Replies

Oh come on, the holding is that ‘[t]he child born of alien parents in the United States is held to be a citizen thereof, and to be subject to duties with regard to this country which do not attach to the father.’

And where in there do you see "natural born"?

"Natural born" is a very specific reference to citizenship. It *IS* the requirement to be President.

Now you may think the court does not distinguish between one type of citizen and another, and if you do, you would be wrong, because it was this very same court that gave us the Unanimous decision of Plessy v Ferguson, which established "Separate but Equal."

You can’t separate that holding from the basis of it.

Well *they* did. They didn't add "natural born", and one can only conclude this was done deliberately.

“if that amendment bears the construction now put upon it, it imposed the English common-law rule on this country for the first time, and made it ‘absolute and unbending,’ just as Great Britain was being relieved from its inconveniences.” In fact, it’s the DISSENT that argues that “natural-born citizen” may be defined by statue!

Your snippet only argues that the English common law rule can be imposed by statute.

That’s right: if we were to adhere to Vattel’s political theory, we would find that the 14th amendment directly overturns the Constitution’s definition of “natural-born.”

The 14th says "citizen." It does not say "natural born citizen." If you read the debates on the 14th amendment, they make it clear they regarded the 14th amendment as a "naturalization" process.

Countries have always been able to naturalize, but this has no bearing on citizens who were natural. They don't need naturalization because they are already natural citizens.

I don’t think Vattel is relevant to U.S. law

Where was the US Constitutional convention held? Philadelphia, right?

Do you think the legal community of Philadelphia might have an idea what they meant by "natural born citizen"?

Here is an excerpt from a Law book from 1817 Pennsylvania. This book deals specifically with what British laws remained in effect after the US was created.

Keep in mind that this is the DISSENT. I only reference it to show that the dissent considered Vattel’s definition utterly inconsistent with Ark.

I don't know why I should feel any compulsion to defend someone else's thinking, which may or may not conform to my own. I can defend my positions quite well, but I do not know if Justice Melvin and Justice Fuller had thought of everything or availed themselves of all the information that I have.

>> Well *they* did. They didn’t add “natural born”, and one can only conclude this was done deliberately. <<

Yes, and the reason is absurdly obvious: Wong Kim Ark was not running for president. It is absolutely normal to extend the legal reasoning/interpretation/doctrine used in one case to another related issue. In fact, just about every case that actually makes it to the Supreme Court does just that. If you thought I meant that the Supreme Court had already ruled that someone was or was not fit to be president, no, any such ruling would necessarily determine who was president after an election had happened in order to be ripe and would represent an absolute crisis of democracy, and to insist that such a holding could not be based on any previous holding should be made independent of any previous dicta and in fact in could be made in direct opposition to previous dicta is to demand that the Supreme Court decides elections without any predictability.

>> Your snippet only argues that the English common law rule can be imposed by statute. <<

Your interpretation renders the argument meaningless since of course laws can be imposed by statute so long as they are not prohibited by the Constitution. In fact, the dissent was making the rejected argument that common law needed to be enacted, rather than being the context in which our incredibly sparse Constitution was enacted. Emphasis on REJECTED.

>> The 14th says “citizen.” It does not say “natural born citizen.” If you read the debates on the 14th amendment, they make it clear they regarded the 14th amendment as a “naturalization” process. <<

For former slaves. Naturalization is the process of becoming Natural, herein meaning “native,” as opposed to those who are born Natural. Hence, everyone is either naturalized, or natural-born. You can’t be a citizen without being either.

>> Where was the US Constitutional convention held? Philadelphia, right? Do you think the legal community of Philadelphia might have an idea what they meant by “natural born citizen”? Here is an excerpt from a Law book from 1817 Pennsylvania. This book deals specifically with what British laws remained in effect after the US was created. <<

That book’s thesis doesn’t make your point that Natural Born Citizen does not mean citizen by birth, but rather that a child of aliens is not a citizen at all, which was actually contradicted by a much older case, the name of which I don’t recall, but it argued that a girl was a citizen despite her father dying having never attained citizenship. (Ark argued that Ark was a citizen despite his father having returned with him to China.) That book’s theory is in direct opposition to Ark, and the city it was published in does not make it authoritative to U.S. law.

>> I don’t know why I should feel any compulsion to defend someone else’s thinking, which may or may not conform to my own. I can defend my positions quite well, but I do not know if Justice Melvin and Justice Fuller had thought of everything or availed themselves of all the information that I have. <<

As you point out, they absolutely certainly had access to Vittel, and even in their dissent of those who reject Vittel, reject his basis of citizenship.

>> The 14th says “citizen.” <<

It does, but it cannot accept Vittel’s definition of “natural born citizen” (actually, “native”) while rejecting his definition of “citizen” altogether. You can’t reject the superset without rejecting the subset.

Look, to put it simply, I interpret anything someone argues as to be meaningful. If you meant to say that “Natural-born citizen” has not been adjudicated in the narrowest sense, you care correct, but your argument is utterly meaningless. Lower courts, Congress and election officials have clear guidance from the Supreme Court as to what “Natural-born” means, and they can’t assert Vittel’s definition without arguing Ark was decided based on a false premise, regardless whatever some lawyer publishing in Philadelphia felt in 18-whatever.

I do have a problem with the Court’s doctrine (or perhaps praxis is a more precise term) of ripeness; basically the court won’t address any challenge to electoral law until doing so means overturning the interpretation Congress has acted on, but then would defer to Congress’s actions. Essentially, Congress must defy prevailing law to challenge an election. That’s appears to be a fatally grave flaw in US democracy.