Posted on 04/30/2011 12:49:21 AM PDT by djf
All I'm saying is, dicta in Minor and Wong Kim Ark--that is, "authorative" but non-binding statements--do not follow your reasoning. You're saying that it doesn't even matter what de Vattel said in French; anyone with "half of a brain" at the time of ratification defined NBC the way you do.
I repeat my question, which you did not answer: Then why did Chief Justice Waite consult "common law"?
Original Intent is a branch of originalism, yes, but the dominant branch is Original Meaning, which doesn't care at all about intent but rather what words would've meant to a "reasonable person" who lived at the time of ratification.
Sections II and III of Wong Kim Ark form the bulk of Justice Gray's thorough analysis of the meaning of "natural-born citizen." However, as WhiskeyX is quick to point out, Wong Kim Ark did not deal with the question of who a "natural-born citizen" is. Therefore, Sections II and III, are dicta: "authoritative" but not binding.
WhiskeyX correctly notes that Justices who sign on to others' Opinions don't endorse every letter and word of the Opinion, but given how long Sections II and III are, if any of the other five Justices disagreed, they would've written separate or concurring opinions, indicating that they didn't join those parts of Justice Gray's opinion.
Notice that the two dissenters cited de Vattel once in their dissent, demonstrating their disagreement with Sections II and III of Justice Gray's Opinion. The lack of a separate or concurring opinion from any of the five remaining Justices in the majority distancing themselves from Sections II and III suggests that they AGREED with it.
Justice Grey opined that birth in the United States was sufficient to be defined as a natural born citizen. However, since this was a form of dicta and therefore not binding as a precedent, later courts are free to use the contradictory opinions of prior courts or formulate their own opinions.
Honestly, I could say. I guess I haven't been keeping up. LOL!
The point is.... a court can ONLY see the particulars before it, and Arks issue before the court clearly states he is petitioning as a NATIVE born citizen.
Ark does nothing to define natural born.
Yes, of course Vattel wrote in French. I find your point in post 176, “that de Vattel defined a phrase in English that he never used”, to be deliberately confusing. So we can only quote the French version? Or we have to say, “In French he said...”
Yes, you are correct of course; he did say it in French. But hm ... I find that kind of “truth” to be slick, oily, and well, insincere. You hurt yourself with that I think.
What an absurd claim! Are you TRYING to be deceptive? Not only did Chester Arthur lie to the interviewers about his father emigrating directly to the United states. He also lied when he said that his father was naturalized as a U.S. citizen BEFORE the birth of Chester Arthur. If that had been true, instead of a lie, then the voters would not have been deceived into voting for a candidate they were led to believe had a father who was a naturalized U.S. citizen at the time of birth. In other words, Hnman tried to persuade voters to believe Chester Arthur was born in Northern Ireland. He wasn't. He was born in the United States. The voters were informed by Chester Arthur that his father was born in Northern Ireland and was a naturalized U.S. citizen. No one ever told the voters Chester Arthur's father was not a naturalized U.S. citizen when Chester Arthur was born.
So, your comment is false and deceptive.
My layman’s view is different; it is the intention behind the meaning that counts. For example, our Founding Fathers wrote in the preamble to “Provide for ... the General Welfare.” Their intention was not to create Social Security. It was just in the preamble. Maybe people back then could have interpreted that “providing for the general welfare” means a Federal charity, but the location of the words [preamble] was never intended to hold any weight of law, right?
We have an airforce even though the meaning of “airforce” didn’t exist. It was the intention of defense that allowed a reasonable interpretation.
And then there’s the Commerce Clause. Our Founders never indended for the Commerce Clause to restrict personal freedoms. They just wanted smooth trade. Fuzzy memory alert: didn’t Justice Marshall respected the intention of the commerce clause more than the meaning? His court settled Commerce interpretation for some time in a reasonable way if I recall reading. But the courts later used a jackhammer to bust through our freedoms with loose interpretations.
OK so now it’s getting deep: dicta v. precedent. Ouch.
The actual word, “natural born” was used? OK. So when was the Constitution amended to allow sons of foreign men to qualify as President? The only TRUE way the Constitution is changed is through an amendment.
I personally wouldn’t mind such an amendment — if the mother is a U.S. citizen, fine, unless she’s underage [in the case of Obama’s mother]. I don’t think it’s an urgent amendment however.
I'll dispute that statement. Nonetheless, it is moot in either event, because no court case has ever made a binding decision on the definition of the natural born citizen phrase in the Constitution. There are a number of opinions for and against. There are more authoritative opinions supporting the ineligibility than eligibility.
There's the rub.
While the federal government has every authority to decide the terms of native born, i.e. naturalized at birth, it has no authority to redefine natural-born.
That lies within the purview of Nature and natural Law, which determines one can only become a natural born citizen in one way - by inheriting it from your parents.
-----
§ 214. Naturalization.
A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
Chapter XIX, Law of Nations, Emmerich de Vattel
(emphasis mine)
-----
IMHO, the Natural born / natural Law connection seems pretty simple to me.
I don't understand why some folks insist on trying to make it complicated.
It’s because some folks want to blur the distinction and then altogether eliminate the concept of allegiance and loyalty to the United States Constitution as it stands.
It’s because some folks want to blur the distinction and then altogether eliminate the concept of allegiance and loyalty to the United States Constitution as it stands.
In that, I have no doubt you are correct.
“You think a reasonable person in 1787 would’ve chosen de Vattel’s definition over the English common law one when prior to 1783, he was a “natural-born subject” of the British Crown? “
Absolutely, they knew the difference between “subject” and “citizen” and would have accepted the definition that recognized that they were not subjects anymore but citizens!
Your handle is disrespectful of those who died in the USS Cole bombing, btw.
Chief Justice Marshall relied upon a pre-1797 edition of Vattel’s text. The 1797 translation was adopted by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), where Chief Justice Waite stated:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. ...
It’s significant that this decision was issued six years after the 14th Amendment was enacted. As such, Minor illustrates that the 14th Amendment simply defines who is a citizen, not which citizens are natural born.
Read more: Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134881#ixzz1LDTD00Bc
Because it was pertinent to the question of whether or not the Constitution determined who was and was not eligible for suffrage, which was the purpose of of the case and its decision.
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.