So first, in the link you provided, DL here just brushes William Rawle off. Never mind his close connection with 2 of our top half dozen or so Founders. And never mind the fact that he has no equal quote from any equal authority to even pull even. And never mind that no other early American legal expert ever said William Rawle was wrong.
We don't like Ben Franklin's friend. We don't like George Washington's friend. So we can just tell him to kiss off.
By the way, don't ever believe that birthers are friends of the Founding Fathers. They aren't.
So kiss off, Will. We don't like what you have to say.
So then he gives four supposed examples to try and prove his point.
His first is Jefferson. Well, that's a mistake, because Jefferson contradicts him as well. Let's see what Jefferson has to say, in that 1779 law. Here's the part that's relevant:
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.
So Jefferson lists a bunch of categories of people who all get to be citizens. Let's take out all the superfluous categories and cut to the chase:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly,
that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth...
shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed.
Now have I done any violence to this text? No, I have not. I just removed a bunch of categories to focus on the one category that's really relevant.
Jefferson says ALL WHITE PERSONS BORN IN VIRGINIA get to be citizens of Virginia.
This is STRAIGHT JUS SOLI. Absolutely no citizen parents required. ALL WHITE PERSONS born in Virginia are citizens.
So Thomas Jefferson goes for straight jus soli. That is a complete contradiction to DL.
In other words, Thomas Jefferson says his idea is idiotic.
Okay, that's his first example. Example two.
He talks about James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, in the William Smith case. Notice what words of Madison he doesn't boldface:
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other."
So Madison says BIRTH AND NOT PARENTAGE is WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES. Now to be sure, later on he mentions Smith's parentage as well. But he's already said: BIRTH, NOT PARENTAGE, IS WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES.
So James Madison goes for straight jus soli as well, which is as much as saying DL's idea is idiotic.
Gee, DL here is batting zero for two. Well, let's go on to the third example.
He correctly mentions Lynch v Clarke as "a (state)court ruling which decides that anyone born in New York of alien parents is a citizen." Good for him. In fact, Lynch v. Clarke is absolutely devastating to his claim. Lynch v. Clarke, BY ITSELF, MURDERS his birther claim, unless he has EQUALLY STRONG evidence that says the exact opposite. Here's what Lynch v. Clarke says: "Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not."
Does he have ANYTHING comparable? No, of course not. But he doesn't like Lynch v. Clarke. So we'll sweep it under the rug.
By the way, do you notice how many things we're sweeping under the rug here? It's every damn bit of evidence. But let's go on.
He claims "the New York Legislature shortly thereafter passed a law to plug this particular hole [the fact he personally doesn't like Lynch v. Clarke, just like he doesn't like James Madison or William Rawle] in their citizenship laws."
So let's look up this law. Ah, here it is, in this book here.
And there's a very odd thing. That says on one of the front pages that the Commissioners of the Code were appointed on April 6, 1857. So that appears to be the date when they appointed people to write this law. And the book on it was actually published in 1859.
So you have Lynch v. Clarke, in 1844. And they responded to that... in 1857? Really? Thirteen years later?
So like, this gun control legislation that Dianne Feinstein is trying to push through now. That's a response to something that happened back in 2000, while Bill Clinton was still President?
Such an idea, that a particular law is a response to something 13 years earlier, is pretty idiotic, don't you think? I mean, really. Hey, we've got an immigration problem here. Well then, why don't we wait until the year 2026, and then do something about it?
So the only thing DL has really done here is bring up Lynch v. Clarke, because the idea that the New York Code he references is a response to that case is just preposterous.
And as we've seen, Lynch v Clarke takes a log and beats im over the head with it.
Well, let's try his Example 4.
He says, correctly, that the State of Maryland passed a law declaring the Marquis de Lafayette and all of his male descendants, forever, to be "natural born citizens" of the State of Maryland. And he says this is jus sanguinis. Well, he's right there.
But notice what they DON'T require.
Anybody here need to be a resident of the State of Maryland?
Wait a minute. I thought the purpose here was to prove that you had to be born on US soil AND have citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
That's not what the State of Maryland told the Marquis de Lafayette.
So even his example number 4 says: In this case, at least, ONE means of getting citizenship - in this case, jus sanguinis - is enough to make a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Funny. That's pretty much what I've been saying all along.
So let's go for the bonus round. Finally, he brings up the Venus. Well, I don't have to shred that to little pieces. Mr Rogers has already done that for us, earlier in this thread.
So this is all the stuff that he's supposedly bringing as evidence for HIS claim. And guess what? EVERY SINGLE DAMN THING IS AGAINST HIM.
And every single time, he sweeps it under the rug and trys to use the crumbs as "evidence" for his birther claim.
And in reality, it's all against him. Not to mention William Rawle and the fact that Vattel never, EVER talks about "natural born citizens," and the fact that states used "natural born citizen" in EXACTLY the same way they used "natural born subject" before the Revolution, and all the rest of it.
So he doesn't have a case. But like all birthers, he keeps making it anyway. Because there's nothing that beats reality... like fantasy.
We don't like Ben Franklin's friend. We don't like George Washington's friend. So we can just tell him to kiss off. Why you think being friends with someone makes them an expert on what someone else was thinking is beyond me. The point is not worth arguing. Rawles was not Franklin, Neither was he Washington. I can show you how much distrust Washington had of foreigners in his army by his letters.
So Jefferson lists a bunch of categories of people who all get to be citizens. Let's take out all the superfluous categories and cut to the chase:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly,that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth...
shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed.
You didn't cut to the chase, you cut to the quick! You completely ignored the salient part.
and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth,
No need to refer to the citizenship of father and mother unless it is relevant. If it was not relevant, it would not be included. It is a long standing principle of law that no statute may be interpreted as having no purpose.
Jefferson says ALL WHITE PERSONS BORN IN VIRGINIA get to be citizens of Virginia.
This is STRAIGHT JUS SOLI. Absolutely no citizen parents required. ALL WHITE PERSONS born in Virginia are citizens.
You are blind. Apart from the fact that by quoting Jefferson's statute, you are acknowledging that individual states did indeed have the right to establish their own requirements for citizenship, (There goes your whole "born on the soil" theory. States could pass stricter requirements) you are completely overlooking the fact that "ALL WHITE PERSONS" is the ultimate Jus Sanguinus requirement. (I disagree that this should be the standard, but I acknowledge that it was in Jefferson' day.)
It was, in fact, the Jus Sanguinus requirement which clearly explains the exclusion of Slaves and Indians as citizens. Yeah, our past historical figures were blatantly racist. You might not like it, but it is the ugly truth.
He talks about James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, in the William Smith case. Notice what words of Madison he doesn't boldface:
Why should I bold face them? You guys know them by heart! As far as you are concerned, Madison had nothing else to say, and if your theory was correct, he wouldn't have said anything else. The fact that he alludes to the notion that a law from South Carolina might have resolved the issue, is further proof that the general rule he references, was not the deciding factor!
He correctly mentions Lynch v Clarke as "a (state)court ruling which decides that anyone born in New York of alien parents is a citizen." Good for him. In fact, Lynch v. Clarke is absolutely devastating to his claim. Lynch v. Clarke, BY ITSELF, MURDERS his birther claim, unless he has EQUALLY STRONG evidence that says the exact opposite. Here's what Lynch v. Clarke says: "Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not."
Lynch v Clarke applied English Common law regarding New York citizenship because New York did not have a citizenship statute. This is Standard practice in absence of positive law. The state court decisions do not affect Federal law, and the opinion of a state court judge is irrelevant regarding it. The fact that the subsequent year, the New York State Legislature immediately enacted a law prohibiting exactly these people mentioned (Children of Transient Aliens) from acquiring Citizenship from New York, Stands as a rebuke to the Lynch court. Furthermore, the existence of such a statute further undermines your belief that English Common Law rules in the presence of positive law to the contrary.
The fact that the New York Legislature can pass such a law destroys your argument that the jus soli principle is inviolable.
And there's a very odd thing. That says on one of the front pages that the Commissioners of the Code were appointed on April 6, 1857. So that appears to be the date when they appointed people to write this law. And the book on it was actually published in 1859.
So you have Lynch v. Clarke, in 1844. And they responded to that... in 1857? Really? Thirteen years later?
I think you are conflating the writing of the law with the writing of a book. My understanding of the legislative process is that Legislators write laws, and pass them in the legislature. I am not familiar with a "commission" creating and enacting laws on it's own. That is the task of legislators.
My recollection is that when I found that reference, I made a great effort at the time to nail down it's date of enactment. My recollection is that it came back 1845. If I am wrong on this small point, then I'll take the hit. It is not worth arguing about because it doesn't significantly change the salient point of the argument; That a state can CHANGE requirements for citizenship. And did.
Does he have ANYTHING comparable? No, of course not. But he doesn't like Lynch v. Clarke. So we'll sweep it under the rug.
It wasn't swept under the rug, it was booted out the door by the rightful authority, the State Legislature of New York. A fact whose significance you apparently fail to comprehend.
He says, correctly, that the State of Maryland passed a law declaring the Marquis de Lafayette and all of his male descendants, forever, to be "natural born citizens" of the State of Maryland. And he says this is jus sanguinis. Well, he's right there.
But notice what they DON'T require.
Anybody here need to be a resident of the State of Maryland?
Wait a minute. I thought the purpose here was to prove that you had to be born on US soil AND have citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
The purpose is to demonstrate that States DO NOT HAVE to abide by English Common law in deciding who is a citizen of their state (Neither does the Federal government) and that they explicitly enacted a statute who's operation is exclusively by the principle of Jus Sanguinus. No Jus Soli required at all!
So even his example number 4 says: In this case, at least, ONE means of getting citizenship - in this case, jus sanguinis - is enough to make a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Not at all. The statute does not say that the Marque De Lafayette *IS* a "natural born citizen", (you really ought to read these things more closely.) It says the Marquie de Lafayette and his male heirs forever shall be "deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural born citizens of this state..." . It means that they will pretend he is. You cannot *become* a natural born citizen. You are either born one, or you are not.
So let's go for the bonus round. Finally, he brings up the Venus. Well, I don't have to shred that to little pieces. Mr Rogers has already done that for us, earlier in this thread.
I doubt it, but no one will ever know, because no one bothers to read anything Mr. Rogers writes anymore. (
So this is all the stuff that he's supposedly bringing as evidence for HIS claim. And guess what? EVERY SINGLE DAMN THING IS AGAINST HIM.
Rather, you allege such through your lack of comprehension regarding them. The rest of your response is you patting yourself on the back congratulating yourself regarding how you utterly convinced yourself that you were correct all along in your own opinion. Not worth repeating or responding.