That is incorrect. Even the author of the 14th amendment says this is incorrect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on 01/28/2018 4:18:28 PM PST by ProgressingAmerica
My liking or not liking it has no bearing on what the law says.
In 1912, the United States was a Christian Nation, according to the Supreme Court.
That’s not what the 14th Amendment says. You have to be born here subject to the jurisdiction thereof. A child born to illegal aliens is not a citizen, although our government has pretended so now for generations. But that is not what the Supreme Court has held. Elk v. Wilkins
The decision was later reversed with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Some William Howard Taft quotes on the topic:
“We must work along with our Constitution as it is. It is a most wonderful instrument, most elastic for accomplishing purposes that were only dimly in the minds of its framers, and I think after you contemplate the history of the country one of the wisest features of the instrument is the difficulty with which it can be amended.” (1909)
“This is a government of law, not of changing economic and political theories of judicial or executive officers, when those theories are in conflict with the express letter of the law. Suggestions of that sort are dangerous because they put the ship of state on a sea of troubles, without a rudder.” (1912)
“Popular government we all believe in. There are those of us, however, who believe that not all people are fitted for popular government. The fact is that they are not. Some of us don’t dare say so. But I do. The question of whether a people is fitted for popular selfgovernment is determined by the ability of that people to place on itself the restraints by which the minority shall receive justice despite the majority. It is the question of self imposed restraint that determines whether a people is fit to govern itself.” (1912)
“It has been said, and it is a common platform expression, that it is well to prefer the man above the dollar, as if the preservation of property rights has some other purpose than the assistance to and the uplifting of human rights. Private property was not established in order to gratify love of some material wealth or capital. It was established as an instrumentality in the progress of civilization and the uplifting of man, and it is equality of opportunity that private property promotes by assuring to man the result of his own labor, thrift, and self-restraint. When, therefore, the demagogue mounts the platform and announces that he prefers the man above the dollar, he ought to be interrogated as to what he means thereby — whether he is in favor of abolishing the right of the institution of private property and of taking away from the poor man the opportunity to become wealthy by the use of the abilities that God has given him, the cultivation of the virtues with which practice of self-restraint and the exercise of moral courage will fortify him.” (1912)
And my favorite:
“For I am an individualist first, last and all the time, and I am bitterly opposed to the theory of Socialism — that is — to transfer the object of individual effort to State control and State supervision.” (1911)
That’s the misleading line you get. Although the case was specifically about a tribal Indian, it would also apply to children of foreign nationals who are here illegally.
As I understand it, the child born here is a citizen regardless of his parent’s nationality. Nothing is mentioned about the legality of the parents, so I’m guessing it doesn’t matter, either.
Elk v. Wilkins said the opposite.
So, what is the law currently?
The Constitution lives and breaths in the breasts of The People - it is up to us to keep it well oxygenated....
On what basis do you claim this? What happened in 1803 to make you think that is the origin of the "living constitution" idea?
Are you pegging it to the Marbury v Madison decision?
That is incorrect. Even the author of the 14th amendment says this is incorrect.
I've searched the complete works of Blackstone, and whenever you find the word "citizen" in them, it always refers to a member of a City, because the English usage of the word literally meant "city dweller."
The proper word to refer to nationality in English law was "subject." The word "citizen" did not mean a "national" until much much later after the US started using it in that manner.
Jefferson chose to use the word "Citizen" in the Declaration of Independence because it represented a deliberate departure from the English Common law requirement of perpetual allegiance to the King as a "subject."
Jefferson got the idea from Vattel, because at the time, Switzerland was the only place in the world that used the word "Citizen" to mean a "national."
Sen. Jacob Howard is not a good reference for this discussion. A far better reference is John A. Bingham, the guy who authored the 14th amendment, and who's words on the subject form my tagline.
Yes, my tagline comes from John Bingham's statement on citizenship to people born in this country.
All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, 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. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians. -
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif
.
.
Here is another John Bingham statement on the topic.
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
That is incorrect. Even the author of the 14th amendment says this is incorrect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Rotunda, Professor of Law at Chapman University, has remarked "There's [sic] some people who say that both parents need to be citizens. That's never been the law."[94]
Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA, found "quite persuasive" the reasoning employed by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which had concluded "that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents".[96][97]
Daniel Tokaji, Professor of Law at Ohio State University, agrees the citizenship status of a U.S.-born candidate's parents is irrelevant.[98]
The college professors are wrong.
I've got a lot of data to demonstrate that they are wrong, and when and how this wrong notion came into the mainstream of legal thought, (Mainly the work of William Rawle) but I don't think you would be too interested in seeing it.
You can cite the man who wrote the Enumerations Clause in the Constitution, too, for all that matters. The clause is completely ignored, and thus irrelevant, to how we are actually being governed. I have cited USSC decisions upthread and opinions of law professors. Not much more I can do.
I could cite some too, but if your point is that the current legal opinion disregards the condition of the parents (unless child is foreign born) then you are correct.
My point is that the current opinion is factually incorrect.
"Natural Born Citizen" as meant in 1787 requires an American father. (The condition of the mother was irrelevant.)
Then we are in agreement. This began with the declaration that current law requires at least one parent to be a citizen for a child born here to be a naturalized citizen. This has been the argument.
Well the term "current law" is one of those things that depend upon what you mean. Current legal opinion is more accurate than "current law" because the law hasn't actually been changed, just the opinion of what it means has changed.
The argument I am most in agreement with is that you cannot create "natural born" through the process of law. "Natural born" comes from "natural law", not manmade law, and attempts to define it by passing a "law" are just wrong headed.
"Natural born" means a characteristic inherent in the person, in the manner of eye color. You either are or you are not, and you can't be made into something you are not through the process of making a law. Attempting to do such a thing rests on the same foundation as transgenderism; The denial of the real and natural in preference to the fake and artificial.
But current legal opinion doesn't see it that way. They are oblivious to the whole "natural law" foundation of US Government. of course, most of them support "transgenderism" too.
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.