Replies

I have no reason to doubt Judge Roberts was good person and exercised his judicial duties with diligence and good conscience.

And this is a measure of your naivete. Samuel Roberts received all of his legal training from William Lewis a delegate of the Pennsylvania Convention. Furthermore that book wasn't just an offering from the latest "book of the month" club, it was a LAW BOOK, intended for use by lawyers in Pennsylvania, to include the members of the Pennsylvania Supreme court mentioned prominently in it, and of course William Rawle, among others. It was used in every courtroom and lawyer's office in Pennsylvania, if not beyond. It was widely distributed and widely used.

It was reprinted again in 1847.

There is no possibility that it was obscure or that William Rawle didn't know about it. (Not to mention that the Entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania slapped him down ~1804 by unanimous vote a case in which he made his arguments for common law citizenship. He was trying to argue that a slave was free because according to the common law she was a natural born citizen.)

But now I see you want to argue about what people thought on the issue in 1866. I find this highly amusing because i've been down this road before, and you will not like what you find once you've researched it sufficiently.

Yes, i've seen that statement "declaratory of existing law" plenty of times before. Jeff used to use it a lot. He quit doing that when we showed him examples where the author clarified his understanding.

So you want to talk about the civil rights act of 1866? It is of course getting the cart before the horse, but let's look at it for a minute.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;

That the act invokes the idea that someone can be born in the United States and Not be subject to any foreign power demonstrate that they believed the opposite was a real possibility. One does not invoke clauses that have no serious chance of occurring, so that clause right there is a tantamount admission by the congress that you *CAN* be born in the United States while being subject to a foreign power.

Now you are going to argue that they put that in there for the exceedingly rare exception of the children of ambassadors, but other commentary and writings of the time demonstrate this to be not the case. The act is primarily directed at former slaves and other people who are mundane and ordinary.

And what are the authorities for "existing law" were reported to the House? Blackstone, Kent, Sandford (Lynch v. Clarke), William Rawle, the Naturalization Act of 1802 (the one St. George Tucker described as "accordant" with Blackstone). These among many others.

And there is a very good reason for that. I figured it out a long time ago, but I bet you aren't even thinking along the correct lines. Why would they prefer to cite English Law? Why did Rawle say it was what applied when he was most seriously disabused of that notion in his own legal circles?

I think i'll let you twist in the wind while pondering this for awhile. I'll send a private message to Mamma Texan so she can verify that I have an answer to these questions when the time is appropriate.

But you think on it. :)

There is no possibility that it was obscure.

It just doesn't get cited in any subsequent discussion on citizenship -- not in the Congress; not in the Courts. Not even by the SCOTUS Chief Justice when he's trying to make the argument for a Vattel-based original meaning of "natural born citizen." I mean, gosh, is that's your standard of prominent and authoritative, what on earth would constitute "obscure?"

Would you agree that the sources cited by the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee sufficiently clarified the state of "existing law?"

Or, how about Senator Howard? He was, after all, the draftsman of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause:

"A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws..... They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." Sen. Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

*Center column, middle)

This seems clear: the natural law "recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country." No mention of citizen parents. And his use of "subjects or citizens" shows that he's speaking of the common law as applicable, respectively to England and the U.S.

Very clarifying.

So you want to talk about the civil rights act of 1866? It is of course getting the cart before the horse . .

Huh? The CRA was enacted 2 months before the 14th Amendment passed Congress. How is this getting the cart before the horse?

I applaud your clairvoyance:

"This bill provides that all persons born within the United States, excepting those that do not owe allegiance to the United States government, as children of ambassadors of foreign powers, and such are not subject to our laws[.] Rep. Cook, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1124 (1866)

(Bottom Col 1, top 2)

Yep, I'm going to argue that. :)

Why would they prefer to cite English Law?

Kent, the Naturalization Act of 1802, State v. Manuel, Lynch v. Clarke, etc., are not citations to English law. Your question is flawed.

But you think on it.

Well, given in most instances when I've cited something clear and opposed to your position your response has followed this pattern -- a) search around for something not quite as clear, b) adopt one of several possible meanings, c) wave your hands, d) declare I'm wrong -- then my thinking leads me to expect more of the same. Indeed, I expect a tidal wave of hand-waving.