Research - Vattel & the meaning of the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen"

http://www.loc.gov/index.html ^ | 5/12/2010 | many

[DiogenesLamp]

The only problem here is that there is a distinct difference between allegiance & obedience. Allegiance assumes individual sovereignty with ones rights defined by God Almighty; obedience assumes servitude to a person with rights defined by that person who claims to be the only sovereign owner of all things in the kingdom, including the people.

Mr Rogers has made a similar, if not the same, argument. I have looked a little further into the book in order to see if the usage of the words "actual obedience" is the same thing as "allegiance" in this context. The language is archaic and a bit confusing to follow, but I am making every effort to understand it correctly. Here is an excerpt that I THINK clarifies it.

If you will notices it says:

"If Aliens come as Enemies in the Realm, and possess themselves of a Town or Fort, and one of them has Issue born here, this Issue is an Alien; for it is not Cælum nor Solum that makes a Subject, but the being born within the Allegiance, and under the Protection of the King. "

In this sentence, he uses the word "Allegiance", which appears to indicate a political loyalty, and not a geographical or merely an "obedience" to the Kings laws. What's more, I looked up the words "Cælum" and "Solum". They appear to mean "Sky and Soil" in this context. If this is the correct interpretation of the Latin, then the sentence basically says that It isn't the sky or the soil (i.e. location or place) that makes one a Subject, but rather by being born of people who have allegiance to the king.

I would further suggest, that at this time in History, there was only one form of Government; Monarchy. As a result, foreign visitors to England would owe Obedience to their own King, not the King of England. They would be required to obey the commands of their own King if he bade them to leave England. (Or suffer the consequences.)

Further on in the book, it discusses the ownership of property by Aliens (not permitted) and the inheritance by Aliens and their children (not permitted) and various combinations of agreements and relationships between Aliens, Denizens, and Subjects. If I follow the examples correctly, it seems that they treat an alien (or a denizen, which is just an Alien permitted to reside there) and his children very differently from the way they treat a subject.

[David]

This is one of the great Constitutional issues of our time. All the locker room lawyers here on Free Republic think the Supreme Court answer is clear as are the facts--why do we suppose it is so difficult to get to a resolution?

I suppose to be fair to the Court, almost all the cases I know about are correctly decided because the lawyers were not sophisticated, experienced, or knowledgible enough to get a Constitutional issue before a Court that could hear it.

But the threashhold proposition needs to be understood that the Supreme Court is a political institution. Half the expertise of the fine lawyers who practice there is involved in an understanding of the political forces that are likely to shape a decision on any individual case.

I may sound like a broken record on the subject of Vittel. There is no doubt that the founders used the term "natural born citizen" based on a reading of Vittel they thought would restrict eligibility to serve as President to persons who had a generational attachment to citizenship of our country.

And yes, I recognize there are lots of arguments that adoption of the 14th Amendment was not intended to affect this question.

But none of that is really relevant in the present context. The bottom line is that if an Obama eligibility case ever reaches the Court on facts that do not demonstrate his birthplace outside the geographical limits of the United States, the Court is going to hold that by adoption of the 14th Amendment, we eliminated any question about the quality of citizenship of a person born in the United States.

The Court is going to hold him eligible unless the record demonstrates that he is born outside the US.

Now careful legal work is likely to be able to place the evidentiary burden on Obama to show where he was born but some of the many pleadings in these cases do not do this correctly and will muff this issue. Fortunately I now believe most of those cases are gone. But this is one of the places a real legal action needs to start--be sure we are able to get the burden on the ultimate issue on Obama.

If we do that, and he still gets a finding of fact that he was born in the US, it doesn't matter who his father was or where the father was born or where he was a citizen--the Supreme Court will find Obama eligible to serve.

[GregNH]

I wish we could decipher the other names on that cover...Is the book available to look at in the Library?

[DiogenesLamp]

I wish we could decipher the other names on that cover...Is the book available to look at in the Library?

I would suppose so, but I don't know what efforts you would have to make with the Library staff in order to see it.

[DiogenesLamp]

This is what I call a post!

EXCELLENT WORK!

Thanks. I think I just stumbled on to a bit of luck though. :)

[edge919]

This reminds me of Blackstone's description of the term denizen. He says:

A denizen is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject: a high and incommunicable branch of the royal prerogative. A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them. He may take lands by purchase or devise, which an alien may not; but cannot take by inheritance: for his parent, through whom he must claim, being an alien had no inheritable blood, and therefore could convey none to the son. And, upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue of a denizen, born before denization, cannot inherit to him; but his issue born after, may. A denizen is not excused from paying the alien's duty, and some other mercantile burthens. And no denizen can be of the privy council, or either house of parliament, or have any office of trust, civil or military, or be capable of any grant from the crown.

It appears to me, that the only aliens whose issue can be "natural-born citizens" are those who formally swear allegiance or "actual obedience" to the crown ... such as an alien who has applied for denizenship. The child of a "denizen" born BEFORE denization cannot inherit (i.e., is NOT a natural-born subject), but the one born AFTER denization CAN inherit and is thus a natural-born subject.

This is the same in the U.S. basically as not being a citizen at birth until AFTER the father naturalizes.

What the Blackstone passage doesn't make clear is that a "denizen" BEFORE denization is just an alien, therefore the child of such a person cannot inherit and is therefore NOT a natural-born subject. Once the alien becomes a denizen with actual obedience and allegiance to the crown, THEN the child may inherit and is thus a natural-born subject. This seems to be missed when the interpreters of common law say they children of aliens are natural-born subjects ... this is only for the children of aliens born in the country AFTER the denization of the father.

[patlin]

Natural born subjectship is allegiance that is forced due to a forced obedience. The state is considered the parent, NOT the biological parents who gave birth to the child. This law assumes the soil gives birth to the child rather than the flesh. The fact that English common law accepted NBS status for children born out of the country is testament that their law indeed did at one time say that membership in the civil society depended on blood not soil. They had to reinforce that law that had always remained part of their original constitution; in order to protect the body count of their society as nature intended it to be. They just rejected the fact that it was a common law for all nations and refused to let other nations laws be accepted for aliens who lived in their land. this is called forced servitude, there is nothing natural about forced servitude.

citizenship is allegiance the derives from personal commitment that has no forced value placed upon it, one is free to accept it or refuse it and the only way a child can legally be a citizen at birth is for the citizen parents, who are under the law of citizenship, to consent for the child who is not old enough to speak for them self.

therefore, anyone who tries to define natural born citizenship via a forced allegiance that is derived out of forced obedience fails to make his case. There is nothing natural about forced allegiance aka anchor babies as all babies born to aliens under English common law is a natural born subject because the crone says so, this is called jus corona...law of the ruler.

jus commune is law of nature(law of blood of the father) that has been since the beginning of time ... a child born to a stranger is a stranger, a child born to a member of the tribe is a member of that tribe at birth. While all may live in the land and are subject to the laws of the land, not all are who are born in the land are “of” the land

[onyx]

To: FReepers; everyone; All

YES!

Donate Here!

YES!

Donate Here!

[DiogenesLamp]

What the Blackstone passage doesn't make clear is that a "denizen" BEFORE denization is just an alien, therefore the child of such a person cannot inherit and is therefore NOT a natural-born subject. Once the alien becomes a denizen with actual obedience and allegiance to the crown, THEN the child may inherit and is thus a natural-born subject. This seems to be missed when the interpreters of common law say they children of aliens are natural-born subjects ... this is only for the children of aliens born in the country AFTER the denization of the father.

That is a very good point, and that is also what I seemed to be reading in Bacon's book cited above. The fact that such people are treated differently in Inheritance law demonstrates pretty conclusively that the English Common law did not really regard them as the same.

While poking around a bit more, I found this interesting 1915 essay by F. T. Piggott explaining why he believes English Common law is such a mess regarding British Subject status. He echoes a concern mentioned by Patlin above. (That of forceable Patriation.) Not that any of us needs something more to read! :)

[DiogenesLamp]

therefore, anyone who tries to define natural born citizenship via a forced allegiance that is derived out of forced obedience fails to make his case. There is nothing natural about forced allegiance aka anchor babies as all babies born to aliens under English common law is a natural born subject because the crone says so, this is called jus corona...law of the ruler.

And this is a point I try to get through to people. "Jus Soli" is incompatible with a free people. It is FORCED patriation, and it's use serves the interest of a Monarch who makes people his servants, but it does not serve the interests of a Free Republic.

There is an interesting link to an 1915 essay by a F. T. Piggott in the previous message. It's long, but it covers some of the territory we have discussed here.

[DiogenesLamp]

Thanks for the images and comments, DiogenesLamp.

It was my pleasure.

[DiogenesLamp]

Wonderful find!

Thanks. :)

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, well, well. Adams and Adams, no less. Better hold on to all of this research since the usurper has escalated his scrubbing of the internet in recent days.

Absolutely.

[DiogenesLamp]

Justia altered records so that people couldn't search for Minor v Happersatt. SCOTUS ruling in this case was that nbc is one born to TWO citizen parents. They have placed txt.robots so that the wayback machine can't access the pages.

Yeah, I saw that. No doubt some Obot supporters in the woodwork like termites. Same thing in the Media, which is even worse.

[DiogenesLamp]

See subsequent discussion in this thread with Patlin and edge919.

[DiogenesLamp]

Have you seen what justia.com did? They scubbed references to mi I vs happersatt which scotus ruled that NBC is born to two citizen parents

Yeah, I saw that. I think Instapundit even picked it up!

[Absolutely Nobama]

Well FRiend, whatever you did, keep it up! I just wish my blog postings were that good. For that matter, I wish my local newspaper was that good.

All the best,

Alan

[LucyT]

This is one of the great Constitutional issues of our time. All the locker room lawyers here on Free Republic think the Supreme Court answer is clear as are the facts--why do we suppose it is so difficult to get to a resolution?

See remainder of David's comment at # 402.

Thanks, David.

[patlin]

What people need to do is what I did. Take the words of the founders regarding citizenship in the new Repbulic “we have returned the ancient customs of our Saxon ancestors”.

England was part of German Saxony before the split which was a result of the Norman conquest. So one has to go back before the conquest and look to see what the Constitution of the country was at that time. It very mush was like that which we have today, the government being made up of the heads of each household which was we call the “legislature” & this “legislature” elected a “king” from among the heads. The “king” was merely a title, it held no power. The only duty of the “king” was to lead the army in battle, PERIOD! The natural increase in citizenship, yes they used “citizen” in the society was by blood only. However, there was immigration just as the founders adopted that required an oath of allegiance to the adopted society only by the head of the household, the legal representative for each household.

Our founders were well studied in this rich history of how England was formed. We all need to take a lesson from them and set Vattel aside for the moment as his works have clouded people from reaching their potential where history is concerned.

[little jeremiah]

Extremely discouraging.