Replies

The actual decision was about the 14th Amendment, inescapably, which did not exist until it was passed in reaction to the Dred Scott decision, which held that parentage was determinative of citizenship as you may recall, a point which the indiana appellate judges seemed to have overlooked. The discussion of domicile in The Venus was in the context of citizenship of those who were domiclied. It appears that you go back and get advice from your masters. Are they by any chance at Perkins Coie and do they bill the campaign? Here's a little quote for you from a well-known founder: “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” —George Mason And how about this: James Madison’s own State of Virginia adopted a birthright law authored by Thomas Jefferson in 1779 that recognized parentage (citizenship of father) in determining citizenship of the child:

[A]ll infants, wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise, their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth until they relinquish that character, in manner as hereinafter expressed; and all others not being citizens of any, of the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

Some States made citizenship conditional on either parent in terms of their citizenship, such as Kentucky: “[E]very child, wherever born, whose father or mother was or shall be a citizen of Kentucky at the birth of such child, shall be deemed citizens of that State.” One common law found in a number of States that defined those born as citizens read, “All persons born in this state, and resident within it, except the children of transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls, etc.”

Until the 14th Amendment was passed in reaction to what the law was found to be in Dred Scott there was no national law of citizenship.

When we aak the question:

Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?

Here is the accurate answer:

It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of “natural-born subject.” The British doctrine allowed for double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their allegiance to this one before finally becoming a citizen.

Framer Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the consent of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.” House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”

Under the old English common law doctrine of natural-born subject, birth itself was an act of naturalization that required no prior consent or demanded allegiance to the nation in advance. Furthermore, birth was viewed as enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all that could never be severed or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of 1812.

Because Britain considered all who were born within the dominions of the crown to be its natural-born subjects even after becoming naturalized citizens of the United States, led to British vessels blockading American ports. Under the British blockade, every American ship entering or leaving was boarded by soldiers in search of British born subjects. At least 6,000 American citizens who were found to be British natural-born subjects were pressed into military service on behalf of the British Empire, and thus, the reason we went to war.

It remains the case that the national law at the time of the 14th Acmendment, before it was passed, did not adopt the approach set out by Coke in Calvin's case to solve the problem of the Stuart succession to the crown of England in the person of James I and in fact in the period before its passge the law as declared was that of Taney's opinion in Dred Scott, however unattractive that may have been.

You know Perkins Coie briefs in a manner very similar to your manner of posting, with great misrepresentation and inaccuracy. Let's face it you and your master rely upon intimidation of the judiciary and having your state run media and captive "intellectuals" rely upon ridicule rather than history and the actual law.

"The actual decision was about the 14th Amendment, inescapably, which did not exist until it was passed in reaction to the Dred Scott decision, which held that parentage was determinative of citizenship as you may recall, a point which the indiana appellate judges seemed to have overlooked."

Actually, no. The decision was not "about the 14th Amendment." The decision was about the citizenship status of Wong Kim Ark under the US Constitution, of which the 14th Amendment is only a part. And the discussion of the meaning of "natural born citizenship" contained in the decision explicitly covers its meaning prior to the 14th Amendment being passed in great detail.

The fact that the Indiana appellate court "overlooked" Dredd Scott is because Dredd Scott is no longer relevant law, while Wong Kim Ark is. You do recall that the 14th Amendment was not merelt a "reaction" to Dredd Scott, it explicitly overturned it.

"The discussion of domicile in The Venus was in the context of citizenship of those who were domiclied."

Who cares? The case still bases its discussion and decision around the subject of domicile, and not of citizenship. It makes no decision regarding anyone's citizenship one way or the other. And the case still never mentions natural born citizenship once.

The only reason Birthers love the Venus case is because de Vattel gets a shout out. But it includes no discussion that supports the Birther narrative whatsoever.

George Mason's quotation is far more compelling ripped from its context (as you have) than when understood that it so quickly follows his praise of that same common law for preventing "the power of the crown from destroying the immunities of the people." He is quite clear that he is not rejecting the common law at all, simply pointing out that we need not be bound by the parts we do not like.

Certainly, no Framer has gone on record to assert that the common law definition of natural born citizenship was one of the parts we did not like.

I note also that you do not quote all of the 1779 Virginia law. While it does recognize parentage in the part you quoted (specifically for children not born in Virginia) that is not how it begins. Its first qualification (which you inexplicably edited out) was actually that "all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth ... shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth."

No mention of parentage whatsoever for that class of citizen.

The rest of your post is pure assertion, not argument. While I think it's funny that you follow a statement of great certitude such as "Here is the accurate answer" with an immediately mealy mouthed qualification such as "it is very doubtful," this admission that it is entirely speculative is not its greatest weakness.

Its greatest weakness is that it fails to account for the simple fact that between the framing of the Constitution and the first anomalous statement by John Bingham that two citizen parents were required, eight decades pass during which every court case and authority on the issue asserts a purely jus solis foundation for American citizenship.

One more comment on your silly implication that I am some sort of Perkins Coie plant. You make the goofy assertion that:

"You know Perkins Coie briefs in a manner very similar to your manner of posting, with great misrepresentation and inaccuracy."

It is amazing that you would pretend this to be true, when as far as I can tell, Perkins Coie has never once filed a brief that had anything to do with any of the details we've talked about. They have (again, as far as I can tell) only filed motions to dismiss, all of which have been successful, and none of which has so much as breathed a word about natural born citizenship.

So... you just making this up? Or what?

The wiggi stooge is such a liar.

“I note also that you do not quote all of the 1779 Virginia law. While it does recognize parentage in the part you quoted (specifically for children not born in Virginia) that is not how it begins. Its first qualification (which you inexplicably edited out) was actually that “all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth ... shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth.””
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2450158/posts?page=1319#1319

Leaving off the grandfather part:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and
all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act.

It reads:
All white persons born within the territory of the commonwealth.

AND

All who have resided therein.

Two years before the passing of this act.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.html Thomas Jefferson, A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed
Citizens of This Commonwealth

May 1779Papers 2:476—78
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and
all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate
into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that
they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants
wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or
who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither
without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in
manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be
deemed aliens.