Posted on 06/24/2011 9:38:55 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Since my last report, many people have asked why the definition in Minor v. Happersett of a “natural-born citizen” (as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens) is binding legal precedent. The answer is in the Court’s holding that Virginia Minor was a US citizen…because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens. That part of the actual holding is listed in the official syallbus of the case.
And furthermore, Minor was the first case to hold that women are equal citizens to men. To this day, that case is still cited as the first US Supreme Court decision which recognized that women were, in fact, citizens. It is still precedent for that determination. Google [ "minor v happersett" "women are citizens" ] and review the results. A multitude of articles discuss the holding of Minor – that women are US citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
In the prior thread, "children" was introduced after I started talking about the language of the Preamble.
It started here, at this post, not directed at me but after I wrote of the Preamble.
"Children" was mentioned in blockquotes prior to this, but not in direct debate.
-PJ
So those are two non-overlapping groups, right? If so, why did Waite write, "Some authorities go further"? That strongly suggests that this sentence is going to somehow broaden the definition just stated. What are the two qualities of that definition (said to be of "natives, or natural-born citizens")? (1) "born in a country" and (2) "of parents who were its citizens." What are the qualities of the "further" class? (1) "born within the jurisdiction" and (2) "without reference to the citizenship of their parents." The only difference is the citizenship of the parents. Dropping the parental citizenship requirement is how "some" authorities broaden the definition. But the definition is still that of "natives, or natural-born citizens," not of some new thing that hasn't been mentioned before.
Besides, I have yet to read a cite of any of those "some authorities" who think children born within the jurisdiction are not citizens at all unless their parents were citizens. Do you have any from before, say, 1874?
Chief Justice Waite citing Vattel:
“the opinion of so eminent a publicist as Vattel”
United States v. Arjona.
Mr. Rogers...”We are and have been governed by the laws of the colonies and the US, not Vattel”
Brunell v. United States
77 F. Supp. 68 - Dist. Court, SD New York, 1948 -
... “Beginning with Vattel, in the middle of the Eighteenth Century,in the De Lima case, supra, the Supreme Court adopted and approved the principles enunciated by Vattel in the Eighteenth Century.”
Ruggles v. Illinois
108 US 526, 2 S. Ct. 832, 27 L. Ed. 812 - Supreme Court, 1883
... But Vattel’s first general maxim of interpretation is that “it is not allowable to interpret what has
no need of interpretation,”
Boos v. Barry
485 US 312, 108 S. Ct. 1157, 99 L. Ed. 2d 333 - Supreme Court, 1988 -
... “As a leading commentator observed in 1758, “it is necessary that nations should treat and hold
intercourse together, in order to promote their interests, — to avoid injuring each other, — and
to adjust and terminate their disputes.” E. Vattel, The Law of Nations
CONGRESS MAY BE CONVINCED OF THE NECESSITY FOR CONSCRIPTION FOR THE EFFECTIVE CONDUCT OF WAR, SELECTIVE DRAFT LAW CASES
245 US 366, 38 S. Ct. 159, 62 L. Ed. 349 - Supreme Court, 1918 -
... It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen
includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need,
and the right to compel it. Vattel, Law of Nations
L’INVINCIBLE
14 US 238, 4 L. Ed. 80 - Supreme Court, 1816 -
... But we are of opinion that it rests upon other grounds; and that the views of Vattel on the subject are the most reconcilable to reason, and the nature of things, and furnish
the easiest solution of all the questions which arise...
The MERITS of the case including the “two parents are required argument” was NOT before SCOTUS. STANDING was before the federal courts and the case was denied STANDING by the lower court and that was affirmed on appeal. SCOTUS declined to take the case, period, and no reason was given for or against the two parent argument.
No federal court can get to the merits of the NBC claims without first granting standing. Anti-birthers mischaracterize the failure to grant certiorari as an adverse assessment of the merits of birther cases, but this has not been true in any case because no case has been granted standing.
Now, How to open the door to foreign influence?
Elect dual citizens at birth, and excuse their foreign citizenship. Mr. Obama had foreign citizenship at birth.
After Obama, we can now elect people born on US soil, to two foreign citizens. This completely subverts the intention of the document, without a constitutional amendment. This point, on its face, is evidence of the fact that Obama is also ineligible. Allowing Obama to gain access to the presidency, a British born subject, gives that right to all citizens of all countries who stop in the USA to have a child. Turkish women now fly here to give birth, with sole purpose to get citizenship.
One day, we will elect a man born with foreign citizenship that is hell bent on destroying our country. In fact, I think it has already happend.
Was Vattel ever used concerning the law of nations - international law? Yes.
Was his review of Swiss and continental European law on citizenship used instead of English law? Nope!
When you want a passport, you are asked for a birth certificate, not your parents passports. Citizenship, in America, has always followed English law, not Swiss.
“There is ONE REASON, and one reason only to draw a legal distinction between “citizens” and “NATURAL-BORN citizens,” and that is ELIGIBILITY TO RUN FOR AND SERVE AS PRESIDENT.” Jeff Winston
One other reason I would say. A natural born citizen doesn’t require naturalization.
“I believe Washington and company understood NBC to be pure bred citizen. They did not want foreign influence. We can all agree to that, unless we have an axe to grind for Mr. Obama.”
What we need to agree on is to use what they wrote. They used a legal term, well known and used by the colonies and states in their own state laws concerning citizenship.
That term allows for alien parents, if the baby is born in the US.
Original intent doesn’t give you the right to substitute your ideas for what it actually says in the Constitution. Paying attention to what the states ratified is NOT kissing Obama’s butt, but upholding the Constitution - unless you believe it is a ‘living document’, and that you get to change its meaning by simply wanting it to change.
“It clearly lays out whom the Constitution was meant to serve.”
What is even more clear is what it says. Natural born citizen, contrary to what birthers imagine, was the term the new states used to update their laws, which had formerly read ‘natural born subject’. Since it replaced NBS, it seems pretty safe to believe the meanings did not radically change - and a NBS included those born in the country of alien parents.
You don’t get to use your interpretation of the preamble to replace clear legal terms used in the text.
“people can and do become citizens of these United States in different ways and circumstances”
Only TWO ways, actually. One is via the natural act of being born - a U.S. citizen, or one must undergo a legal “naturalization” process.
That certainly seems a reasonable reading. On the other hand, I don't see anything that requires the two classes to be mutually exclusive. One might, for example, talk of the class of animals called "dogs" and the class called "pets, or, as Waite does himself a bit later, "persons" and "females".
In any case, I see no way around the conclusion that "without reference to the citizenship of the parents" is inclusive of jus solis/jus sanguinis children and thus, either Waite was incredibly clumsy here in what he was trying to say, or he did understand that the latter class was inclusive of the former. This seems corroborated by his assertion "Some authorities go further", which certainly suggests an extension or expansion of the first, rather than the positing of something distinct and separate from it.
Lets capitalize all the functional terms in the phrase not just cherry pick the ones that fit the thinking.
“...should be considered as NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS,”
The emphasis needs to go on the words ‘considered as’ as much as ‘natural born Citizen’. BTW - no hyphen and the C is capitalized - in both the Constitution AND the immigration act.
What in the importance of ‘considered as’. It clearly recognizes that the the subjects of this part of the were not ACTUAL ‘natural born Citizens’. And thus the act indicated they are to be treated as such since they are NOT ‘real’ ‘natural born Citizens’.
What are they lacking? Why are they not real, actual natural born Citizens and thus must be ‘considered as’? They meet the standard of jus sanguinis. So they are of the blood by their citizen parents (plural). It is jus soli that they lack. So the act of 1790 attempted to remove the jus soli requirement from eligibility for the President.
‘considered as’ clearly and without doubt shows that this class of citizen was NOT considered an ACTUAL natural born Citizen.
The reason for the passage being dropped in 1795 is not clear. But it was dropped is NOT part of codified law today. Maybe Congress realized their error - that they had modified the constitution or attempted to do so without a formal amendment.
The passage of this act tells us with almost no doubt that that the ACTUAL status of ‘natural born Citizen’ required both jus sanguinis and jus soli. But the founders CONSIDERED jus sanguinis the much stronger of the two. So strong that they were willing to waive the jus soli requirement and for those born overseas to parents of citizens ‘considered (them) as’ ‘natural born Citizen’.
Law, as intended, when written, is the desired function of the language. No foreign influence on the most powerful office in America was the intention. We must be honest with ourselves that this was the intent. If we cant be honest, there is no point in further debate.
When a child grows to age of 5, and learns the customs of his native country till age 10, he comes to accept the law and customs of his country. The traditions make sense.
As we see with Obama, growing up in Indonesia as an Indonesian citizen, our capitalist system is rubbish to him. Our constitution is garbage to him. This is natural. It is not his fault. It is simply his nature. His roots. He was raised an Indonesian Muslim, and he now commands a Christian Capitalist nation.
Changing our country, fundamentally, is his stated goal. This is natural for a man raised in a foreign country during his most impressionable years. In plain English, “America sucks” and he's going to fix it. So now we have some 20 million unemployed people as he tends to his grand mission of remaking America. Millions of people with broken dreams, lost homes, lost jobs, broken families. But the boy from Indonesia continues his dream, to lead a country and reverse the traditions of that country.
We can explain away the intent, and accept people with foreign citizenship's to lead us, but as Washington knew, they will want to destroy what he started here. Freedom.
Reality has crossed the intent of the constitution. You do win sir. We have that person in the office that is deconstructing the gains of the American Revolution and the birth of freedom, and was born with foreign citizenship, as Washington and John Jay expected. A natural born citizen accepts his fathers country. A foreign citizen has no such burden. He can fundamental change it.
I understand what you're trying to get at -- that in some sense it seems like a distinction without a difference -- but I don't think so.
Birthers insist on reading "without reference to the citizenship of the parents" as if it's semantically equivalent to "of alien parents" because it plays so well into the positing of distinct, mutually exclusive classes -- one born of citizens, the other of aliens.
But when we recognize that, per Waite's words, the second class is inclusive of the first, any mutual exclusivity now devolves to the doubts, not the classes. If the latter class is inclusive of the former, there can can be no talk of mutually exclusive classes at all, and hence the supposition of a second class of citizenship is utterly forestalled. The doubts may be mutually exclusive; the constituencies of the classes are not.
The appellants have properly put forward their claims, but the federal courts (including SCOTUS to justify granting cert) cannot REACH any claims on eligibility if the plaintiffs cannot establish STANDING.
All that SCOTUS did in refusing certiorari was to let stand the lower court's denial of standing and in doing so SCOTUS made absolutely NO ruling or expression of opinion on the merits of plaintiffs claims that Obama is ineligible.
The Drake/Keyes case could yet be remanded to the district court for a hearing on the merits. Only after such a hearing, including discovery, could it be concluded that a refusal to grant certiorari would reflect a lack of support from SCOTUS on ineligibility claims, IMO.
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.