Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: DoctorBulldog
"Yeah, I’ve been down this road before. You will have to prove that Blackwell is the source for the “Natural Born” clause in the U.S. Constitution."

Well... for starters it's Blackstone, not Blackwell, and he isn't the source. English common law is the source and that's already been firmly established by multiple Supreme Court decisions culminating in Wong Kim Ark. Blackstone is merely a convenient authority for documenting that the definition existed and that it was explicitly and exclusively jus solis, with no reference to the citizenship of the parents.

"After wrestling with this question for years, I am of the opinion that it was based on Vattel’s work and the SCOTUS got it wrong in the Wong decision because they were trying anything they could to get around the Chinese Exclusion Act."

Then I guess you must believe that the Framers were capable of time travel, because de Vattel himself never mentioned the phrase "natural born citizenship" in word or writing. That phrase was never associated with him until it was inserted by somebody else into an edition of his work published ten years after the Constitution was written.

At the time of the Framing there was a single definition of natural born citizen in the English language. And that was the defintion of English common law. there was no other.


149 posted on 02/12/2010 3:25:39 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies ]


To: EnderWiggins

Now your prostituting youself with British Common Law

At the time of the Framing there was a single definition of natural born citizen in the English language. And that was the defintion of English common law. there was no other.

British Common law says NOTHING about a Natural Born Citizen, it does however state, define a NATURAL BORN SUBJECT.

As to what is a natural born subject, Blackstone went on to say that any person, freeman or alien, except those of diplomats who were born in the realm of the King of England was a natural born subject. There is a problem with a simple substitution of citizen in place of subject, that some people think are synonymous. In England, not all natural born subjects of the Crown can become the King. This is reserved for a very small subset of natural born subjects called the royalty. This is drastically dissimilar to the American concept that any Natural Born Citizen can become President. Under Blackstone’s subjects only a very, very small subset of Natural Born Subjects could rise to be King, the American Presidency is drawn from the largest class of citizens, the natural born. Like the analogy of a field of clover, the Founding Fathers were not looking for that elusive genetic mutation of a four-leaf clover, they were looking for the common, naturally occurring three-leaf clover to be President.

Prior to 1949
At common law, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the British Crown (and no other) was a British subject. This meant that to be a British subject, one simply had to be born in any territory under the sovereignty of the British Crown. The only exception at common law was that the children of foreign ambassadors took the nationality of their fathers, who were immune from local jurisdiction and duties of allegiance. From time to time, statutes were passed expanding the class of persons who held the status of British (earlier, English) subject, e.g. the statute 25 Edw. III st. 2 that naturalised children of English parents born overseas.[1]

In Calvin’s Case[2], the Court of Exchequer Chamber ruled that a Scottish subject of King James VI of Scotland, who was also King of England, was by virtue of his allegiance to the King’s person not an alien, but a natural-born subject under English law.

Entitlement to the status of British subject was first codified by the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, which came into effect on 1 January 1915.

Within the British Empire, the main class of people who were not British subjects were the rulers of native states formally under the “protection” of the British Crown, and their peoples. Although their countries may for all practical purposes have been ruled by the imperial government, such persons are considered to have been born outside the sovereignty and allegiance of the British Crown, and were (and, where these persons are still alive, still are) known as British protected persons.

Between 1947 and 1951 each of the various existing members of the Commonwealth of Nations created its own national citizenship (the Irish Free State had done so in 1935, but left the Commonwealth in 1949). In 1948, the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed the British Nationality Act 1948, which came into effect on 1 January 1949 and introduced the concept of “Citizenship of the UK & Colonies”.

Why did teh Supreme Court in Venus, rely on Vattel vs. British Common Law, “Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

Again EnderWiggins is showing not only his limited knowledge, but his true nature.


156 posted on 02/12/2010 3:37:05 PM PST by syc1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies ]

To: EnderWiggins
Yes, I meant what I said; "Blackwell." It's a deep well you find yourself in when you go down that road.

"Then I guess you must believe that the Framers were capable of time travel, because de Vattel himself never mentioned the phrase "natural born citizenship" in word or writing."

LOL!!!!!!

What? Can't you read French? You must be one of those Americans Obama was embarrassed by:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jy_QOm2sbQ

The Founding Fathers spoke and read French quite fluently. The copies of Vattel that they had were written in French!!!

See? This just goes to demonstrate that you didn't even bother to follow my link I provided before opening your mouth and making a fool of yourself.

Quote:

The correct title of Vattel's Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”.

In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines "natural born citizens" in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word "indigenes" for natives along with "Les naturels" in that sentence. He used the word "naturels" to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country.

End Quote.

If you follow the link I had provided, you would have discovered (complete with historic references and quotes) that Benjamin Franklin was the one who distributed out French copies of Vattel to Our Founding Fathers.

But, you are just too full of yourself, aren't you?

So, you can decide for yourself if you think it was Blackwell (Blackstone) or if it was Vattel who influenced the Founding Fathers' views on what a Natural Born citizens was. As for me, I firmly believe it was Vattel. If you want to believe it was Blackwell (stone), then fine, sink like a stone into that well. I really could care less. Like I said previously, I don't care if Obama was Natural Born or not. I DO, however, care about the safety of America and my family and, because Obama has demonstrated his strong allegiances to his Father's place of birth, Kenya, he is NOT qualified to be my President! Cheers

180 posted on 02/12/2010 4:16:38 PM PST by DoctorBulldog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson