Posted on 05/19/2010 12:12:23 PM PDT by patlin
A “natural born subject” under English common law could never renounce his or her allegiance. Mannie Brown explained the “old common-law doctrine Nemo potest exuere patriam by quoting Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case: “Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign. This ligeance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every subject; for as soon as he is born he oweth by birth-right ligeance and obedience to his Sovereign.” Mannie Brown, Expatriation of Infants, University of Toronto Press 97 (1939). But as we have seen above, in his 1799 citizenship law Jefferson wrote that a person could exercise his “natural right of expatriating himself” “whensoever” he saw fit to do so. Jefferson included in his law a right in a person to relinquish his citizenship in a manner prescribed by law. This right was known as the right to expatriate which was not only alien to English common law but forbidden by it. Jefferson’s idea that a person could renounce allegiance to the country of his or her birth was so accepted by early Congresses and society that Congress codified this right by passing the Naturalization Act of 1795 (1 Stat. 414, c. 20), which provided persons naturalizing in the United States to absolutely renounce and abjure all allegiance to any foreign prince or state and to support the Constitution. Over the years, there continued a debate in the courts whether an American citizen could expatriate himself or herself. The matter was finally settled in 1868, when Congress passed the Expatriation Act of 1868 and Representative Woodward of Pennsylvania proclaimed that by doing so Congress had driven feudalism from our shores.
(Excerpt) Read more at puzo1.blogspot.com ...
As I have always said, this entire argument comes down to allegiance. Mario, in bringing forward yet more historical evidence & words of the founders clearly shows that allegiance is derived from natural law pertaining to the sovereign. Well, there we have it. The English feudal common law was written after the Norman Conquest, the feudal law implemented took the sovereignty away from the individual and placed it soley in the king, prince or monarch. The framers rightfully gave the sovereignty back to the individual person. Therefore, allegiance can not be passed onto children if it is not 1st possessed to by the parent. In naturtal law, an alien possesses no allegiance to a foreign sovereign and thus can not pass an allegiance to a foreign sovereign on to their descedents. Allegiance comes either through birth or naturalization and unless & until an alien is naturalized, their children remain aliens per the laws of nature and laws of nations & most of all the US Constitution.
Jefferson’s views on a person having a right to expatriate reveal that he looked to natural law and the law of nations and Vattel rather than the English common law on questions of citizenship. In a letter dated June 12, 1817, to Dr. John Manners, Jefferson made his views on whether the English common law applied to such questions well known:
“To Doctor John Manners.
Monticello, June 12, 1817.
SIR
Your favor of May 20th has been received some time since, but the increasing inertness of age renders me slow in obeying the calls of the writing table, and less equal than I have been to its labors.
My opinion on the right of Expatriation has been, so long ago as the year 1776, consigned to record in the act of the Virginia code, drawn by myself, recognizing the right expressly, and prescribing the mode of exercising it. The evidence of this natural right, like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of kings. If he has made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, he has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode; and we may safely call on the whole body of English jurists to produce the map on which Nature has traced, for each individual, the geographical line which she forbids him to cross in pursuit of happiness. It certainly does not exist in his mind. Where, then, is it? I believe, too, I might safely affirm, that there is not another nation, civilized or savage, which has ever denied this natural right. I doubt if there is another which refuses its exercise. I know it is allowed in some of the most respectable countries of continental Europe, nor have I ever heard of one in which it was not. How it is among our savage neighbors, who have no law but that of Nature, we all know. . . . “ http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/jefferson/1817.html. We can see how Jefferson was clear in stating the right to expatriate, like the right to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness, was a natural right that came from God and not from the English common law. He also explained that the English common law was adopted by the states and was applied by them on local issues. But when it came to the national government, he stated that no such law was adopted. Hence, the right to expatriate could have come only from natural law rather than the English common law. As he applied natural law to the question of expatriation, he would have also applied it to defining a “natural born Citizen.” These historical writing show that Jefferson surely would not have considered a “natural born Citizen” to have the same meaning as an English common law “natural born subject.”
Ping
PING!
Yawn...
Mario Apuzzo continues to do a wonderful job selling his case to people who want to believe Obama is ineligible to hold office.
Col.Lakin has his case right in this essay. Mario and Leo are soooooo smart!
FAM EXHIBIT 1292
A SAMPLE LETTER TO ACCOMPANY CLN (Certificate of Loss of Nationality) FOR MINOR RENUNCIANTS
(CT:CON-285; 03-06-2009)
Post Letterhead
Date
Dear (NAME):
Every U.S. citizen has the right to renounce voluntarily and
intentionally his or her citizenship, as you have done. Because this is a very
serious decision with consequences that may not have been apparent to you
at the time, the law gives persons like yourself who renounced under the
age of 18 an opportunity to reevaluate your decision when you reach the
age of 18.
Section 351(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S. Code
1483) allows you to reclaim your U.S. citizenship within 6 months after your
18th birthday. You are advised to make a note of the deadline to reclaim
automatically your U.S. citizenship: the deadline is [insert date six months
from 18th birthday.] You may do so by going to any U.S. embassy or
consulate or passport acceptance facility, execute a passport application and
take an oath of allegiance to the United States. Under this law, if you make
such a claim, you will be considered as never having renounced your U.S.
citizenship.
Just like the decision to renounce your citizenship, the decision to
reclaim it is yours alone. No one, including the U.S. Government, any other
government, or even your own family can make the decision for you. Please
keep this in mind as you consider whether you may want to make a claim of
citizenship once you become 18.
The U.S. Government and the Department of State do not wish to
influence your decision. We just want to make sure that you know that you
have the right to reconsider and “take back” this decision upon reaching the
age of 18. Because this is a very important right that you retain, we ask
that you keep this letter with your Certificate of Loss of Nationality should
you wish to take advantage of this right when you reach the age of 18. The
Department of State will also keep a complete record of your renunciation as
well as this letter. Please remember that the period to automatically reclaim
citizenship expires on [date].
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact (NAME) at
(phone number). You may also contact the U.S. Department of State, Office
of American Citizens Services and Crisis Management at any time. That
office can be reached at 202-647-5225.
Sincerely,
SIGNATURE OF CONSULAR OFFICER
TYPED NAME OF CONSULAR OFFICER
TITLE OF CONSULAR OFFICER
Thanks. bookmarking for future reference.
That's okay ... we're on the same team ;)
I've stated my opinion on this forum countless times. Plus, why do you care what I think? You should care what people in positions of power and influence think and, best I can tell, none of them are buying this nonsense.
Wake me up when someone outside of the birther circus starts buying what Apuzzo is selling. A Federal judge, a State Attorney General, a member of Congress, someone with the power to take this and run with it. Until then, it's just noise on the internet.
Hence, the "yawn..."
You really didn't think they were working alone did you?
The case is plainly and clearly made here and elsewhere.
Remove the poseur from the building in handcuffs, have Plugs Biden step in and Constitutionality is restored.
Oh yeah, trials and imprisonment for all those who aided and abetted the usurpation. Just because it would be cataclysmic does not mean it should not be done. Uphold the law,even in times of danger and strife, or the law does not matter ever.
I don't see where anyone pinged you, thus waking you up and inviting you to this discussion so what is your real excuse for entering this discussion; other than to sound like a blathering idiot drone who is still drunk on the 2008 koolaide of ‘won’ natural born British Subject.
Of course, I sometimes forget that only groupthink is allowed on birther threads.
My mistake.
Please return to high-fiving each other over what a successful effort Apuzzo is accomplishing towards removing Obama from office.
Oh I hear ya. I don’t care about the credit, but I most certainly care
about the end result ... seeing Obama do a perp walk.
Absolutely correct.
I disagree with the way the author presents this argument, and I strongly object to the notion that only an Obama supporter would challenge his position.
Much of American law was derived from English common law. But it does not follow that anything said to be derived from common law should be seen as "the exact same thing," because that ignores the fact that common law was modified in the colonies and in the writing of the Constitution.
The most basic principle of citizenship under common law is that someone born within the nation's borders is, at birth, a citizen. The Constitution doesn't limit natural born citizenship by defining it, so the best definition we have is that a natural born citizen is one who is not naturalized, but a citizen by birth.
You'll have a very hard time convincing any court otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.