’re saying that Lil’ Chet had “naturalization papers”…? Which would have made him ‘ineligible” in everyone’s mind.
Then you say;
“It was well known that his father didn’t naturalize until almost two decades after his birth.”
Perhaps now it is becoming more well known, but it WAS NOT back then….you are not stating facts in the record AT THE TIME ….!!!!
Because the 1790 act simply had to do with those who weren’t born on US soil and weren’t born citizens. It was a naturalization act. You seem confused by what naturalization actually means.
Steven said: “But you fail to correctly interpret the provisions of the 276 word 1790 Act, what its words say and what effects those words then require.
Instead you want to say that there is an UNWRITTEN LAW in the newly established CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, that is, a Rule of Law government within the constraints of the Constitution. that controls the destiny of anyone born on its soil while the Congress has the power over the subject of U.S. Citizenship with the power to say who is or is not a U.S. Citizens along with the power to say how, when and where, EXCEPT FOR CHILDREN born on the soil….?????.
The uniform Rule of the 1790 Act, “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world.” solves the lack of a Jus Soli rule, which there ain’t one in the U.S., not even the 14th is a Jus Soli provision because of the qualifier, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
Sorry, ain’t buy’n your two (2) uniform rules proposition …..”
You’re the only one failing here since you still don’t understand what those 276 words actually mean. It’s simply a naturalization act for those not born on US soil. It has nothing to do with those born citizens. But let’s use Steven Craig logic notice the act says nothing about those born of two citizen parents on US soil. So according to Steven this means that those born of two citizen parents on US soil weren’t citizens. That’s your logic.
Oh and now you’re not quoting from the 1790 act. Nowhere does it say ” “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world.”
It mentions those born overseas not those born on US soil. So as usual you were wrong.
Ya, just keep repeating the lie and idiots like you will continue to believe it and STILL you can not show me the LAW, as REQUIRED in a REPUBLIC which operates under the Rule of Law within the constraints of the Constitution.
You are putting LIMITS on the meaning of the words in the enumerated powers section of the COTUS, specifically A1S8C4; ” … The Congress shall have power …. To establish an uniform Rule of naturalization, …… throughout the United States;”
How can you say that U.S. naturalization is limited to foreign births of U.S. Citizen children and alien foreign nationals within the limits of the U.S. and not understand that if a child of a U.S. Citizen is a U.S. Citizen when born abroad it would not need a different law to be born a U.S. Citizen when born within the limits of the U.S., especially so when the minor children, native or foreign born, present with a naturalizing alien father becomes a U.S. Citizen CONCURRENT with the father.
Jus Soli would be and IS superfluous under those provisions in the 1st instant, would have made the 14th unnecessary in the 2nd instant, and would have ONLY made U.S. Citizens of children of alien foreign national parents with no “eligibility’ to naturalize, as it does now under the “anchor baby” policy citizenship.
Steve said: “Look, foreign laws or ancient & historical references to the term of words are of little interest to me on the subject of a U.S. natural born Citizen given that once that form of citizenship was singled out for a specific purpose in the “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision” of A2S1C5 of the COTUS any relation to any prior reference to the term of words lost their significance under U.S. Law because nowhere in the history of the term of words were THEY singled out as the qualifying criteria for an Executive Office of a Government.”
Yes we know, the basis for our laws are of no interest to you. Nor are our actual laws. The only thing of interest to you is that you can claim the black guy isn’t really president because it makes you feel like you can actually do something when you can’t.
You like throwing down phrases which you don’t even understand it’s adorable.
Condescension from you and yours is a badge of honor and an A+ grade insofar as I and intellectual honesty is concerned.
Show me the actual LAW that you rely on and I’ll show you mine …………
“And you continue to lie. arthur didn’t “burn all his documents”. In fact Chester A. Arthur’s naturalization papers have been apart of the Library of congress for over a century.”
In point of fact, Arthur personally sent the papers that included his fathers certificate of naturalization to the library of congress as he lay dying. Arthur did have papers burned as he lay dying, but he specifically saved his fathers certificate of naturalization and obviously wanted it preserved.
Well, it appears that you are privy to information that I have not seen in the public domain……..and find no indication that it was public knowledge during his campaign for office or during his term of office……….why did he wait until he was on his death bed before taking them out of hiding and give them over …??? when the papers were turned over were they done so under the “50 year” rule that would keep them vaulted for that period of time…???
Poor Steven sputtering like the moron he is. You’ve shown a history of not being able to read cases correctly. Your opinion of what you think the case means simply isn’t credible. Your view on the history of cases has been tainted by your previous lies on Talbot V Janson and Anderson’s opinion. The truth never mattered to you which is why you ran back in October.
You offer RHETORIC, I offer ACTUAL LAW under the Supremacy Clause of the COTUS ….
Show me the actual LAW that you rely on and I’ll show you mine …………
Poor Steven now he’s going full blown childish.
Condescension from you and yours is a badge of honor and an A+ grade insofar as I and intellectual honesty is concerned.
You offer RHETORIC, I offer ACTUAL LAW under the Supremacy Clause of the COTUS ….
Show me the actual LAW that you rely on and I’ll show you mine …………
His father’s papers. Not lying I explained to you this once already. No it was already well known back then which is why the democrats tried to say he was born in Canada. The status of his father never mattered.
I think you are making it up as you go, …. show me a contemporaneous reference to his fathers naturalization status at the time of Lil’ Chet’s birth, …… tic-tock, tic-tock , tic-tock, ……. I’ll wait for it, .. tic-tock, tic-tock , tic-tock, …. tic-tock, tic-tock , tic-tock, …. tic-tock, tic-tock , tic-tock, ..
“How can you say that U.S. naturalization is limited to foreign births of U.S. Citizen children and alien foreign nationals within the limits of the U.S. and not understand that if a child of a U.S. Citizen is a U.S. Citizen when born abroad it would not need a different law to be born a U.S. Citizen when born within the limits of the U.S., especially so when the minor children, native or foreign born, present with a naturalizing alien father becomes a U.S. Citizen CONCURRENT with the father.”
Er, fantasist, you do realize that a child born with a US citizen father still becomes a natural born US citizen, the same as one with a non US citizen father? So yout whole sreaming diatribe makes no sense?
And yeah, the LIVING children of a naturalising father become US citizens too. So? That has nothing to do with the case of a child born on US soil.
And finally, if the US congress were writing a uniform rule of naturalization, they would not have but the words “if born abroad” in the bill. if the same rules applied to every natural born US citizen, they would have just written “born to US citizens” as the law applied everywhere, including on US soil, Instead they wrote, born abroad” baking it clear that the rule only applied to those children born of US citizens outside the country.
I’ve given you 5 or 6 ORIGINAL sources that talk about that the rule was on US soil. Did you even read them, fantasist?
You say;
“Er, fantasist, you do realize that a child born with a US citizen father still becomes a natural born US citizen, the same as one with a non US citizen father? So yout whole sreaming diatribe makes no sense?…”
Condescension from you and yours is a badge of honor and an A+ grade insofar as I and intellectual honesty is concerned.
You offer RHETORIC, I offer ACTUAL LAW under the Supremacy Clause of the COTUS ….
Show me the actual LAW that you rely on and I’ll show you mine …………
Show me the actual LAW that you rely on and I’ll show you mine …………
Show me the actual LAW that you rely on and I’ll show you mine …………
Show me the actual LAW that you rely on and I’ll show you mine …………
Poor Steven thinks if he randomly capitalizes words it makes him sound sane. You’re the only one who has been caught lying here. It’s why you ran off back in October. You couldn’t lie anymore.
Naturalization has to do with those not born citizens and had to become citizens later on. It has nothing to do with those who were born on US soil. You might want to crack open a dictionary and learn what naturalization actually means.
How can I say it? Simply because it’s the way it is. Even the 1790 act only has to do with those not born on US soil. If you notice your act talked about aliens with children who weren’t born here. You seem to be confused by those 276 words.
The 1790 act only has to do with naturalization and not those born citizens.
Anchor babies have nothing to do with Obama or Arthur or Rubio.
Again this is why you failed in court.
Now now Suranis you’re making a huge assumption that Steven knows how to read.
For the record, I believe this is the naturalization in question:
STEVEN realizes the full potential of caps. The established fact IS that caps can bring a hidden meaning to AN idea. Only an IDIOT would miss that.
What a load of hysterical crying, fantasist.
So you hang your had on the supremecy of COTUS? So did other people and they
“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… 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. ”
Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)
As I sait before it goes back to Calvins Case in 1612, which still had the force of law in the colonies as no act had been drafted to repeal it. Stunningly, Calvins case also dealt withthe case of a forigner coming into the domain
“There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances; the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta pura, et indefinite, and this originally is due by nature and birth-right, and is called alta ligeantia, and he that oweth this is called subditus natus. The second is called ligeantia acquisita, not by nature but by acquisition or denization, being called a denizen, or rather donaizon, because he is subditus datus. The third is, ligeantia localis, wrought by the law; and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is here, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other….
3. Concerning the local obedience it is observable, that as there on the King’s part, so there is a (d) local ligeance of the sub this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. (e) and 3 and 4 Ail and Mar. Dy Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen, a concluded (f) contraligeant’ suæ debitum; for he owed to the King that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection; which Loa but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a nat. he hath issue here, that issue is (g) a natural born subject; a fortiori under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which, as it alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to subject; for localis ligeantia, est ligeantia intima et minima, et maxim? incerta. And it is to be observed, that it is nec cælum, nec solum, neither the soil, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born;”
Now you might screan as you do, fantasist, that Lord coke was talking about Natural Born Subjects, not citizens. Unfortunatly, the law at the time of the founding disagrees with you
““It requires all senators to be thirty years old, and prohibits any but a natural born subject from being president.”
State v. Foreman, 16 Tenn. 256, 335–36 (1835).
I’m shocked that court cases of the time used the language of Lord Coke to describe those who could be President, aren’t you?
Oh you dont believe me? Here’s another
“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838)
So, you say you have the law on your side, but you are not able to produce it. All you have is your INTERPRERTATION OF THE law, whereas I am able to pull out plenty of people who actually lived at the time who’se interpretation totally disagrees with yours.
I really dont know what you gain out of this fantasy, fantasist, but from the disorginised and anguised screaming youa re doing on this page I think its fait to guess that happiness is not something you are gaining out of it. Barack Obama has less than 2 more years left in his presidency, then you wont ever have to see him again. Try and focus your mind on other topics. Maybe working for the candidate of your choice?
You cite cases of State Probate that were required to to settle the Probate under the STATE RETAINED Probate Laws as existed under the English common law. The fact that it was necessary to reconcile U.S. Citizenship to the state of the British Nationality laws in order to sort out who would inherit and on what terms was based ENTIRELY upon State Law and could have NO effect on the Federal Laws of U.S. Citizenship.
The Supremacy Clause was cited to PROVE the authority of the Acts & Laws made in pursuance of the COTUS.
Condescension from you and yours is a badge of honor and an A+ grade insofar as I and intellectual honesty is concerned.
You offer RHETORIC and Opinions from State Courts on unrelated subjects.
I offer ACTUAL LAW under the Supremacy Clause of the COTUS ….
Show me the actual LAW that you rely on and I’ll show you mine …………
While you looking for THAT Law you may want to see where & what the Statute of Limitations resides on the civil offense of Usurpation, and possible criminal offenses of “fraud” in perpetration of it, not to mention the consequences that the Political Will of the People may demand.
Oh and the claim by Dred Scott V Sandford that Black people could not be citizens counds as pretty bloody racist to me. Thats why actual judges and jurists, rather than fantasy ones, call it the worst decision by the supreme court ever.
You are a moron …… the “Black people” as you call them were a specific class of peoples that were specifically excluded from membership in the Political society, i.e., Citizenship, by the original compromise between the northern and southern States and counting them as 3/5ths a person for the purpose of census and apportionment of Representation.
At A1S9C1 of the Limitations of Powers you’ll find that the States reserved the right to continue to import such persons until 1808;
“The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.”
Nothing in the Constitution, beyond Congress obtaining the right to prohibit continued importation of ‘slave laborers’ after 1808 “self-amends’ the status of the slave laborers, or their progeny.
The Taney Court acknowledged THAT FACT when it said;
” … It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted. … ” 60 U.S. 393 [pg405]
Steven said: “You offer RHETORIC, I offer ACTUAL LAW under the Supremacy Clause of the COTUS ….”
No what you offer is your misunderstanding of the law as you’ve proven time and again.
At least I am interpreting ACTUAL U.S. Law and not the bastardized British statutes of the original natural law.
Steven said: “Condescension from you and yours is a badge of honor and an A+ grade insofar as I and intellectual honesty is concerned.
Show me the actual LAW that you rely on and I’ll show you mine ”
Intellectual Honesty doesn’t mean what you think it does. You proved to be dishonest when you lied about Talbot V Janson for a year. You proved your dishonesty when you were called out here back in October and called us all liars and ran off like a child. You proved it when called again on it and claiming that we have to prove that Rutledge didn’t agree with the statement.
You prove it when you lied about the Anderson opinion and what it meant. You proved it when you lied about what the naturalization act of 1790 actually did.
We know being a fool is a badge of honor for you.
You assume facts not in evidence when you suggest that I lied about any of the things you cite.
Your OPINION may be that I lied, but the fact is the facts are on my side and I suspect that all of you know it and is why you look for any little fo paw, misspelled word or grammatical error or some historically contestable point in the attempt to dissuade or intimidate me by your self perceived correctness in spite of the fact you can not provide a SINGLE Constitutionally enacted Law on the subject that supports your position of there being an extra-Constitutional law operating in the SOIL of the various States with the authority to naturalize a person at birth in spite of the FACT that the Congress is invested with the sole authority on THAT subject.
Steven said: “Well, it appears that you are privy to information that I have not seen in the public domain……..and find no indication that it was public knowledge during his campaign for office or during his term of office……….why did he wait until he was on his death bed before taking them out of hiding and give them over …??? when the papers were turned over were they done so under the “50 year” rule that would keep them vaulted for that period of time…???”
Yes the amount of information you’re not privy to seems to boggle the mind. You’re shitty at doing research, you’re shitty at reading comprehension so it’s no wonder that the majority of Americcans are way ahead of you on this.
Who says he waited to take them out of hiding? Are you really claiming that INS didn’t have copies of the documents?
It was already public knowledge which is why the democrats tried to claim he was born in Canada. Since his parents citizenship did not matter.
Again, no actual FACTS, just rhetoric in support of you contestable position.
You say;
” … Since his parents citizenship did not matter….”
Prove it, show me the law ……….. and NOT an extra-Constitutional law operating in the SOIL of the various States with the authority to naturalize a person at birth in spite of the FACT that the Congress is invested with the sole authority on THAT subject…………
Eat and digest this;
” … Another objection arises from the acknowledged right of emigration, of which, with us, no inhabitant is deprived, while, in many other governments, express permission is necessary; but the error of this consists in supposing that emigration implies the dissolution of allegiance.
Emigration in its general sense, merely signifies removal from one place to another; its strict and more appropriate meaning is the removal of a person, his effects and residence: but in no sense does it imply or require that it should take place with a view to become a subject or citizen of another country.
Motives of health or trade, convenience or pleasure, may lead to emigration; but if a deprivation of citizenship were the necessary and immediate consequence, (and unless it is, the argument is without weight,) emigration would often be a cause of terror and sometimes a punishment, instead of a benefit, in which sense the right is considered.
Those who contend for the affirmative of the proposition, must be able to prove that the quality of citizenship ceases at the moment of departure; that if the emigrant returns he cannot be restored to his former rank, without passing through the regular forms of naturalization; that if real estate had descended upon him during his absence, he could not inherit it without the aid of a law in favour of aliens, and that if the country to which he has removed, becomes engaged in war with us, and he did not choose to remain there, he would be liable on his return, to be treated as an alien enemy. In Virginia, what is termed expatriation is authorized by an act of assembly passed in 1792. This is a fair compact which an independent state has a right to make with its citizens, and amounts to a full release of all future claims against the emigrant who, if taken in war against the state, would not be liable to the charge of treason. But the release is effective only so far as relates to the state which grants it. It does not alter his relation to the United States, and it was questioned in the case of Talbot v. Janson how far such a law would be compatible with the Constitution of the United States … ”
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 84–101 1829 (2d ed.)
Steven said: “I think you are making it up as you go, …. show me a contemporaneous reference to his fathers naturalization status at the time of Lil’ Chet’s birth, …… tic-tock, tic-tock , tic-tock, ……. I’ll wait for it, .. tic-tock, tic-tock , tic-tock, …. tic-tock, tic-tock , tic-tock, …. tic-tock, tic-tock , tic-tock, ..”
You’re the only one making stuff up here which is why you keep getting called out on it.
The democratic opposition sure knew. In fact here is a copy of Hinman’s book:
Click to access HinmanWeb.pdf
From page 82: “City and County of New York, ss
Chester A. Arthur, being duly sworn, says he is a native born
citizen of the United States; that he is of the age of
twenty-one years, and a resident of the First Judicial District
of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
CHESTER A. ARTHUR.
Sworn to before me this 4th day of May, 1854.
WM. A. DUSENBERRY, Com. of Deeds.
Indorsed; filed May 8, 1854.
State of New York,
City and County of New York, \ ss
I, William A. Butler, Clerk of the said City and County,”
From page 88: Talking about the dangers of having dual Irish American citizens as President “PRESIDENT ARTHUR’S MESSAGE SEVERELY CRITICIZED BY
A ST. PETERSBURG JOURNAL-EXCEPTION TAKEN TO
THE CONDITION OF THE JEWS IN RUSSIA.
(By cable to the Herald.)
London, December 12, 1881.
…Arthur even refrains from making comments
on English home affairs–the Irish rebellion, for instance,
which is agitating millions of American citizens, who are
also born Irishmen like the President.”
But the last reference kind of destroys your claim from page 89:
“Senate of the United States
City of Washington, January 10th, 1881.
A. P. HINMAN, E sq., New York.
DEAR SIR :-In response to your letter of the 7th instant-
the term” natural-born citizen,” as used in the Constitution
and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of
the U. S.
The naturalization by law of a father before his child
attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of
such minor.
Yours respectfully,
T. F. BAYARD.”
A letter to a US senator specifically asking about a naturalization of a father before his son. Now why ask the question if Hinman had no clue that Arthur’s father naturalized late?
You fail big time on all counts……..”Lil’ Chet said, as he was being sworn in, that he was “native born” ……. “native born” is NOT synonymous with the requisite circumstances attending the birth of a U.S. natural born Citizen.
“who are also born Irishmen like the President.”, seems to be an admission against self-interest ….
and I find no fault with;
” … in response to your letter of the 7th instant- the term” natural-born citizen,” as used in the Constitution and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of the U. S.
The naturalization by law of a father before his child attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of such minor.
Yours respectfully,
T. F. BAYARD.”
1) Of course a U.S. natural born Citizen, born within or beyond the limits of the U.S. would be a a National of the U.S. and again, “native born” is only one of the attending circumstances, (post January 1795), required to be a U.S. natural born Citizen
2) What does the 1790 et seq Acts and I say regarding; “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise” of course when the father is duly naturalized then so too are his minor children then present, whether foreign or native born.
No where in any Act of the U.S. Congress is the children of alien foreign nationals considered at birth is spite and irrespective of the parents “naturalization” status.
… that is ONLY found in the judicial determination made by Justice penumbra zone Gray in the WKA case and then only is determined to be “collectively naturalized” as a U.S. Citizen.
It takes a swan dive with triple somersaults, back-flips and a belly-flop in order to equate an excluded from U.S. Citizenship by treaty alien foreign national subject of the Emperor of China child of alien foreign national parents present under the terms of treaty also excluded from U. S. Citizenship by same, twice departed and returned excluded by U.S. Citizenship by the Chinese exclusion Act of Congress found to be citizen at birth by retro-application of a provision of an Amendment that did not express intent to Amend a provision of the Executive Articles, incidentally or otherwise and apply the interpretations of interpretations of interpretations of the foreign Queen Anne Statutes of British Nationality devised to facilitate the colonization of foreign lands, including the U.S,, by the British subjects and then conclude that such a child conforms to the Constitutional ideal of a U.S. natural born Citizen….!!! ??? !!!
You can keep that policy of judicial kidnapping of the children of alien foreign nationals and I’ll keep my statutory interpretations of the ACTUAL U.S. Laws, on the subject.
Scott V Sandford not a racist ruling?
From Taney’s opinion: “The words “people of the United States” and “citizens” are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the “sovereign people,” and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.”
“They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics which no one thought of disputing or supposed to be open to dispute, and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.”
Ya, so, you have a problem with the truths of U.S. History….???
Riddle me this, what is your conception of what would have happened had the Court thrown off all Judicial restraint and assumed the power of the Congress and Executive and declared the slaves emancipated and naturalized all at once….?????
Moron………
Ah Scott v Sandford and Minor v Happersett, Birthers two most favorite cases. One led to a civil war and the deaths of over 600,000 Americans, the other deprived women the right to vote for another half century. Both were so bad they were later to be undone by amendments to the Constitution.
News Flash ….. News Flash ….. News Flash ….. News Flash ….. News Flash …..
It takes a Constitutional Amendment to ACTUALLY amend the Constitution under the laws of the Constitution just as Justice Taney implied when he said:
” … It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted. … ” 60 U.S. 393 [pg405]
“You cite cases of State Probate that were required to to settle the Probate under the STATE RETAINED Probate Laws as existed under the English common law. ”
All of which comment on the term Natural Born citizen and somne of which flatly discuss the qualifications to be President, and all of which do so AFTER you claim the law was settled after the 1790 Naturalisation act would have changed the law for all 13 states.
“The fact that it was necessary to reconcile U.S. Citizenship to the state of the British Nationality laws in order to sort out who would inherit and on what terms was based ENTIRELY upon State Law and could have NO effect on the Federal Laws of U.S. Citizenship.”
Gee, thank you for admitting that Calvins Case was binding precident and was regarded as bieng in force in the US. Therefore it is the law you keep asking us to bring to you. Job done, fantasist.
“You offer RHETORIC and Opinions from State Courts on unrelated subjects.
I offer ACTUAL LAW under the Supremacy Clause of the COTUS ….”
Not according to you, you dont.
“While you looking for THAT Law you may want to see where & what the Statute of Limitations resides on the civil offense of Usurpation, and possible criminal offenses of “fraud” in perpetration of it, not to mention the consequences that the Political Will of the People may demand”
You lost your case. I, unlike you, am not in the habit of wasting my time for a fantasy.
” not in the habit of wasting my time for a fantasy.”
The what are you doing here, showing off your anti-Constitutional bona-fides to your 0’bot fellow travelers.
You say; All of which comment on the term Natural Born citizen and somne of which flatly discuss the qualifications to be President, and all of which do so AFTER you claim the law was settled after the 1790 Naturalisation act would have changed the law for all 13 states.
So you are saying that dicta in a State Probate case is controlling of duly enacted Laws of the Congress on the subject of U.S. Citizenship under the authority of A1S8C4 of the COTUS….???
I’m not here to make rationalizations for Judges, Justices or Politicians that speak out of turn or out of their asses.
I have long noted that what people have said and what the law actually is are quite different more often than not.
You say;
“Gee, thank you for admitting that Calvins Case was binding precident and was regarded as bieng in force in the US. Therefore it is the law you keep asking us to bring to you. Job done, fantasist.”(sic)
Moron… binding …??? who, where, when, why, how just for starters…..
No you’re misinterpreting US law. That is when you’re not lying about the cases you try to read.
Hmm so when you claim that Obama isn’t eligible to be president you assume something that isn’t in evidence. Interesting.
Not true, I am basing my position on the “official bio” that states his mommy was Lil’ Stanley Annie and his daddy was the Big “0” and that he was born in HI.
“dual citizen at birth” is inconsistent with the intent of the usage of the term of words “natural born Citizen” in the original sense, before being bastardized by the Queen Anne Statutes of British Nationality devised to accommodate the Colonization of foreign lands by British subjects, in the 1st instant, and the condition of a ‘dual-citizen at birth” was NOT possible,i.e., had no legal status and or acknowledgement, under the 1790 et seq Acts up to the 1922 Cable Act.
However I do not vouch for the “official bio” as being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth………
I don’t mean to imply that Dred Scott and Minor were equally “bad” decisions. Waite at least made a fairly lucid case that suffrage was not one of the privileges and immunities talked about in the 14th Amendment. One thing he certainly did not do was provide a definition of natural born citizen. He in effect said “we ain’t touchin’ that one with a ten foot pole”.
You do know what you quoted from William Rawle doesn’t conform with the claims you’ve been making. In fact just the opposite.
“At least I am interpreting ACTUAL U.S. Law and not the bastardized British statutes of the original natural law.”
Natural Law? You are calling upon the swiss Ghost of the almighty Vattel, arent you.
OH BOY!!!
Lets see what Vattel had to say on this subject, shall we?
Ҥ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. (59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for,[highlight=’Yellow’] civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.[/highlight] But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.”
Wow…. its like… Vattel… was saying that local laws on citizenship must be followed. That means Vattel says you are wrong.
I… cant breath… the shock… all going black….
NO, NO, NO, Uranus,, keep up, I am relying on the actual Laws made in pursuance of the COTUS, and NO OTHERS………….
News Flash ….. News Flash ….. News Flash ….. News Flash ….. News Flash …..
It takes a Constitutional Amendment to ACTUALLY amend the Constitution under the laws of the Constitution just as Justice Waite implied when he said:
“The amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as he already had. No new voters were necessarily made by it. Indirectly it may have had that effect, because it may have increased the number of citizens entitled to suffrage under the constitution and laws of the States, but it operates for this purpose, if at all, through the States and the State laws, and not directly upon the citizen.[pg173]
[snip]
Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.”
The 14th Amendment did not amend the laws of citizenship at birth but only prevented the government and courts from denying that right from all persons, regardless of race or class. It protects the right from the Taney court who ruled that inferior classes could not be citizens, even if born here.
The law of citizenship at birth came from the common law as was understood by those who created and adopted the Constitution. Many colonies/states restated this same law in their own laws and Constitutions. Naturalization laws do not change those born as a citizen, for they were never an alien.
Your favorite Taney quote states nothing about citizneship laws but only Taney’s claim to jurisdiction. Funny how you use Taney’s quote as backing yet, if it were true that the court interprets the original intent of Natural Born Citizenship, that would mean they would interperet the meaning at the writing of the Constitution. It would be the meaning in 1787, not your claimed 1790 meaning. Show us the 2 parent law that pecedes the Constitution.
Really you said: “You fail big time on all counts……..”Lil’ Chet said, as he was being sworn in, that he was “native born” ……. “native born” is NOT synonymous with the requisite circumstances attending the birth of a U.S. natural born Citizen.”
Really that’s not synonymous?
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
Rep. Wilson, 1866 Civil Rights Act debates. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115, 1117 (1866)
“By the common law of England, which is in force in this country, and which may be assumed as also the law of all the European states, persons within the jurisdiction of the government, or limits of the territory, are either natives, or aliens. Natives are those born within the national jurisdiction; aliens are born without that jurisdiction. The exception to this almost universal rule, are the foreign-born children of ambassadors, who are assumed to carry with them the jurisdiction of the nation which they represent. As a general principle of the English and American law, all native-born, free persons, of whatever age, sex, and parentage, are citizens.”
George Washington Paschal, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DEFINED AND CAREFULLY ANNOTATED, (1868)
“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Consitutution, note 274: “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. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”
Sarah Helene Duggin & Mary Beth Collins, ‘Natural Born’ in the USA: The Striking Unfairness and Dangerous Ambiguity of the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause and Why We Need to Fix It, 85 B.U. L. Rev. 53, 90-91 (2005)
“It is now generally assumed that the term “natural born” is synonymous with “native born.” “It [therefore] is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible [for the presidency] and that naturalized citizens are not.” There is a general agreement among commentators, whether or not they are advocates of an originalist approach to constitutional interpretation, that “whether someone born of American parents abroad would be considered a natural born citizen” is an open question.”
Rogers M. Smith, CIVIC IDEALS: CONFLICTING VISIONS OF CITIZENSHIP IN U.S. HISTORY (Yale University Press, 1999)
“It is clear that under the English common law this term ‘natural born’ meant ‘native born.’… It was this genuine ‘native-born’ citizen … to which the framers of the Constitution referred when they used the term ‘natural-born citizens’ as one of the qualifications for the President”
January 28, 1838, Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838)
“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… 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. ”
Theodore Dwight, Edward Dwight, Commentaries on the law of persons and personal property, pg. 125 (1894)
“Citizens may be divided into two classes : natural born and alien born. Natural-born citizens are of two kinds: native born—those born of either American or alien parents within the jurisdiction of the United Slates, and foreign born—those born of American parents without the Jurisdiction of the United States.”
Steve says: “Ya, so, you have a problem with the truths of U.S. History….???
Riddle me this, what is your conception of what would have happened had the Court thrown off all Judicial restraint and assumed the power of the Congress and Executive and declared the slaves emancipated and naturalized all at once….?????
Moron………”
Again you’re projecting. You’re the one claiming history is wrong here and that only you are the final arbiter of who can be President. The problem is US History has declared you wrong.
Remind us how many times you’ve won in court based on your beliefs on who can be President?
I notice you still veered off from your comments on Vilsack where you magically claimed Vilsack would be eligible because he was adopted despite no one knowing the citizenship status of his real parents.
Oh and the death of the father before the child was born, you never addressed that with your crazy ideas.
Steven claimed: “Not true, I am basing my position on the “official bio” that states his mommy was Lil’ Stanley Annie and his daddy was the Big “0” and that he was born in HI.
And? He was a natural born citizen. Really where are you pulling that one out of? Spiro Agnew Nixon’s VP had dual citizenship all the way up to him being VP. You can’t be VP if you can’t be President. Thus it destroys your claim.
There was no “bastardization”
Which of the queen anne statues made the change? What year was that? You keep making the claim without giving the chapter and title
You really are claiming people had no legal status when they had dual citizenship?
ALL of the statutes of Queen Anne were devised to facilitate the Colonization of Foreign Lands and her underlying premise when sorting out the high-born landed lords and the foot soldiers and indigenous native was the axiom; ” Wherever there is an Englishman, there too is England”…… and that is how you get a British National as a “foreign born natural born citizen” on American soil ….. and how, under the British Statutes the SOIL of the Colonial States MADE any child born a British subject………….
But that conflicts with your notion so just ignore the truth………
In 1875, U.S. Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont was presented with a query from the Secretary of State, Hamilton Fish. A young man, named Arthur Steinkauler,[22] had been born in Missouri in 1855, a year after his father was naturalized a U.S. citizen. When he was four years old, his father returned to Germany with him and both had stayed there ever since. The father has relinquished his American citizenship. Now the young man is 20 years old and about to be drafted into the German army. What is this young man’s situation as a native-born American citizen? After studying the relevant legal authorities, Pierrepont wrote:[23]
Under the treaty [of 1868 with Germany], and in harmony with American doctrine, it is clear that Steinkauler the father abandoned his naturalization in America and became a German subject (his son being yet a minor), and that by virtue of German laws the son acquired German nationality. It is equally clear that the son, by birth, has American nationality, and hence he has two nationalities, one natural, the other acquired. …. Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of 21, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States …. I am of opinion that when he reaches the age of 21 years he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth, with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father.
Dual citizenship, Daddy renoiunced US citizenship while kid still a minor, Stienkauler described as a Native born US citizen but described as still eligible for presidency.
Fact is that there is pretty much zero authority in hostory that agrees with you. You accept Scot V Sandford but no other Supreme court decision applys in your fantasy mind.
“” not in the habit of wasting my time for a fantasy.”
The what are you doing here, showing off your anti-Constitutional bona-fides to your 0’bot fellow travelers.”
Nope, I’m amusing myself. You are the one that took your fantasies before a court of law ajnd lost.
“You say; All of which comment on the term Natural Born citizen and somne of which flatly discuss the qualifications to be President, and all of which do so AFTER you claim the law was settled after the 1790 Naturalisation act would have changed the law for all 13 states.
So you are saying that dicta in a State Probate case is controlling of duly enacted Laws of the Congress on the subject of U.S. Citizenship under the authority of A1S8C4 of the COTUS….???”
I’m showing off how pretty much every single court ruling and every single writer on the law interpreted ” the authority of A1S8C4 of the COTUS” And it wasn’t JUST ONE CASE, so your yammering about “dicta in a State Probate case ” is complete BS. It was several cases. And I ahvent shown you all of my collection yet.
You have shown nothing, because they all disagree with you.
The boy was a U.S. Citizen and a U.S natural born Citizen at birth under the established uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}) naturalization that provides, “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise” by virtue of the facts presented, i.e.,
………………………………….Arthur Steinkauler,[22] had been born in Missouri in 1855, a year after his father was naturalized a U.S. citizen……….”
…. that is assuming that he was born to the legal wife of the father ……..
………..while still a minor his father renounced U.S. Citizenship and reclaimed his German Citizenship which would have NO effect on the boy’s U.S. Citizenship in and of its self…… should the boy renounce or join an enemy army in conflict with the U.S. there would be issues to litigate ….
You obviously are not taking the time to understand what I am saying ….
In fact, heres more “Dicta in a state probate case” for you to ignore.
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789
“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795)
“that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”
Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805)
“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”
Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806)
“Our statutes recognize alienage and its effects, but have not defined it. We must therefore look to the common law for its definition. By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth ; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.” “This claim of the commonwealth to the allegiance of all persons born within its territories, may subject some persons who, adhering to their former sovereign and residing within his dominions, are recognized by him as his subjects, to great inconvenience, especially in time of war, when two opposing sovereigns may claim their allegiance. But the inconvenience cannot alter the law of the land. If they return to the country of their birth, they will be protected as subjects.”
Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813).
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826)
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign….That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
Justice Story, concurring opinion,Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)
“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”
Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)
“From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law, unless where they were prevented from becoming citizens by the constitution or statutes of the place of their birth.”
American Jurist and Law Magazine, January, 1834
“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838)
“It requires all senators to be thirty years old, and prohibits any but a natural born subject from being president.”
State v. Foreman, 16 Tenn. 256, 335–36 (1835).
“and that no person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.”
The Law Library, Vol. 84, pg. 50 (1854)
“The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution, and, by that principle, the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned, such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States. The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle…. But the law of France rejects the principle of the English law, and of our own laws, that birth within the limits and jurisdiction of France, makes a Frenchman, or a natural-born citizen or subject of France, absolutely,…”
Horace Binney, American Law Register, 2 Amer.Law Reg.193, 203, 204, 206, 208 (February 1854).
“Alligience”: It is natural, acquired, or local. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the United States; acquired allegiance is that which is due by a naturalized citizen. It has never been decided whether a citizen can, by expatriation, divest himself absolutely of that character.
Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843)
“That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”
January 28, 1838, Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838)
“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… 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. ”
Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)
“Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”
Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)
“It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.”
The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)
“This is called becoming naturalized; that is, becoming entitled to all the rights and privileges of natural born citizens, or citizens born in this country.”
Andrew White Young, First lessons in Civil Government, pg. 82 (1856).
“The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”
Justice Curtis, dissenting, Dredd Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).
“The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. …” ‘
Attorney General Bates, Opinion of Citizenship, (1862)
“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. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”
Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)
“in like manner every one who first saw the light on the American soil was a natural-born citizen ; but the power of naturalization, which, under the king, each colony had claimed to regulate by its own laws, remained under the confederacy with the separate states.”
George Bancroft, History of the United States, from the Discovery of the American Continent: The American Revolution., pg. 439 (1866)
“Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution…Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the King; and aliens are such as are born out of it.” …… “It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, ‘founded in reason and the nature of government’ … The English Law made no distinction … in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward.” ‘
Rep. Wilson, 1866 Civil Rights Act debates. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115, 1117 (1866)
“By the common law of England, which is in force in this country, and which may be assumed as also the law of all the European states, persons within the jurisdiction of the government, or limits of the territory, are either natives, or aliens. Natives are those born within the national jurisdiction; aliens are born without that jurisdiction. The exception to this almost universal rule, are the foreign-born children of ambassadors, who are assumed to carry with them the jurisdiction of the nation which they represent. As a general principle of the English and American law, all native-born, free persons, of whatever age, sex, and parentage, are citizens.”
John Norton Pomeroy, Introduction to Municipal Law, pg. 419 (1865)
“As matter of law, does anybody deny here, or anywhere, that the native-born is a citizen, and a citizen by virtue of his birth alone ?”
Senator Morrill, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. p. 570 (1866).
“Mr. Thayer, of Pennsylvania, said that the bill was an enactment simply declaring that all men born upon the soil of the United States shall enjoy the fundamental rights of citizenship.”
Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 1151 (1866).
“What is a citizen but a human being who, by reason of his being born within the jurisdiction of a government, owes allegiance to that government?”
Congressman Broomall, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 1262 (1866).
“A Natural Born Citizen.” — Not made by law or otherwise, but born… “Natural Born Citizen” recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born to a country do constitute the nation, and, as individual, are natural members of the body politic…Every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen.”
George Washington Paschal, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DEFINED AND CAREFULLY ANNOTATED, (1868)
“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Consitutution, note 274: “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. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”
Sen. Trumbull (author or the Civil Rights Act of 1866), April 11, 1871, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
“All persons born in the limits and under the actual obedience of the United States were its “natural-born citizens”; and it is in this sense that the phrase is used in section one of article two of the constitution.”
John Joseph Lalor, Cyclopædia of political science, political economy, and of the political history of the United States, Volume 2, pg. 948 (1883)
“So, also, any person born of a foreign father in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, may be a natural- born American citizen, if he choose. In these doubtful cases the person may choose the country of his father or the country of his birth. So that a person may be a natural-born citizen of the United States, without being a native of the United States.”
Albert Orville Wright, An Exposition on the Constitution of the United States, (31st Ed.) (1888).
“There is no uniform rule among nations by which the nationality of effect of birth a person may be determined from the place of his birth. England and America claim all who are born within their dominions as natural-born subjects or citizens, whatever may have been the parents’ nationality.”
Henry Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 1889 edition.
“Natural-born Citizens, those that are born within the jurisdiction of a national government; i.e., in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens, temporarily residing abroad.”
William Cox Cochran, The student’s law lexicon: a dictionary of legal words and phrases : with appendices, Pg. 185 (1888
“Citizens are either natural-born or naturalized. One who is born in the United States or under its jurisdiction is a natural-born citizen without reference to the nationality of his parents. Their presence here constitutes a temporary allegiance, sufficient to make a child a citizen.”
Theodore Dwight, Edward Dwight, Commentaries on the law of persons and personal property, pg. 125 (1894)
“Citizens may be divided into two classes : natural born and alien born. Natural-born citizens are of two kinds: native born—those born of either American or alien parents within the jurisdiction of the United Slates, and foreign born—those born of American parents without the Jurisdiction of the United States.”
John Clark Ridpath, The standard American encyclopedia of arts, sciences, history, biography, geography, statistics, and general knowledge, Volume 8, pg 3058 (1897).
“The children of aliens, born in America or in England, are entitled to all the privileges of natural-born citizens.”
William Story, Edmund Bennett, A treatise on the law of sales of personal property, pg. 17 (1871)
“The common law rule upon the subject of citizenship by birth 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 under the articles of confederation, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally adopted;8 with this qualification, however, that, prior to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution, neither the negroes of the African race, who, at the time of the Declaration of Independence, had been imported into this country and sold and held as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were embraced within the rule.
Chrisenberry Lee Bates, Federal Procedure at Law: A Treatise on the Procedure in Suits at Common Law, pg. 195 (1908).
“[t]he 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….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…The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,654 (1898)
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. 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.”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,658 (1898)
“The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle. Binney on Alienigenae, 14, 20; 2 Amer.Law Reg.199, 203…Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,671,673 (1898)
“the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,693 (1898)
“It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations….There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there as any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion….Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty…..So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649, 666, 668, 673, 674 (1898).
“Every person born -within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen, within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity. Town of New Hartford v. Town of Canaan, 5 Atl. SCO, 3(!4, 54 Conn. 39 (citing Rawle, Const. U. S. p. 86). See also. Lynch v. Clarke (N. Y.) 1 Sandf. Ch. 584, 2 Kent, Comni. (9th Ed.): McKay v. Campbell (U. S.) 16 Fed. Cas. 157; Field, Int Code, 132; Morse, Citizenship, 203).”
Judicial and Statutory Definitions of Words and Phrases, pg. 4664 (1904)
“As anyone born in the dominion of the king was ipso facto the king’s subject, so anyone born on American soil now became a natural born American citizen.”
Samuel Macclintock, Alienage And Citizenship, Illinios Law review, pg.503 (1908)
“The rule of the common law is that citizenship turns upon the place of birth, and that one born within the jurisdiction, even though of alien parents, is a citizen by birth, or, as the Constitution expresses it, a natural-born citizen; and this rule has been very generally recognized and enforced by all the departments of the government.”
Raleigh C. Minor, Address on the Citizenship of Individuals …, PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW (1910)
“NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. A natural-born citizen of the United States is one who is a citizen by reason of his place of birth or the citizenship of his father. The two classes of naturalized and natural born citizens are thus mutually exclusive, and together constitute the entire citizen body of the United States. ”
Andrew C. McLaughlin & Albert Bushnell Hart ( Ed.), CYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT Vol. 2 (1914).
“NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. A person whose citizenship derives from the nation where he or she was born.”
Kenneth Robert Redden, Enid Veron, Modern Legal Glossary, pg. 263 (1980)
“Natural-born citizens can acquire that status by being born in the United States, on the basis of jus soli…”
William Carroll, Norman Smith, American Constitutional Rights: cases, documents, and commentary, pg. 130 (1991)
“The requirement that the president be a “natural born” citizen implies that the framers recognized the principle of jus soli. According to this doctrine – literally meaning the “right to land or ground” – citizenship results from birth within a national territory.
Kermit Hall, The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, pg. 24 (1992)
“Americans are accustomed to the concept of automatic citizenship granted to persons born in the United States, who are called “natural-born citizens…”
Joseph M. Bessette, American Justice, Volume 1 – Page 129 (1996
“Natural-born citizens are people born in the United States.”
David Heath, the Presidency of the United States, pg. 8 (1999)
“Natural Born Citizenship Clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency.”
Black’s Law Dictionary, eigth edition (1999)
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court relied on English common law regarding jus soli to inform the meaning of “citizen” in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born-citizenship requirement of Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship through jus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution. ”
Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born in the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”
Statement of Senator Orrin Hatch, United States Senate Judiciary Committee, October 5, 2004.
“It is clear that a child born within the physical borders of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is eligible to run for President.”
Statement of Senator Nickles, United sates Senate Judiciary Commitee, October 5, 2004.
“If the Panama Canal Zone was sovereign U.S. territory at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, then that fact alone would make him a “natural born” citizen under the well-established principle that “natural born” citizenship includes birth within the territory and allegiance of the United States…”
Letter by Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe, reported in 154 Cong. Rec. S3645-46 (Apr. 30, 2008).
“United States citizens born to parents subject to United States jurisdiction in one of the fifty states are unquestionably natural born citizens. Even the narrowest reading of the Fourteenth Amendment dictates that all current states are in the United States. This is true regardless of parental citizenship, unless a child’s parents are protected by the full immunity extended to foreign diplomats and their families, or they are enemy combatants.”
Sarah Helene Duggin & Mary Beth Collins, ‘Natural Born’ in the USA: The Striking Unfairness and Dangerous Ambiguity of the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause and Why We Need to Fix It, 85 B.U. L. Rev. 53, 90-91 (2005).
“United States citizens born to parents subject to United States jurisdiction in one of the fifty states are unquestionably natural born citizens. Even the narrowest reading of the Fourteenth Amendment dictates that all current states are in the United States. This is true regardless of parental citizenship, unless a child’s parents are protected by the full immunity extended to foreign diplomats and their families, or they are enemy combatants.”
Sarah Helene Duggin & Mary Beth Collins, ‘Natural Born’ in the USA: The Striking Unfairness and Dangerous Ambiguity of the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause and Why We Need to Fix It, 85 B.U. L. Rev. 53, 90-91 (2005)
“It is now generally assumed that the term “natural born” is synonymous with “native born.” “It [therefore] is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible [for the presidency] and that naturalized citizens are not.” There is a general agreement among commentators, whether or not they are advocates of an originalist approach to constitutional interpretation, that “whether someone born of American parents abroad would be considered a natural born citizen” is an open question.”
Lawrence Freedman, An Idea Whose Time Has Come–The Curious History, Uncertain Effect, and Need for Amendment of the “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement for the Presidency, 52 St. Louis U. L.J. 137, 143 (2007)
“The most straightforward argument is that “natural born” was a well recognized term of art, based upon the most commonly applied principle of traditional British common law dating from the 16th century. These distinguished between citizenship by birth and being “natural born” for purposes of such questions as the right to inherit and the right to hold certain offices. Under those common law rules children of British citizens born anywhere other than on English soil generally were eligible for birthright citizenship; however, they didn’t generally inherit their English parents own “natural-born” status. Because of these disabilities, Parliament made occasional exceptions, granting some (but not all) of the rights of “natural born” citizens to persons born overseas. If we applied the common law rules in force at the time of the Founding, McCain fails to meet the “natural born” requirement for the Presidency. John McCain was not born on American soil; rather, he was born at a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone.”
J. Rebekka Bonner, “Why John McCain Needs The Living Constitution” on Balkinization, May 15, 2008
“The undebated provision that the President be “natural born” was, however, again ambiguous. As Madison observed in 1789, there were two conceptions of citizenship by birth available to the framers. Birth derived its “force” as a “criterian of allegiance … sometimes from place,” as in the common-law tradition of jus soli expounded by Coke and Blackstone, and “sometimes from parentage,” from birth to one or more citizens, a position known as the jus sanguinis and endorsed by Vattel and Burlamaqui…..But in keeping with the nativistic tone of the debate over these clauses, and not with the Constitution’s predominant liberal republicanism, it was almost certainly the common-law criterion of place of birth that the delegates meant to install, as Madison later asserted. It thus perpetuated the older view of “natural” civic membership in a way that conformed to xenophobic sentiments.”
Rogers M. Smith, CIVIC IDEALS: CONFLICTING VISIONS OF CITIZENSHIP IN U.S. HISTORY (Yale University Press, 1999)
“It is clear that under the English common law this term ‘natural born’ meant ‘native born.’… It was this genuine ‘native-born’ citizen … to which the framers of the Constitution referred when they used the term ‘natural-born citizens’ as one of the qualifications for the President”
McElwee, unpublished article reprinted in 113 Cong. Rec. 15,875 at 15,876 (1967)
“Native: A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to.”
Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Addition (1994).
“Throughout this country’s history, the fundamental legal principle governing citizenship has been that birth within the territorial limits of the United States confers United States citizenship. The Constitution itself rests on this principle of the common law. …The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was meant to reflect the existing common law exception for discrete sets of persons who were deemed subject to a foreign sovereign and immune from U.S. laws, principally children born in the United States of foreign diplomats, with the single additional exception of children of members of Indian tribes. Apart from these extremely limited exceptions, there can be no question that children born in the United States of aliens are subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. And, as consistently recognized by courts and Attorneys General for over a century, most notably by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, (6) there is no question that they possess constitutional citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Walter Dellinger (AAG), Statement before the Subcommittees on Immigration and Claims and on the Constitution of the House Committee on the Judiciary (Dec. 13, 1995)
I have a 342 page brief that supports my position, which I am slowly distilling to 100 proof under the Rules of the court……….
I understand how you could have been so poorly misled on the subject, the issue of State vs Federal Laws was still being sorted out even after the 1795 Act, which attempted to put THAT issue to rest with the words……..” …. , and not otherwise.”
Full text for context;
“… SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: —
Believe me, I understand it is an uphill battle with one (1) entire political party in opposition and 1/2 of another with the Country flooded with alien foreign nationals, present legally and otherwise and “anchor-baby” citizenship by policy and single parent households all across the society spectrum……….
…….. but “to support, protect and defend the Constitution” means BOTH in the easy times AND in the difficult times………
SHOW ME THE ACTUAL LAW, you rely on enacted in pursuance of the COTUS………
Steven “the Asshole” Craig said:
Not true, I am basing my position on the “official bio” that states his mommy was Lil’ Stanley Annie and his daddy was the Big “0” and that he was born in HI.
You know I am getting tired of your disrespect for the duly elected President of the United States and his family members. It is bad enough that assholes like you wanted to nullify my vote in the last two elections. I don’t have to put up with your childish crap like this on my blog. Either knock it off or your ass is banned.
Well, if you’re getting tired go take a long nap, a generation or two would be good…….
…….. I am NOT disrespectful of the Office of POTUS, but I do find it disrespectful for a usurper to occupy it…… a usurper is a usurper regardless of being elected or by force of arms and deserves NO respect under the Constitution ….. he is a snake that has crawled through the legal loop hole of manufactured ambiguity and is sustained by 0bot sycophants that are mostly true believer liberal-progressive-dem0rat-socialist-communist-jihadists-utopianists that are all in on destroying the Constitutional Republic….
But, you have a Constitutional right of assembly ….. which of the special interest minorities are you ……
Steven said: “NO, NO, NO, Uranus,, keep up, I am relying on the actual Laws made in pursuance of the COTUS, and NO OTHERS………….”
If you’re relying on that then how come you lost in court?
ASSHOLE……………….How many times do I have to tell you that I have NEVER argued this proposition of Constitutional law in ANY Court………… I am preparing a brief, checking it twice, & if I get enough loot I’ll give it a shot……..but I haven’t done it yet with this proposition of law pleading…….
So stick your invectives up your ……..oh, wait, your head is already there……….
Steven said: “ALL of the statutes of Queen Anne were devised to facilitate the Colonization of Foreign Lands and her underlying premise when sorting out the high-born landed lords and the foot soldiers and indigenous native was the axiom; ” Wherever there is an Englishman, there too is England”…… and that is how you get a British National as a “foreign born natural born citizen” on American soil ….. and how, under the British Statutes the SOIL of the Colonial States MADE any child born a British subject………….”
Such as? I notice I’ve asked you multiple times and you have yet to produce any law any chapter and verse no quotes nothing. Just you repeating “queen anne statutes” as if it meant anything outside of your fevered imagination.
Sorry but the truth conflicts with your delusions.
See, you don’t even know the source of your premise …………no, you go find them for yourself ………luckily I saved a copy when I finally found them and the next day the site was down and wayback was wiped clean too, or at least I could not find it again………..like that with a lot of stuff that I have, especially certain SCOTUS cases that can not be found on the net anymore …..
Hint; many of he Queen Anne Statutes were originally made as “private laws”, a privilege of the Monarch to convey certain favors to anyone they want. Many were found to be useful in more general applications and adopted by the Parliament ……….
Steven claimed: “You obviously are not taking the time to understand what I am saying ….”
Because what you’ve said has been so dishonest and duplicitous. Not one thing you’ve said has been factual.