Posted on 04/12/2013 8:22:32 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
And once again, you bald-face lie. There is no ambiguity in John Bingham's statement, and your attempt to assert that it isn't clear, is in fact another blatant lie. It cannot be made MORE CLEAR. What does he have to do? Draw you a f***ing diagram?
All from other lands, who by the terms of your laws and compliance with their provisions become naturalized, and are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.
John Bingham is explicitly acknowledging the Jus Sanguinus Allegiance in regards to citizenship.
Fact is, I haven't dodged the full words of Bingham or anybody else. I'm the one who's posted most of what early authorities had to say about natural born citizenship and Presidential eligibility. It certainly hasn't come from you, because the vast majority of what was said doesn't agree with your BS claims.
And here you go again, Still calling your collection of post hoc LAWYERS "Authorities" on what the Delegates enacted into law. Virtually nothing from the Delegates themselves, but we sure get to hear what the LAWYERS thought regarding events to which they did not take part!
Ha! The part you left out was certainly relevant to the meaning of what Madison was saying, and not in a way that was favorable to what you were trying to claim.
And you are utterly full of sh*t. Let us examine your claim. This is what I posted.
I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States.
And this is what I omitted.
The Constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject.
And this is what I posted:
If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed.
And this is what I omitted.
An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and obligations.
The Green parts mean almost the exact f***ing same thing, and the blue parts mean almost the exact f***ing same thing as well. They are so close in meaning, it is obvious to anyone that you and "ha ha" are intentionally fabricating your "horror". I knew immediately that "ha ha" was simply trying to project fake outrage, and that's why I said "prick." The left out parts were redundant. The only part that isn't is this:
There is no Declaration of Rights; and the Laws of the general Government being paramount to the Laws & Constitution of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no Security. Nor are the people secured even in the Enjoyment of the Benefits of the common-Law which stands here upon no other Foundation than it's having been adopted by the respective Acts forming the Constitutions of the several States.
Which I regarded at the time as neither supporting or opposing my point, which is that the Common Law of England was not adopted en masse. We kept bits and pieces, and threw out the rest. If anything, this omitted passage FURTHER supports my point! What was Mason complaining about? THAT WE WEREN'T KEEPING THE COMMON LAW!!!!!
So once more, I have demonstrated to any rational person that you two are so full of fake outrage you should go audition for a Democrat Protest event!
No. He came along with a "transparent attempt" to call you out for your obvious hypocrisy.
Man, have you have got some real chutzpah. It takes a lot of brass to lie so shamelessly, but we've become accustomed to this sort of deceit from you.
Yes, it becomes clear that a BUNCH OF LAWYERS, who had nothing to do with Writing the US Constitution have badly distorted what was the correct understanding of the founder's intent, because they insisted on substituting English Common law principles into a document which blatantly and pointedly rebuked the very basis of such law. Monarchical authority and feudal custom.
You just keep reading excerpts from the echo chamber of disconnected Lawyers.
Your claim that “natural born citizen” requires both being born on US soil, and having citizen parents when you’re born, is absolute, total, complete BS.
So you've said from the beginning, yet you keep getting surprised by evidence to the contrary.
And there’s no real ambiguity about that in history.
Why absolutely! The British Trained lawyers are all very adamant in their misunderstanding of the US Constitution. It's a shame that none of them can claim to actually KNOW what it means, and those who can don't seem to be among your supporters.
There are a few people who actually did maintain otherwise - a VERY, VERY few - but most of those really didn’t know what they were talking about, and the extremely few who did were completely overruled by far more authoritative figures.
Franklin, Washington, Madison, Monroe, Hamilton, Wilson, Ingersoll, Pickney, Armstrong were involved in the Deliberations. How many delegates do YOU have on your list of cites? I haven't even mentioned John Jay, Daniel Webster, Thomas Otis, Dr. David Ramsey, and others as well.
YOU are the one that has precious little support for your stupid English Common Law theory. Under English Common Law, the ducking stool, drawing and quartering, and burning were acceptable punishments, as was the "Corruption of Blood". All were explicitly rejected by the US Constitution.
Here, let me show you.
Amendment 8.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
Article 3, section 3.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
As Madison had said:
What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.”
None of whom as far as I'm aware, EXCEPT for Ramsay (who was voted down 36 to 1 by a group that included 6 Framers of the Constitution), EVER stated that it took birth on US soil plus US citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
EVER.
Franklin and Washington hung out with William Rawle, who absolutely contradicts you. Washington tried to make him Attorney General of the United States.
Madison says there are two criteria for the kind of allegiance that produces citizenship, but in general, place of birth is "the most certain" and is "WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES."
He also led the b****-slap of Ramsay's citizenship claims.
Monroe, as far as anybody can tell, had nothing to say on the matter, except that James McClure was a United States citizen, and the reason his administration gave for that was that he was born in Charleston, South Carolina.
NOT that he was born in Charleston, South Carolina of a US citizen parent. But simply that he was born in South Carolina, once again flatly contradicting your BS claim.
Hamilton told us that when we wanted to understand the terms that were written in the Constitution (such as "natural born,") we should look to the English common law. And by the common law, any child born in the country was "natural born," as long as his parents were in the country legally, whether his parents were aliens or not.
John Jay said nothing except that the command-in-chief should not be given to anyone except a natural BORN citizen, emphasizing BORN.
Sorry, but you're full of crap, and you've been called on it.
You know, this is about the most idiotic thing I've heard.
You and your ilk have presented literally dozens of fallacious arguments, cherry-pickings, and quote-twistings, and darn littler GENUINE "evidence to the contrary."
When it comes to early America, against the 30 or so GENUINE quotes that I've produced that show what the founding generation believed a natural born citizen was, and what was required for Presidential eligibility, I can think of only 3 bits of LEGITIMATE "evidence to the contrary" that you've ever produced.
David Ramsay, who was voted down 36 to 1 by Madison and a group including 5 other Framers.
Samuel Roberts, an obscure several-counties judge who was completely contradicted by far more widely recognized and higher-level authority such as Rawle and St. George Tucker.
And finally, the pseudonymous writer "Publius" who hesitatingly put forth his opinion that James McClure was not a citizen, admitting that he might well be wrong, and who was flatly contradicted by President Monroe's administration, which declared that McClure was a US citizen solely on the basis of his birth in Charleston.
YOU are the one that has precious little support for your stupid English Common Law theory. Under English Common Law, the ducking stool, drawing and quartering, and burning were acceptable punishments, as was the "Corruption of Blood". All were explicitly rejected by the US Constitution.
The support is only virtually every legal expert or historical authority who has ever spoken on the topic in all of history, including friends of the Framers, legal experts writing on what the Constitution meant, and judges who have analyzed the law and rendered opinions on the meaning of the term.
As for the rest of it, wow. Congratulations. You've shown that we rejected the ducking stool, drawing and quartering, and the "Corruption of Blood."
Make that:
The support is only virtually every legal expert or historical authority who has ever spoken on the topic in all of history, including the "Father of the Constitution," the main author of the Federalist papers (who was also one of our most important Framers), friends of the Framers, our most authoritative legal experts writing on what the Constitution meant, judges who have analyzed the law and rendered opinions on the meaning of the term, the United States Supreme Court, and major conservative Constitutional organizations such as National Review and the Heritage Foundation.
St. George Tucker in one of the appendices in his version of the Blackstone Commentaries, explains his opinion on the role of the English Common law for the United States under the Constitution and whether it is part of Federal Law [he says it isn’t].
“A question has lately been agitated, whether the common, or, unwritten law of England, has been adopted in America, by the establishment of the constitution of the United States; or, in other words, how far the laws of England, both civil and criminal, make a part of the law of the American States, in their united and national capacity.”
“Judge Ellsworth is reported, on a late occasion, to have laid it down as a general rule, that the common law of England is the unwritten law of the United States, in their national or federal capacity.[1] Judge Washington, also, is said to have delivered a similar opinion, upon another occasion. The like opinion has been advanced on the floor of the federal house of representatives .... concurrent opinions from such respectable authority deserve to be candidly, and respectfully examined, where any doubt is entertained of their correctness; and where any such doubt is entertained, they ought to receive an early and full discussion; otherwise they will soon acquire the force of precedents. These are often more difficult to be shaken than the most cogent arguments, when drawn from reason alone.”
Tucker goes on to examine the question, he says that the Common Law was not made part of US law. But in the Postscript, he discusses the case of the United States v. Worrel where Justice Chase says the Common Law is not part of the Federal Law but Justice Peters says that it is and he returns to the ruling of Chief Justice Ellsworth in the Isaac Williams case.
“Here then are two opposite opinions on this great question. On the trial of Isaac Williams, in the district court of Connecticut, February 37, 1797 ...when Judge Ellsworth, then chief justice of the United States, is said to have delivered an opinion nearly to the following effect.”
“The common law of this country remains the same as it was before the revolution. ...”
“As the learned judge in this opinion, refers to no express prohibitory law, except the common law, (by which I presume was meant the common law of England) we must understand his opinion, as founded upon the doctrine that the common law of England is the common law of the United States, in their federal, and national capacity and character. How far reason is on the side of that opinion, the student may form some judgement from what has been said in the foregoing essay.”
http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1e.htm
The case of Isaac Williams was about expatriation, which was also a hotly debated issue in the early years of the Republic.
BTW, Oliver Ellsworth was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, he was a member of the Committee of Five that drafted the first version of the Constitution but he left the Convention [for personal reasons] before the final draft was presented for signature. He wrote several articles in support of the Constitution during the ratification period.
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/biographies/oliver-ellsworth/
So pick your Founder and have at it as it doesn’t appear that they could agree either.
P.S.
More from Tucker:
“We may fairly infer from all that has been said that the common law of England stands precisely upon the same footing in the federal government, and courts of the United States, as such, as the civil and ecclesiastical laws stand upon in England: That is to say, it’s maxims and rules of proceeding are to be adhered to, whenever the written law is silent, in cases of a similar, or analogous nature, the cognizance whereof is by the constitution vested in the federal courts; it may govern and direct the course of proceeding, in such cases, but cannot give jurisdiction in any case, where jurisdiction is not expressly given by the constitution. The same may be said of the civil law; the rules of proceeding in which, whenever the written law is silent, are to be observed in cases of equity, and of admiralty, and maritime jurisdiction. In short, as the matters cognizable in the federal courts, belong, (as we have before shewn, in reviewing the powers of the judiciary department) partly to the law of nations, partly to the common law of England; partly to the civil law; partly to the maritime law, comprehending the laws of Oleron and Rhodes; and partly to the general law and custom of merchants; and partly to the municipal laws of any foreign nation, or of any state in the union, where the cause of action may happen to arise, or where the suit may be instituted; so, the law of nations, the common law of England, the civil law, the law maritime, the law merchant, or the lex loci, or law of the foreign nation, or state, in which the cause of action may arise, or shall be decided, must in their turn be resorted to as the rule of decision, according to the nature and circumstances of each case, respectively. So that each of these laws may be regarded, so far as they apply to such cases, respectively, as the law of the land. But to infer from hence, that the common law of England is the general law of the United States, is to the full as absurd as to suppose that the laws of Russia, or Germany, are the general law of the land, because in a controversy respecting a contract made in either of those empires, it might be necessary to refer to the laws of either of them, to decide the question between the litigant parties. Nor can I find any more reason for admitting the penal code of England to be in force in the United States, (except so far as the states, respectively, may have adopted it, within their several jurisdictions) than for admitting that of the Roman empire, or of Russia, Spain, or any other nation, whatever.”
In other words, St. George Tucker takes a very slightly different approach from Alexander Hamilton, Vice Chancellor Sandford, and the US Supreme Court, but all basically arrive at the same place.
In Hamilton’s view, the terms in the Constitution are to be understood by their definitions from the English common law. This implies that “natural born” in the Constitution means what it meant in the common law. By this approach, children born on US soil to legal alien parents are natural born citizens.
In Sandford’s view, it is obvious that there must have been an unwritten national rule for citizenship. Where is that rule to be found? Look to the States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. It turns out that in every single instance, each State had adopted the rule of the common law. Therefore, the national rule was the same, the rule of the common law. By this approach, children born on US soil to legal alien parents are natural born citizens.
In Tucker’s view, the common law is not the general law of the United States, but in matters on which the statutory law is silent, it becomes a resource, among others, for deciding what the law is. Since citizenship is the province of a nation’s own laws, then the common law would be the appropriate place to look. By the way, Tucker says clearly that on the matter of whether children born on US soil to alien parents are citizens, the law of the United States agrees with the law of England. So according to St. George Tucker, children born on US soil to legal alien parents are natural born citizens.
The US Supreme Court examined all of the legal authorities and sources of information, and concluded that the same rule always applied, first in England, then in the Colonies, then in the United States after independence, and then in the United States after the adoption of the Constitution. And that rule was the rule of the common law. Therefore, according to the US Supreme Court, children born on US soil to legal alien parents are natural born citizens.
We could add to this James Madison’s view, who told us that there were two things that produced the allegiance that made for citizenship - place of birth and parentage. He said that in general, place of birth was “the most certain” and that it was “what applies in the United States.” It follows that by James Madison’s view, children born on US soil to legal alien parents are natural born citizens.
So we have several different perspectives, and very slightly varying approaches to the question, but in every instance, DiogenesLamp is full of you know what.
“Just because James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, St. George Tucker, Vice Chancellor Sandford, William Rawle, and the US Supreme Court say I’m full of crap doesn’t make it true. You’re just making an argumentum ad numerum. They’re ganging up on me!”
There. I just wanted to do DiogenesLamp the service of registering his objection for him.
“St. George Tucker takes a very slightly different approach”
His approach is even more different than the one taken by Chief Justice Ellsworth who thought the English Common Law was part of US Federal Law.
Chief Justice Ellsworth was not only a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, he was one of the more vocal members according to the notes of James Madison. Ellsworth wrote articles supporting the ratification of the Constitution (Letters of a Landholder). He was in the Continental Congress, Connecticut legislature, the Confederation Congress, the Connecticut Superior Court, the US Senate and the US Supreme Court.
And obviously Ellsworth would end up in the same place on this particular question. :-)
He was from Connecticut and his career track almost parallels Zephaniah Swift’s.
You seem to know a lot about this stuff!
And that’s a compliment.
And that's the important context I keep referring to, that DL omitted. When we separated from England, we didn't end up with no law (the "state of nature" Madison refers to), or only state laws. But the new federal government didn't sit down and write all new laws to cover everything, either. So then what was the law? What would be the basis for figuring it out? Clearly, Madison thought the "civil rights and obligations"--i.e., applicable parts of the common law--continued after independence.
Good point.
Nope, because it *IS* so.
And I'm obviously wrong for thinking it provided important context.
I don't think you are wrong, I don't believe you even gave sufficient thought to what you were arguing to constitute "wrong." You simply made a deceitful and knee jerk reactionary faux horror protest because you saw what you thought was an opportunity to do so.
Let us examine your claim. This is what I posted.
I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States.
And this is what I omitted.
The Constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject.
Let us disect the two sentences.
No notice taken in the States' Constitutions.
The Constitution of Virginia is silent.
Why yes, I see what you mean, the omitted sentence is VASTLY different from the quoted one.
Let's look at the next couple of sentences. Again, Quoted:
If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed.
And Omitted:
An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and obligations.
Distillation:
General declaration that it shall continue.
Ordinance declared the Common law still the law of the land.
Oh my! Again, the meaning is SO different it boggles the mind as to what incorrect inferences could have been made as a result of it's omission!
I notice you didn't even think it was worth asking what context I thought it provided.
Given the quality of your arguments in the past, I fear I have missed nothing by failing to solicit your opinion. Likewise, by my demonstration above, very little of use can be gleaned from redundant sentences WHICH MEAN EXACTLY THE SAME THING!!
No, your efforts constitute nothing more than a prickish attempt to make a tu quoque argument, and it was a bungled attempt at that. You were just jumping at the chance to make a deceitful false comparison between what *I* did and what Jeff Winston did.
I was just amused that the guy who was jumping up and down screaming "Gotcha!" because someone truncated a quote, ended up doing the same thing himself.
And this is how you demonstrate yourself to be a stupid f**k because you foolishly thought that the issue was the truncating of quotes, rather than the actual offense of intentionally changing the meaning of a quote by leaving off the part that clarifies it.
You are not just a STUPID f**k, you are a DECEITFUL f**k, and your intentions in trumping up your accusation are made plain for everyone to see.
And you're back to your "NUMBERS = TRUTH!" argument. He was most likely voted down because the house perceived him as a sore loser, and didn't really care about his technicality argument.
Franklin and Washington hung out with William Rawle, who absolutely contradicts you. Washington tried to make him Attorney General of the United States.
GOD! You are SO F***ING STUPID! You are an ignorant, childish wannabe relevant fool, who has not the slightest understanding of logic or reality. You keep putting forth these IDIOT arguments such as "Rawle hung out with these guys, so obviously he knows ever secret of their innermost being." You then add to this brain dead stupidity, the comment that "Washington tried to make him Attorney General" as if that is proof that he has specific knowledge of the Delegates intent, rather than being just a general acknowledgement of his capabilities. I'm not even going to bother looking at the rest of your crap. Two fallacies in a row is enough idiocy for me to deal with this morning.
Your arguments pretty much consist of these fallacies.
"I have a WHOLE FLOCK of Lawyer Lawbirds" who agree with me, and because there are so MANY of them, they must be correct!"
"The Leader of the Flock (William Rawle) MUST be correct, because the Shadow of Washington and Franklin once fell across him!"
Again, you are just too stupid for me to put up with this morning.
I agree: if you ignore half of one of the sentences, the parts that are left means much the same thing. Congratulations on your deft textual analysis.
We are dealing with two things here: History, and law. But mostly, law.
The communication of history relies on the words of reliable witnesses, and the compilation of what happened by reliable historians.
We call these AUTHORITIES.
And LAW is made up of LEGAL RULES, PRECEDENTS, AND JUDGMENTS.
The legal rules include Constitutions, statutes, and regulations. Mostly they are written, but on some occasions legal rules have historically been unwritten.
Precedents generally result from court cases and judgments.
Judgments mostly come from judges in court cases, but to some degree are expressed by legal opinion.
And legal opinion comes from recognized legal experts or AUTHORITIES.
In the legal realm, it is the opinion of LEGAL AUTHORITIES that matters. Not your stupid little opinion. The opinion of REAL, LEGITIMATE, LEGAL AUTHORITIES. Along with court precedent.
All of the court precedent is against your stupid little claim.
The judgment in Lynch v. Clarke says you're full of it.
The judgment in US v. Wong Kim Ark says you're full of it. (And don't give me "Minor v. Happersett, blah, blah, blah," because there WAS no judgment on the point in Minor v. Happersett - they expressly said they WERE NOT going to examine or decide the question.
The judgment in every case since then says you're full of it.
All of HISTORY is against your stupid little claim. Virtually everyone in history who has ever spoken on the matter, Founding Fathers and those from their generation included, has said we adopted common law definitions of terms in the Constitution and the common law rule for citizenship.
And the testimony of those who were there IS the history.
There is no statutory law in favor of your stupid little claim. Every statutory law in history is consistent with the common law rule that the Supreme Court told us had always been used.
And virtually every genuine LEGAL OPINION and virtually every genuine LEGAL AUTHORITY in history says you're full of it as well.
So what's your argument?
That no statute in history, virtually no historian, virtually no legal authority, and absolutely no court case in history agrees with your theory, and practically every historian and legal authority in history disagrees with you... therefore you must be RIGHT?
How freaking stupid is that?
You really take the cake. Pretty much everything in history and in law says you're completely wrong, and still you insist that you're right. You insist that the combined weight of all of history and law is nothing more than "argumentum ad numerum." (It isn't, but you insist it is.)
So what do you call the fallacy that almost nobody on earth agrees with you, therefore you must be right?
It's so effing stupid I don't think it even has a name.
Because only complete morons would make such an argument in the first place.
If you had the slightest degree of real intelligence, you would realize it's all over. You lost the argument, and now you look like a complete, total, absolute ass.
You made an idiotic and false claim, and you got called on it by people who bothered to find out what the truth actually was.
You're full of it.
When are you going to admit that your accusation against me was absolutely false in the first place, since I had already quoted Bingham upthread giving a quote virtually identical to the one you took me to task for?
And this is how you demonstrate yourself to be a stupid f**k because you foolishly thought that the issue was the truncating of quotes, rather than the actual offense of intentionally changing the meaning of a quote by leaving off the part that clarifies it.
As far as I'm concerned, YOU changed the meaning of a quote by leaving off an important part that clarified it. And it appears to me that you did so intentionally.
God knows you've repeated omitted MANY quotes that argue against your stupid little claim, and tried to discredit the genuine legal experts who made them.
As far as Bingham himself is concerned, you've REPEATEDLY quoted only his "not subject to any other sovereignty" quotes, and REPEATEDLY left out where he equates "natural born citizens" with "citizens by birth." And you have REPEATEDLY left out the part of his quotes where he says, "Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen."
So there's omission and cherry-picking going on, all right.
ROUTINELY. By YOU.
And no one advertised this until after 2008.
Arthur hid it - deliberately.
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.