Replies

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?"

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.

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?

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.

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.

You're really going to cover that same old Jeff Winston territory aren't you?

Something tells me you've already been presented the rebuttal quotes by Howard, and Bingham, and So forth, but will simply brush them aside. You are Mr Snowplow, pushing unwelcome facts aside.

Let's find out.

Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said:

“word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”

And of course Bingham. Here he is in 1862:

Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle that I assert. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862))

And of course, Bingham again:

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

And Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson said much the same thing in 1866:

“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.”

Sen. Lyman Trumbull says that it meant:

"not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States."

Sen. Trumbull also stated during the drafting of the 14th amendment that it was the goal to:

“make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”

Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language:

"will not, of course, include foreigners."

And of course, the Supreme Court said in 1873 that:

That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

And I will predict at this point that you will ignore everything those men said above.