Open request to Senator Cruz

[CpnHook]

Someone has been selectively reading again.

And that someone is you.

It's amusing how Birthers try to add the Plan B in: "The Framers didn't follow English law, they followed Vattel; and if they did follow English law, that was like Vattel anyway." Hey, even Vattel said the English follow a different rule. That should be a clue.

Again, here's what Coke earlier in the opinion said:

"Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject[.]"

So a Frenchman coming into the King's realm, even for a stay of uncertain length, owes a temporary aligeance to the King "strong enough" that a child born in England during that stay would be a natural-born subject. And nothing here is said about renouncing allegiance to France for that to be so.

Is Coke contradicting himself later in the portion you highlight? No.

" albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other."

This is the key phrase to understand to what persons Coke has in view here. It's not that French guy. It's someone else.

Let's see if you can figure it out.

[MamaTexan]

Again, here's what Coke earlier in the opinion said:

Which is exactly the problem.

You presume the conclusion by 'picking' your information out irregardless of the timing of when the information given.

-----

Is Coke contradicting himself later in the portion you highlight? No.

No, because what you cite is from a completely different type of allegiance, as one could see if you started just one sentence earlier in your quote -
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/911#lf0462-01_mnt018

3. Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of the subject’s part.

AND those weren't Coke's conclusions - he was quoting from a another case-

And this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. and 3 and 4 Ph. and Mar. Dyer 144.

Coke's work was written over ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS before Blackstone's Commentaries. When did the case Lord Coke cite take place?

-----

Nothing you posted contracts Cokes determination of natural born. In fact, he agrees with Wilson in his Lectures on Law....

It takes both blood AND soil to make a natural born citizen.

[MamaTexan]

contracts = contradicts

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm merely in alignment with these historical figures.

Though thinking more on this, it might be fun (albeit weird) to side alongside Gray and company, it would be a bit like sitting on the Supreme Court bench. :)

I have no doubt that you are in alignment with Justice Gray.

You seem like exactly the sort of person who would support the rulings of the Gray Court.

[DiogenesLamp]

P.S. Look up sometime, if you haven’t already, the influence of the Magna Carta on the Declaration of Independence.

Yeah, i'd really like to see the section in the Magna Carta that says "Overthrow the King." Now where was that section again?

The Declaration is entirely the result of Vattel. For that matter, the entire revolution would not have happened but for Vattel. It was started by James Otis,

John Adams and Thomas Hutchinson, the Crown-appointed governor of Massachusetts between 1771 and 1774, agreed on at least one point: the story of the American Revolution began with James Otis, Jr. Fifty years after Otis delivered a blistering attack on the British use of Writs of Assistance (general search warrants), Adams wrote, "Then and there the child Independence was born."

and Vattel was his inspiration.

Oh, and let us not forget Otis' understanding of the Law regarding Natural born Subject.

[CpnHook]

No, because what you cite is from a completely different type of allegiance, as one could see if you started just one sentence earlier --

3. Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of the subject’s part.

One sentence earlier? That's all part of the same section on local allegiance, as my quote showed: "or he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject[.]"

It takes both blood AND soil to make a natural born citizen.

Robert Calvin's parents were alines as to England. Yet the court ruled Calvin was nonetheless able to inherit property in England, with Coke reasoning Calvin was a natural born citizen.

Coke didn't state a rule like you just write. Neither did Wilson.

[CpnHook]

Oh, and let us not forget Otis' understanding of the Law regarding Natural born Subject.

The portion you highlight is straight out of Calvin's Case. Just like your excerpt from Bacon.

Otis's understanding is the same as mine. So this just shows that a writer could at once be influenced by Vattel on one matter while subscribing to the English rule on birth status.

[MamaTexan]

That's all part of the same section on local allegiance, as my quote showed:

Yes. LOCAL allegiance. The temporary and transitory kind that has nothing to do with naturalized or natural born citizenship...as Wilson, Tucker and Blackstone ALL confirm.

"or he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject[.]"

As I've already pointed out, this is NOT Coke's conclusion, but the beginning of that section's discussion. Please provide the source Coke was quoting from.

----

Robert Calvin's parents were alines as to England. Yet the court ruled Calvin was nonetheless able to inherit property in England, with Coke reasoning Calvin was a natural born citizen.

Another half-truth on your part.

Yes, his parents were alien to England, but the PERTINENT part you must have forgotten to mention was that they were subjects of Scotland...and when Calvin's case was being decided, the 'sovereign' of both England and Scotland were one and the same.

It was kind of a " albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other." kind of thing.

----

Coke didn't state a rule like you just write. Neither did Wilson.

Yes they did. Your assertion of negativity doesn't create facts.

BTW - So did Vattel-

Law of Nations/ Emmerich de Vattel / Book I / CHAP. XIX.
Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
(snip)
I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

[CpnHook]

I have no doubt that you are in alignment with Justice Gray.

And why wouldn't I be? Gray, after all, was in alignment with the 39th Congress. As shown (Post 406, above), Gray's view of the law is in accord with the "existing law" as expressed by Sens. Howard and Trumbull. And Gray was also very much in accord with the view of Cong. Wilson, House Judiciary Committee Chairman, who, like Gray, cites to Blackstone, James Kent, William Rawle, State v. Maneul, etc). (And, no, Sen. Bingham, was there when Wilson reported, wasn't saying anything differently). And, as shown, Gray was in alignment with writers stretching back further to Tucker (1803) and Swift (1795).

Of course, if one truncates statements by the Congressmen, like, for example, trying to make Wilson looks to be supporting your view by cutting out the parts where he cites to Blackstone and Rawle, and then trying to hide that by omitting the Cong. Globe session and page number, then you can try to argue Gray was wrong. But that sort of rank intellectual dishonesty won't fly.

[sickoflibs]

Highly active thread topic ~ #430

[CpnHook]

The temporary and transitory kind that has nothing to do with naturalized or natural born citizenship.

This is a preposterous statement given the "momentary and incertain" phrase is paired in the same sentence with the conclusion the offspring would be a natural born subject:

"Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject[.]"

As I've already pointed out, this is NOT Coke's conclusion

It's part of Coke's reasoning for why Robert Calvin, though born of parents who were aliens as to England at the time of his birth, nonetheless was not himself an alien as to England so he could therefore inherit the disputed property. Calvin is like that Frenchman, born of parents who were aliens as to England though owing an allegiance to James at the time of Robert's birth. This comparison is the reason why Coke writes the excerpt above. That's why it's relevant to the case.

when Calvin's case was being decided, the 'sovereign' of both England and Scotland were one and the same.

Yes, though the kingdoms were not then united (and would not be united for another one hundred years). That was the principal argument of the defendants.

And those who were born in Scotland before the ascension of James VI could not inherit property in England even though at the time of inheritance James VI had become James I of England and thus everyone in Scotland and England owed allegiance to the same King. You need to understand why they couldn't, but Calvin could to understand this case.

Your assertion of negativity doesn't create facts.

Neither does your positive assertion regarding those same persons in the absence of support. Vattel is the only one you've listed who supports the view your proposing. And Vattel acknowledges England followed a different rule. Your own source contradicts your attempt to paint Coke as some Vattel-like jus sanguinis guy. Vattel is the only one you've listed who supports you.

[MamaTexan]

in the same sentence with the conclusion the offspring would be a natural born subject:

That 'conclusion' was made....when? You have yet to provide the source that Coke was quoting from.

-----

Calvin is like that Frenchman, born of parents who were aliens as to England though owing an allegiance to James at the time of Robert's birth.

Only if you ignore the and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen part. Yes, LOCAL obedience is sufficient to get you tried for treason. So?

-----

You need to understand why they couldn't, but Calvin could to understand this case.

Since this case occurred almost 200 years before Blackstone, no. There is really no reason to concern myself with 'understanding' it at all.

Especially since James Wilson called Calvin's Case - "an authority of an opinion, which was calculated to cut off the noblest inheritance of the colonies".

Why should I give YOUR obsessive conjecture more credence than the words of a man who was one of the six original justices appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court of the United States?

-------

Neither does your positive assertion regarding those same persons in the absence of support.

Posts 223, 273, 295, 384, 404 & 420 all contain sources.

No, you've been given plenty of material to support the assertion that both blood and soil are required for a natural-born citizen. You just choose to ignore it.

I have no tolerance for willful ignorance. Again, have a nice day.

[CpnHook]

That 'conclusion' was made....when?

Coke is stating his reasoning in 1608.

You have yet to provide the source that Coke was quoting from.

Coke gives the case citation. Coke cites that case to show that an alien coming to England owes a temporary, local allegiance sufficient to be charged with treason. An ambassador, by contrast, is deemed not to owe such allegiance and could not be so charged.

Only if you ignore the and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen part.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm explaining how Coke uses that case to support his view that a temporary allegiance is owed.

Yes, LOCAL obedience is sufficient to get you tried for treason. So?

So then accordingly such local obedience is sufficient to put one under the allegiance and protection of the King, and any offspring born in England during that stay of uncertain length would be a natural born subject.

By showing this, Coke then can show that Robert Calvin likewise was a natural born subject of England, even though at his birth his parents were aliens as to England. You seize on phrases and sentences in an opinion with no regard for why the judge is including that.

Since this case occurred almost 200 years before Blackstone, no

Give or take (well, take) some years. But what's your point? There's no expiration date on case precedent, and certainly not when the case is a well-known one authored by one of your nation's preeminent jurists.

There is really no reason to concern myself with 'understanding' it at all.

I'd give 2 reasons: 1) understanding the case would help you understand later writers following that case's reasoning. 2) understanding that case would help you understand why the Birther "citizen parent" theory as to the native-born gets zero traction among serious historians and legal scholars.

James Wilson called Calvin's Case - "an authority of an opinion, which was calculated to cut off the noblest inheritance of the colonies".

If "colonies" refers to the American colonies, how on earth could Lord Coke's opinion in 1608 be "calculated" to affect them? In 1608 there were but a few sparse settlements on the American continent. Coke wasn't writing his opinion with them in mind.

I suspect you're ripping Wilson's comment out of context.

Posts 223, 273, 295, 384, 404 & 420 all contain sources.

St. George Tucker -- I've already shown you where Tucker quotes Blackstone and then say U.S. laws are "accordant" with Blackstone -- Post 380. I even provided the link. (You ask for links, then disregard the material when I provide them.".

Thomas Jefferson -- one of the laws cited by Tucker is the Virginia citizenship statute, originally authored by Jefferson. That statues plainly says that "all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth . . . shall be deemed citizens of the commonwealth." Citizen parents not required; just birth within the territory.

James Wilson speaks of how "alien friends" are "temporary subjects." It's just what Lord Coke says.

Joseph Story -- I've already shown where you disregarded the part where Story says "this follows from the reasoning of Calvin's Case." He doesn't support your view.

Sen. Jacob Howard -- He designates children of ambassadors as "aliens" who are excluded from the citizenship clause of the Civil Rights Act. I've already noted under the common law ambassadors owed no allegiance to the local sovereign. Howard's statement is in accord.

Lord Edward Coke -- you're here quoting from the case you just said you need not bother to understand. Sheesh.

So, OK, those are multiple sources; none of which supports what you're saying.

Again, if you don't want to believe me, why not believe Vatttel, who freely admits England follows a different rule than the one Vattel sets forth. Do you think Vattel was wrong about England?

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes. LOCAL allegiance. The temporary and transitory kind that has nothing to do with naturalized or natural born citizenship...as Wilson, Tucker and Blackstone ALL confirm.

You know, Sen. Lyman Trumbull was able to eventually learn something, but I doubt this current obot is as smart as Senator Trumbull.

“There is a difficulty in framing the amendment so as to make citizens of all the people born in the United States and who owe allegiance to it.

I thought that might perhaps be the best form in which to put the amendment at one time, ‘That all persons born in the United State and owing allegiance thereto are hereby declared to be citizens;’

But upon investigation it was found that a sort of allegiance was due to the country from persons temporarily resident in it whom we would have no right to make citizens, and that that form would not answer”.

Exactly right Senator. You don't have a right to make citizens out of the Children of temporarily resident foreigners.

And why on Earth would you want to?

[DiogenesLamp]

And why wouldn't I be? ... Gray's view of the law is in accord with the "existing law"...

Yes, as I stated before, I have little doubt that you fully agree with Gray's view of the law.

You and Gray are twin minds who think exactly alike. If you were contemporaries, you would finish each other's sentences. You are soul mates, separated in time.

Why, I bet you think Gray is the last word on what the law ought to be, and i'm sure you believe his legal opinions ought to be completely embraced by our government.

If it weren't for the hilarity you provide, I wouldn't see any use for you at all.

[MamaTexan]

Exactly right Senator. You don't have a right to make citizens out of the Children of temporarily resident foreigners.

Which is just it. Besides the fact that certain procedures must be followed in order to turn a foreigner into a citizen, what about the people who are temporary visitors and just happened to have a child born here?

Government has no authority to claim any of that child's allegiance by making that child a citizen against the parent's wishes.

[DiogenesLamp]

Government has no authority to claim any of that child's allegiance by making that child a citizen against the parent's wishes.

As I have pointed out ad infinitum in the past, for a Monarchy, grabbing the children of foreigners in your country is a feature not a bug. It has the practical effect of instantly creating more servants (which is what a "Subject" really is) for the King.

And we are not the first people to notice how useful such a thing is for a Monarchy, but how inappropriate it is for a Republic.

a scriptural view of the character, causes, and ends of the present war. By alexander mcleod, d.d. (1815)

[CpnHook]

You and Gray are twin minds who think exactly alike.

On the point that, following the English rule we inherited, all persons born here even of aliens in amity are "natural born citizens," he and I agree.

On the point that recognition of this rule has been consistent from the time of the framing of the Constitution, through our earliest and most significant legal writers, and through the 39th Congress, which affirmed (citing some of these same writers and Lynch v. Clarke) he and I agree.

On the point that his opinion in WKA was contrary to the views expressed in the 39th Congress, he and I agree that it was not -- the 39th Congress referenced many of the same authorities as Gray. On the point that it's impossible to explain how the Framers could take a phrase in English -- "natural born" -- which had a consistent meaning of "born on the soil" and which when coupled with "subject" and "citizen" was used interchangeably in the period 1776 to 1787 -- and then purport to utilize that phrase, supposedly now ascribing to it a different meaning, while leaving no record they were changing meaning. (This has been pointed out to you now at least a half dozen or more times -- your silence is noted).

On the point that a person who tries to make it appear that Cong. Wilson was endorsing a jus sanguinis view by quoting this:

“We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

when what in fact Wilson stated included extensive reference to Blackstone before that, followed by a citation to William Rawle at the end:

"It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term "citizen." It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity." Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86."

while trying to conceal the truncation by omitting the citation -- that a person who does that is a deceitful putz, I'm sure Gray and I would agree.

[CpnHook]

But upon investigation it was found that a sort of allegiance was due to the country from persons temporarily resident in it whom we would have no right to make citizens, and that that form would not answer”.

So no sooner do you get called out for making one truncated, dishonest quote than you turn around and do another. You really are desperate and pathetic.

In context:

"The Senator from Missouri and myself desire to arrive at the same point precisely, and that is to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States. We cannot make a citizen of the child of a foreign minister who is temporarily residing here. There is a difficulty in framing the amendment so as to make citizens of all the people born in the United States and who owe allegiance to it. I thought that might perhaps be the best form in which to put the amendment at one time, "That all persons born in the United States and owing allegiance thereto are hereby declared o be citizens;" but upon investigation it was found that a sort of allegiance was due to the country from person temporarily resident in it whom we would have no right to make citizen[.} Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 572 (1866)."

Hey, DumbDumb, in speaking of "temporary residents" Trumbull is talking about ambassadors of foreign countries -- their children cannot be made citizens.

He said that on February 1. On January 30, two days prior, he says this:

""I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?" Senator Trumbull, CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 497 (1866).

Oh, right, he "eventually learned" something different? Two days later is "eventually?" LOL. You are stupid. First, he states the general rule; then when questioned, he qualifies that with the well-known common law exception for foreign ministers.

But since you are determined to remain in a bubble of self-induced ignorance, you'll just brush this aside as you always do.

[MamaTexan]

As a self-confessed history junkie, you know I had to go read that. :-)

The child is pinned down in the place of his nativity as a prison; and, unto its local authorities is forever in thralldom.

Potent stuff. Gee, maybe THAT'S why the Founders insisted the federal government not follow English common law.....ya think? LOL!