Posted on 09/08/2024 10:19:42 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(May 5, 2024) — INTRODUCTION
It is frequently argued by opponents of the “two-citizen parents” requirement of Emer de Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) found in Book 1, Ch. 19, § 212 of The Law of Nations (1758), that the requirement “is nonsense.” Indeed, the 2015 article purporting to “resolve” the meaning of the nbC term (“C&K article”) by former high officials in the Department of Justice – Solicitor General Paul Clement and Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal – completely rejects the relevance of the de Vattel nbC definition by ignoring any discussion of de Vattel or the definition in his 1758 treatise altogether. Ignoring facts, however, does nothing to eradicate them.
Instead, the C&K article deploys ipse dixit (“it is so because I say it is so”) to merely declare that “someone born to a [i.e., singular] U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States…,” adding, cryptically, that “a ‘natural born Citizen’ means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings.” (Emphasis added)
Stated otherwise, the C&K article announces, ex cathedra, that as long as “a” parent – in the singular – is a U.S. citizen, that alone will suffice to render the child born abroad to that parent a “citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings [thereafter].” The C&K article then somersaults to the non-sequitur conclusion that therefore, purportedly, “a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth.” (Emphasis added)
(Excerpt) Read more at calameo.com ...
You are such a liar! You know good and well that you read it, and it kinda stung you! That’s a good sign for you! When you start to feel ridiculous, then that means that you will want to start putting some distance between you, and your moronic belief system.
You believe what you want to believe deary. I know you will anyway.
“He [Rawle] is a London trained lawyer (London only teaches British law)”
You know who else were London trained lawyers?
These Framers of the Constitution.
John Blair of Virginia studied law at London’s Middle Temple.
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, of South Carolina studied law London’s Middle Temple, attended Christ Church Christ Church College, Oxford, where he heard the lectures of the legal authority Sir William Blackstone and graduated in 1764.
John Rutledge of South Carolina studying law at London’s Middle Temple in 1760
William Houston of Georgia legal training at Inner Temple in London.
John Dickinson of Delaware In 1753, Dickinson went to England to continue his studies at London’s Middle Temple.
Of the remaining lawyers at the Convention most were trained in the 1760s so they would have been trained in English Common Law as it applied to the American colonies.
“His father [Rawle’s] was a British Loyalist”
No. His father, Francis Rawle died in 1761. His step-father, Samuel Shoemaker was a loyalist.
“That case referenced with William Lewis and Jared Ingersoll is “Negress Flora v Joseph Graisberry”.”
Also often cited as Negro Flora v Joseph Graisberry.
Rawle argued that the 1790 Pennsylvania Constitution outlawed slavery.
“Accordingly they arranged the famous case of Negro Flora v. Joseph Graisberry, and brought it up to the Supreme Court of the state in 1795. It was not settled there, but went up to what was at that time the ultimate judicial authority in Pennsylvania, the High Court of Errrors and Appeals. Some seven years after the question had first been brought to law this august tribunal decided after lengthy and able argument that negro slavery did legally exist before the adoption of the constitution of 1790, and that it had not been abolished thereby.”
In Massachusetts the same argument had been successfully used in Littleton v Tuttle, 4 Massachusetts 128
And it was a bullsh*t claim when Massachusetts did it too. It was a deliberate misrepresentation of what the framers of the Massachusetts constitution meant when they borrowed that "all men are created equal" line from the Declaration.
John Blair of Virginia studied law at London’s Middle Temple.
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, of South Carolina studied law London’s Middle Temple, attended Christ Church Christ Church College, Oxford, where he heard the lectures of the legal authority Sir William Blackstone and graduated in 1764.
John Rutledge of South Carolina studying law at London’s Middle Temple in 1760
William Houston of Georgia legal training at Inner Temple in London.
John Dickinson of Delaware In 1753, Dickinson went to England to continue his studies at London’s Middle Temple.
And they went through the process of creating American law (based on Vattel's ideas) while William Rawle did not. Notice the dates they graduated versus when William Rawle graduated? *HE* was not exposed to any of the cauldron of creation in regards to US Independence.
Yes, the Nation kept up the English law practices for everything that was not expressly rejected by American principles of government. Do you know the thing which was *MOST* rejected by the principles of American governance?
Being a "subject."
We rejected the idea of "subject", and we rejected the foundation on which "subject" was based.
Rawle argued that the 1790 Pennsylvania Constitution outlawed slavery.
He also argued that being born on the soil made someone a "citizen", and therefore all slaves born in America were free.
“He also argued that being born on the soil made someone a “citizen”, and therefore all slaves born in America were free.”
Do you have a link to his brief where he made that argument?
Adams used the two terms in a draft commerce treaty with England in 1785.
Of course since it requires two citizen parents there were no natural born citizens in 1783 and 1785 except for those born after July 4th, 1776.
You know the court records are lost. You must know that if you've looked at the case as well as you seem to have done.
You have to read his history, and then surmise he did the same thing he always advocated doing.
You can also get some insight by reading what his co-counsels wrote.
You know, prior to the advent of federal governance under the Constitution of the United States, but by virtue of our Declaration of Independence (as enforced by our subsequent military victory over the British), each former North American British colony constituted its own sovereign state and thus would have boasted of its own cohort of natural Born adult citizens, properly so-called as defined by natural law and the Law of Nations, as declared/set forth/defined, for example, by de Vattel.
“Natural Born Citizen of the United States” was not yet a thing, though, admittedly, and required time to “grow” once “naturels” began being born after the ninth state approved the new COTUS.
Hence the Hamilton-enabling grandfather clause. Bastard brat of a scotch pedlar.
“You know the court records are lost”
Of course I’m aware that the record’s of the case are lost but your statement on what Rawle argued seemed to go beyond speculation (“He also argued that being born on the soil made someone a “citizen””).
I thought maybe you had come across some other documentation (letters, diary entries, etc) from Rawle, Ingersoll or Lewis.
Now Freepers say there is no such thing as NBC.
“There is the text of the case. I challenge you to show me EXACTLY where “it was declared that he was a natural born citizen”
I’m late seeing this, obviously, but I literally quoted the text of the ruling in the post you are responding to, and you included the quote from the ruling in your very own post “challenging” me to show where it says that. Did you not see the quotations? Anyway, here is a link to that very decision wherein you can find the same quote and the analysis that follows.
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F/0021/0021.f.0905.pdf
“Independently of the constitutional provision, it has
always been the doctrine of this country, except as
applied to Africans brought here and sold as slaves,
and their descendants, that birth within the dominions
and jurisdiction of the United States of itself creates
citizenship. This subject was elaborately considered
by Assistant Vice-chancellor SANDFORD in Lynch
v. Clarke, found in the first volume of his reports.
[1 Sandf. 583.] In that case one Julia Lynch, born
in New York in 1819, of alien parents, during their
temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the
same year to their native country, and always resided
there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen
of the United States. After an exhaustive examination
of the law, the vice-chancellor said that he entertained
no doubt that every person born within the dominions
and allegiance of the United States, whatever the
situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen;
and added that this was the general understanding
of the legal profession, and the universal impression
of the public mind. In illustration of this general understanding he mentions the fact that when at an
election an inquiry is made whether the person
offering to vote is a citizen or an alien, if he answers
that he is a native of this country the answer is
received as conclusive that he is a citizen;
910 that no
one inquires further; no one asks whether his parents
were citizens or foreigners. It is enough that he was
born here, whatever was the status of his parents. He
shows, also, that legislative expositions on the subject
speak but one language, and he cites to that effect not
only the laws of the United States, but the statutes of a
great number of the states, and establishes conclusively
that there is on this subject a concurrence of legislative
declaration with judicial opinion, and that both accord
with the general understanding of the profession and
of the public. 1
Whether it be possible for an alien who could
be naturalized under our laws to renounce for his
children while under the age of majority the right of
citizenship, which, by those laws, he could acquire
for them, it is unnecessary to consider, as no such
question is presented here. Nor is the further question
before us whether, if he cannot become a citizen, he
can, by his act, release any right conferred upon them
by the constitution.
As to the position of the district attorney, that the
restriction act prevents the re-entry of the petitioner
into the United States, even if he be a citizen, only
a word is necessary. The petitioner is the son of a
merchant, and not a laborer, within the meaning of
the act. Being a citizen, the law could not intend that
he should ever look to the government of a foreign
country for permission to return to the United States, 2
and no citizen can be excluded from this country
except in punishment for crime. Exclusion for any
other cause is unknown to our laws, and beyond the
power of congress. The petitioner must be allowed to
land; and it is so ordered.”
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2755257/PA-TedCruzruling.pdf
Elliot v. Cruz, 137 A3d 646 (Pa Cmmw Ct 2016)
While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law [See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478, 8 S.Ct. 564, 31 L.Ed. 508 (1888) ] and enactments of the First Congress. [See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297, 8 S.Ct. 1370, 32 L.Ed. 239 (1888).] Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.[...]
Having extensively reviewed all articles cited in this opinion, as well as many others, this Court holds, consistent with the common law precedent and statutory history, that a “natural born citizen” includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth.
Accordingly, because he was a citizen of the United States from birth, Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as President of the United States, and the objection filed by Carmon Elliott to the Nomination Petition of Ted Cruz is denied.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 662-63:
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. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States.
Persons born in the United States while subject to United States laws have been considered natural born citizens of the United States since 1776.
The EXACT sentence, not a wall of text.
There you have it. They are "considered" natural born citizens.
It doesn’t mean they ARE natural born citizens.
Or do you not know what the term "considered" means in this instance?
As in...having the same rights AS a natural born citizen...once naturalized
How do you reconcile the fact that the case itself was about the child of a permanent resident alien? Aren't the rulings in cases only supposed to pertain to the actual case being heard?
Why isn't the ruling in Wong limited to children of permanent resident aliens? Isn't extending it to all children born in the United States an overreach of the case?
-PJ
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2755257/PA-TedCruzruling.pdf
Elliot v. Cruz, 137 A3d 646 (Pa Cmmw Ct 2016)
While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law [See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478, 8 S.Ct. 564, 31 L.Ed. 508 (1888) ] and enactments of the First Congress. [See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297, 8 S.Ct. 1370, 32 L.Ed. 239 (1888).] Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.[...]
Having extensively reviewed all articles cited in this opinion, as well as many others, this Court holds, consistent with the common law precedent and statutory history, that a “natural born citizen” includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth.
Accordingly, because he was a citizen of the United States from birth, Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as President of the United States, and the objection filed by Carmon Elliott to the Nomination Petition of Ted Cruz is denied.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 662-63:
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. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States.
Aren't the rulings in cases only supposed to pertain to the actual case being heard?
No. That is the European code system of law. We use the British common law system of law which recognizes precedents set by appellate courts. Do you think Roe v. Wade only pertained to Jane Roe?
No, I think it only pertained to pregnant women.
Why do you think that Wong pertained to all children when the case before the appellate court was a child of permanent resident aliens?
-PJ
Untwisting a pretzel doesn't make it licorice.
A natural born citizen doesn't need an Act of Congress to make them such.
That Act of Congress naturalizes the person via 8 U.S.C...as stated...which happened to Cruz...as the law, concerning ALIENS AND NATURALIZATION, demands.
You do know the difference between natural law and positive law, don’t you?
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.