Replies

I read your entire post and I have heard this argument before. I flat out disagree and believe the SC would be well within bounds to disagree as well. Firstly, your entire post was nearly in reverse chronological order. You must remember that the precedent is the most recent law not the earliest. Secondly, after reading everything which you wrote about "allegience" I find nowhere in any of the law which outlines 3 types of citizen. Natural born citizen means a citizen who is so at birth. Unless you can show some case law that is chronologically relevant which shows that a person was born with "naturalized" citizenship and not natural born citizenship, then there is no such thing.

In order to win this argument you must clearly show that there are 3 types of citizen.
TYPE 1: A naturalized citizen who is born elsewhere and moves to America and becomes a citizen. (Everyone agrees not eligible).
TYPE 2: An American born of American parents who is "natural born".
TYPE 3: An American born to at least one foreign parent who is granted "citizenship" at birth but not "natural born" status. I have read everything you have presented and I see no evidence any such citizenship has been granted anyone. Why do you think no prominent conservative constitutional lawyer has taken the case? Because they're all in on some kind of conspiracy? Maybe they know something you don't.

I read your entire post and I have heard this argument before ... Firstly, your entire post was nearly in reverse chronological order.

So, lets go down the chronological road ...

1608. Calvin's Case - Calvin was accused of NOT being a natural born subject and, thus, incapable of inheriting. The Court ruled that a natural born subject had to be born within the realm, to parents who owed a PERMANENT allegiance to the sovreign [James I], and that he could not have been born in a land under a different soverign BEFORE James I united the kingdoms. Calvin met those requirements and won.

1730. The British Nationality Act - declared that children born beyond the realm were also natural born subjects - as long as their fathers were ALSO natural born subjects too.

1765-1769. Blackstone wrote a series of commentaries on the laws of England [not the law itself]. In it, he re-iterated the requirement that a natural born subject owe a single, PERMANENT allegiance to the sovreign. He also stated that children born in England to alien parents were natural born subjects - but he added this qualifier to the definition: "Generally Speaking". He specifically exempted the children born in England of foreign ambassadors and such since they owed their allegiance to a different sovreign. But, he also STRONGLY implied that if [for any reason] someone else owed more than one allegiance, they could be a subject - but NOT a natural born subject.

1776-1789. When the Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they used much of English Law [they agreed with it]. In fact, they liberally borrowed from the Petition of Right, signed by Charles I, in their writings - prohibition of the laying of taxes without consent, no quartering soldiers in private homes, due process of law, illegal imprisonment, etc. And they DID NOT chuck the English system of laws and write a whole new set - they used the English Laws that they agreed with and DID NOT use the ones that they opposed. Funny how there is no expanded explanation of the terms "eminent domain" and "natural born citizen" in the Constitution? Thats because they used the terms AS KNOWN in English Law.

1896 - Conflict of Laws. Dicey wrote his thesis explaining English Law. He stated that a British Subject owed a PERMANENT allegiance to the sovreign, as opposed to a temporary allegiance due to the sovereign by an alien living in the country [remind you of Blackstone and Calvin?]. He ALSO stated that a Natural Born Subject became so at the moment of his birth. So, a Natural Born Subject was normally born within the realm AND with a single, PERMANENT allegiance at the moment of his birth. However, the British Nationality Act of 1730 extended this to include children beyond the realm - as long as their fathers were Natural Born Subjects themselves.

So, I have gone through chronologically. I will write another post specifically concerning the Supreme Court. But, suffice to say, the Court looks to the past in order to make decisions. However, in this case, the Court has side-stepped the question in every case concerning "natural born citizen" that has come before it. So, it goes all the way back to the Framers of the Constitution [even before Dicey]. What did they know - and when did they know it?

The lawyers and jurists amongst the Founders were trained in English Law. They KNEW Calvin's Case, they KNEW the British Nationality Act of 1730, and they KNEW Blackstone. They also KNEW the writings of Grotius and Vattel - which they heavily referenced. But they made NO attempt to qualify the term "natural born citizen". Why? BECAUSE THEY AGREED WITH IT ...

Now, I've put my cards on the table - grow a pair, man up, show me some documentation - show me court decisions, etc. to support your drivel ... I have.