Posted on 11/12/2010 4:53:42 PM PST by Retired Intelligence Officer
I need some help on this. I was reading where Bobby Jindal was born to immigrants here on visas. If he was born in Baton Rouge before they became naturalized citizens, wouldn't that make him ineligible to become President? I am in a heated argument at another website over this and I need answers to this controversy. Any help would be appreciated.
R.I.O.
“The laws we wrote, but the language of our laws is English and uses English common law terms and understanding.”
To be fair to the birthers, the U.S. legal system also uses terms derived from Roman law. I guess that means we’re as Roman as we are British.(/s)
Except that Britain uses Roman terms, too. Oh, and for every italicized latin term there are two or more English terms that people have forgotten are English. Who would know, almost all the words being in English? Aside from those who actually study history (without fetishizing Vattel).
No one need ‘fetishize’ Vattel (I love the ridiculous things faithers come up with) when he’s quoted so frequently in the courts, particularly in direct reference to citizenship.
By the way, when I say everything before the 14th amendment is moot point, I of course don’t include the basic understanding as NBC being synonymous with citizen from birth. That much I borrow from the common law, at least. Apart from that, though, I don’t need to know anything about who was an NBC before the 14th.
“What an IGNORANT HYPOCRIT you truly are! You blast me for studying English history & citing from English scholars & English history taught in England, then you quote from English jurisprudence.”
Everyone ought to go back and dig up patlin’s comments on the relevance of English law—and the English generally—to the ideology of the American revolution and the development of American law. Then they’d see who the hypocrite is.
“Your cut and pasting of feudal law of being born anywhere in the ‘Kingdom’ that NBS = NBC went away 234 years ago when the Kingdom was renounced as persona non grata by the United States.”
I can’t for the life of me understand what’s so feudal and king-y about NBS. Nor, for that matter, why retaining NBS would be so detrimental to our free republic, while the countless thousands of other legal concepts we kept intact were a-okay.
“Madison at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was not speaking of Blackstone or English common law - noway nohow and nowhere... Madison spoke of the “law of nation” and ONLY SUBJECT TO ONE COMMON LAW - and that is UNITED STATES COMMON LAW.”
In the 6th dimension, or wherever you live, I’m sure American common law is sui generis. Back here in reality, it has a couple teeny-tiny similarities to the English tradition.
Bull. Gray cited Binney's 'citizen' v. 'natural born citizen' and Minor v. Happersett's "has never been a doubt" who are NBC to ensure that he would not be misconstrued that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen. The proof is in his conclusion that Ark was only at the time of his "BIRTH A CITIZEN."
“1st of all, your posts are very hard to understand as you do NOT distinctly differentiate between your words & the wrods of others.”
Huh? I use quotes for the words of others. The other words are my words.
“2ndly, when you criticize someone for researching the history of English laws in which you quote, you do yourself a great disservice that renders open minded researchers such as myself:”
What are you talking about? Me criticizing you for bothering to research? Didn’t do that. What does “in which you quote mean”? What do you mean by a disservice to me? Renders open minded people like you WHAT?
Are you saying I should pat you on the back for reading a book lest you be scared of doing further research? Really, what are you driving at? Is it just that I’m too god-awfully ignorant, incoherent, and critical to talk to?
I’m beginning to think you can’t follow simple conversations except in terms of flame wars.
“the Roman Senate next to the consuls makes our president appear a titan next to our Senate”
Correction: would make
The WKA conclusion was that Wong Kim Ark was declared a citizen.
You agree with that.
Good.
” Remember, Gray made a distinction. NBC is defined OUTSIDE the Constitution.”
All Gray was pointing out was that common law was used for understanding the meaning of these matters. The Birther error here is to assume a distinction in class between ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ as if one was a car and another a truck, whereas its more like a car versus a red car. “natural-born” is a modifier is all, and Gray had pointed out that citizenship at birth was defined outside the constitution and statutes and was derived from English common law concepts. The 14th amendment citizen by birth defined IN the Constitution codified what was previously in common law.
That context gave the WKA majority their reasoning.
“As I mentioned, you’re trying to connect dots (and don’t want to admit it) ... natural born subject = citizen at birth = natural born citizen.”
It’s not me trying to connect the dots, I am just stating what IS there. Yes, the dots are there and I am pointing them out. citizen at birth = natural born citizen. This is what the law has been.
“2. By Birth in Jurisdiction. — Natural citizenship is created by birth within the jurisdiction of the United States.” - David Shephard Garland et al, THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LAW, 2d Ed. Vol. 6 (1898)
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
- St. George Tucker,1803, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.
Blacks Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.”
Why didn’t the WKA majority state that explicitly?
1. They didn’t have to. There is a rule in court reasoning and holdings to be as narrow as possible. If the question is citizenship, don’t go beyond that. Wong Kim Ark wasn’t running for President so they didn’t need to answer a question that wasn’t material to the case.
2. Their quotes and citations did it for them, and they DID make it evident in places, eg “Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. “
And adding this citation:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.
Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.”
3. By stating the question more narrowly, they avoided the burden of defining that additional term with precision. they stuck with answering the question about the meaning of birthright citizenship clause.
Other court rulings and statements have been more explicit in calling children of aliens natural-born citizens.
Similarities but not the same laws. It may have occurred to you that this country is now a separate nation from the old British Empire ruled by royalty. Most of us realize this except for the multidimensional DU types around here.
Funny [not] that we do not see the Blackstone Commentaries or by name English common law cited anywhere in the United States Constitution. We DO however, note these written words in the US Constitution -- "And Offenses Against the THE LAW OF NATIONS."
Ah, yes, that’ll show ‘em.
Argument-by-silly-graphic.
The context of Minor helps us understand Gray's dilemma in Wong Kim Ark. Justice Waite REJECTED the 14th amendment in being necessary to define the citizenship of someone who met the Vattel definition of natural born citizen. The point, is that if the so-called common law view of citizenship was to be accepted, there was no need for a citizenship clause in the 14th amendment. Waite makes a point of saying Virginia Minor's citizenship did not depend on the 14th amendment and that she already had citizenship because she was born in the country to citizen parents. For Gray to dispute this means he'd have to overturn the Minor ruling, but instead, he affirms it and creates a new definition for generic citizenship at birth. The only stipulation was that he included the residency/domicil factor.
Gray was subtle in writing up the decision. He didn't acknowledge the lower court ruling which claimed Ark was an NBC. Generally at the end of a SCOTUS case, it will says the lower court ruling is affirmed or remanded, but instead, Gray posed a general question and answered that question, carefully avoiding the use of the term natural born citizen in the question and its resolution.
The dissent in WKA, which keeps getting brought up, challenged the lower court's characterization, but the central argument was that we were bound by treaty to not naturalize Chinese subjects or their children. IOW, children of Chinese subjects, even if born in the U.S., were not subject to our jurisdiction. Gray's counter was that common law and national law is stronger than any treaty, even though the Constitution holds them in equal value. Since the 14th amendment did not use the term natural born citizen, Gray had no choice and had to avoid using it for Ark.
“I love the ridiculous things faithers come up with”
If you want to hear something ridiculous, check out the gymnastics routines birthers engage in to discredit the influence of everything English: law, history, philosophy, whatever. The mere idea that someone who wrote one of many books on international law is more important than the country that ruled them domestically, shaped their laws, and gave them their embryo of culture is ridiculous. What can you call it but fetishism to elevate one single man over the entire country of origin for most Founders?
If I’m as black as you, at least I don’t constantly repeat so-called arguments with which every single person on this thread agrees. My points are at least controversial among the birthers. To match you, I’d have to sign every post off with:
“P.S. The sky is blue.”
A natural born citizen is indeed a citizen at birth, but not all citizens at birth are natural born citizens. This is where your argument fails. Law dictionaries don't override SCOTUS rulings.
There are several types of statutory citizens at birth that do not even fit the legal definition you've provided, so it is in error that you would simplify the NBC to be = to 'citizen at birth.' A good example is INA 1401(d): a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States"
Faithers get confused on this issue. Some say all persons born in the United States are NBCs. Others say all persons who are citizens at birth are NBCs. Both are wrong, obviously, but you see how there isn't even general agreement among the ranks of Obamapologists and sandhead??
You mention other courts making the same error as faithers and sandheads, so I'll remind you, the highest court gave us and affirmed a clear, NARROW definition of NBC: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
Bullcrap dingbat. You repeat in so many words that jus soli births in the United States is the sole criteria to be a natural born citizen. Repeat, and rinse, ‘peat and rinse, and repeat again.... That’s you and WOSG.
“Funny [not] that we do not see the Blackstone Commentaries or by name English common law cited anywhere in the United States Constitution. We DO however, note these written words in the US Constitution — ‘And Offenses Against the THE LAW OF NATIONS.’”
Dear Lord, are we going back to this AGAIN?
You’re too difficult to argue with. I’ll go explain to my dog how that quote has nothing to do with Vattel particularly. That’ll get it off my chest and be more rewarding.
So if it was such a comprehensive and absolute influence, why did we change choose to be citizens and not subjects and have a president instead of a monarch??
The mere idea that someone who wrote one of many books on international law is more important than the country that ruled them domestically, shaped their laws, and gave them their embryo of culture is ridiculous.
You're right. Your claim is ridiculous. I've never seen anyone say Vattel's works were more important than England. Obama myth skeptics simply cite the direct, indirect, but ultimately obvious influences it had on the framers of the Constitution. It's why Justice Gray said the Vattel definition was the "nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar." He had no problem making this acknowledgment.
What can you call it but fetishism to elevate one single man over the entire country of origin for most Founders?
It's more of a fetish to work inordinately hard on discrediting the impact of Vattel's work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.