Posted on 09/20/2011 8:28:54 AM PDT by Ordinary_American
The critical issue for the 2012 election is whether or not a government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall perish from the earth.
The US Government has been hijacked by a self-serving, permanent political class, which considers itself above the law and elections as bothersome formalities temporarily interrupting their plundering of the nation’s wealth.
Having become comfortable with ignoring the will of the people, American politicians have created a culture of corruption in Washington, D.C., while they steadily whittle away at the Constitution to remove any remaining obstacles in their pursuit of personal power and affluence.
The rule of law has deteriorated to such an extent that it is now possible for Barack Hussein Obama to present a forged Certificate of Live Birth on national television, to use a stolen Social Security Number and forge his Selective Service registration without a single member of Congress raising an objection.
In 2012, these same politicians will ask voters to ignore Obama’s crimes like they have and endorse their endemic corruption.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
What Mr Rogers appears to be unaware of is that all of the founders that participated in the development of the constitution mostly studied in French, not english, because it was the accepted language of the intellectuals at the time. If one wanted to be current in world affairs, one read French.
>> Further, the bad translation of Vattel has “indigenes” translated NBC, when it OBVIOUSLY is the same as “indigenous”. <<
.
You’ve never studied the French language at all, have you?
Sections 2-4 conclude:
“Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.”
So, before the 14th was adopted, “all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States”.
Yes, I know you pretend native born and natural born are not equivalent, but they are used interchangeably by the court.
For example, “treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co.Lit. 8a, that,
if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm,
and saying that such a child “was a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law stated by this court in McCreery v. Somervlle, 9 Wheat. 354.”
What does that say? “a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject” and then “such a child “was a native-born subject”. The same child is called natural-born & native-born.
Again:
The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:
Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”
Note they use “native-born British subjects” in the same manner they use NBS.
Again:
Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the “general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives,” says:
Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . “
Natives uses the same definition as NBC.
Section 5 begins a new section in the decision:
“V. In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.”
Now attention switches from NBC/NBS/native born subject/citizen to the 14th.
You proceed to get it backwards.
You say, “Gray makes a point here that this list can’t be assumed to be comprehensive and that you have to look at other cases when certain aspects of an issue aren’t examined.”
Actually, the Slaughterhouse case said that “The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
Notice a distinct change from everything else in WKA. Before it was only the kids of ambassadors & foreign armies who were excluded. Slaughterhouse expanded that to include the children of “citizens or subjects of foreign States” - and WKA overturns that part of Slaughterhouse.
First, it points out that the phrase appears as dicta, and not very good dicta at that. It says:
“This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase”
and
“In weighing a remark uttered under such circumstances, it is well to bear in mind the often quoted words of Chief Justice Marshall:
It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision.”
They then go on to show that even the court that decided the Slaughterhouse case did not believe that “all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment” by citing your favorite: Minor.
But they cite the entire paragraph, and their point is that the court that decided the Slaughterhouse case had NOT excluded children born of alien parents from citizenship, in spite of what they had written earlier.
Anyone prior to WKA could use Slaughterhouse as a basis to reject citizenship for the children of aliens. WKA overturns that basis, rejecting it.
They then turn to Elk v. Wilkins, and point out it only applies to Indians, who are considered members of a nation inside the USA boundaries.
These are cases that would weaken the idea that anyone born in the USA was a citizen. After reviewing (and in the Slaughterhouse case, rejecting), the court concluded:
“The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
It is worth pointing out that sections 2 & 3 don’t mention the 14th Amendment. Section 4 mentions it 3 times - twice as a date (”at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment “) and once in the final paragraph of section 4:
“Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.”
Sections 2,3 &4 were not about the 14th Amendment at all. Sections 5 & 6 use it in detail.
In Minor, you write:
“They UNANIMOUSLY rejected Virginia Minor’s claim of being a 14th amendment citizen because she met the court’s definition of natural born.”
Wrong, as usual. They said the passing of the 14th Amendment did not create her a citizen since she already WAS a citizen beyond any question. There is not a 14th Amendment citizenship, and a separate NBC citizenship.
As the courts have said time & again, there are two sources of citizenship, and only two - birth, and naturalization.
Thus you have in Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454 (1920)
“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee [Chinese] and his wife, Tom Ying Shee [also Chinese], he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. But, while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation, was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen, the claim is that that Commissioner was deceived, and that petitioner is really Lew Suey Chong, who was admitted to this country in 1909 as a son of a Chinese merchant, Lew Wing Tong, of Oakland, California.”
And in Minor:
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that
“No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,
and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
Elk:
“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
In Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665 (1944):
“The naturalized citizen has as much right as the natural born citizen to exercise the cherished freedoms of speech, press, and religion, and, without “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” proof that he did not bear or swear true allegiance to the United States at the time of naturalization, he cannot be denaturalized.”
Two types of citizenship - naturalized, and NBC.
In Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633 (1948)
“But the same can be said of an eligible alien or a natural born citizen.”
In Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601 (1949)
“No such procedures could strip a natural-born citizen of his birthright or lay him open to such a penalty...This case, however, presents squarely the issue whether, beyond any question of burden or weight of proof, the ordinary civil procedures can suffice to take away the naturalized citizen’s status and lay him open to permanent exile, with all the fateful consequences following for himself and his family, often, as in this case, native-born Americans. “
Native and natural born are interchanged, and the alternative to being native/natural born is to be naturalized. Two categories.
And they went on:
“If, in deference to the Court’s rulings, we are to continue to have two classes of citizens in this country, one secure in their status and the other subject at every moment to its loss by proceedings not applicable to the other class, cf. Schneiderman v. United States, supra, concurring opinion at 320 U.S. 167, Knauer v. United States, supra, dissenting opinion at 328 U.S. 678, I cannot assent to the idea that the ordinary rules of procedure in civil causes afford any standard sufficient to safeguard the status given to naturalized citizens. If citizenship is to be defeasible for naturalized citizens other than by voluntary renunciation or other causes applicable to native-born citizens...”
And Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”
Native & natural born are used interchangeably, and there are 2 classes: born & naturalized.
“You’ve never studied the French language at all, have you?”
Actually I did, for two miserable years in Jr High. However...
The French word used by Vattel was “indigènes”. There is an English word:
“indigene”
Look familiar? Let me put them side by side:
indigènes / indigene
The English word means: “a person or thing that is indigenous or native; native”, and it comes from...drum roll please...
“Origin:
1590–1600; < Middle French < Latin indigena a native. See indigenous”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indigene
Now...you want to comment more about how the French word “indigènes” should be translated “natural born citizen” rather than “indigene” or “indigenous”?
Ouch!!! I can feel that smackdown all the way over here and I am not even a Vattle Birther!!!
“The States didn’t write the Fourteenth Amendment — Congress did.”
Correct. And nothing Congress passes becomes a part of the Constitution until the STATES vote on it. The STATES decide if Congress wrote something they want, or do not want.
So I’ll stand with Judges Bork & Scalia on original intent...
Unless Cuba was considered a US territory and his Parents were considered US citizens, he was born a Dual Citizen.
Mr. Rubio, do the right thing. Respect our Constitution.
I did read what you wrote. And I've read what the court wrote. And it's almost as if we're reading different decisions. What the justice wrote was:
"We have given this case the careful consideration its importance demands. If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us. The arguments addressed to us bearing upon such a view of the subject may perhaps be sufficient to induce those having the power to make the alteration, but they ought not to be permitted to influence our judgment in determining the present rights of the parties now litigating before us. No argument as to woman's need of suffrage can be considered. We can only act upon her rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an end if we find it is within the power of a state to withhold.
Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone, and that the constitutions and laws of the several states which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we affirm the judgment."
Nowhere does it affirm or deny her citizenship status. That was not a matter before the court. What was under consideration was whether Virginia Minor, as a U.S. citizen, had the right to vote. The court said no.
I did read what you wrote. And I've read what the court wrote. And it's almost as if we're reading different decisions. What the justice wrote was:
"We have given this case the careful consideration its importance demands. If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us. The arguments addressed to us bearing upon such a view of the subject may perhaps be sufficient to induce those having the power to make the alteration, but they ought not to be permitted to influence our judgment in determining the present rights of the parties now litigating before us. No argument as to woman's need of suffrage can be considered. We can only act upon her rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an end if we find it is within the power of a state to withhold.
Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone, and that the constitutions and laws of the several states which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we affirm the judgment."
Nowhere does it affirm or deny her citizenship status. That was not a matter before the court. What was under consideration was whether Virginia Minor, as a U.S. citizen, had the right to vote. The court said no.
si.
Dual citizen Anchor babes are not NBC’s. We can ignore the constitution, but please, lets not deliberately misinterpret it and bastardize it.
“This is not Switzerland.”
Neither is it golly Olde Britin either!
The USSC disagrees with you in many, many decisions.......sorry pal, you’ve been pushing this a few years now and no-one is buying it......
If you like Obama so much adopt him......
French and English share many words, but if you really did study it you know that the denotations and connotations didn’t make it across the channel.
English has more in common with German and Hebrew than with French. The Brits are prone to insulting any and everything that isn’t British.
Anyway, the version of The Law of Nations that was in use in the colonies was French, not the english translation, so the conflicts that you try to insert are imaginary.
Vattel didn’t speak of the location of birth; he embraced the obvious fact that the parents were the greatest influence on a child. That is the reason that the founders chose the concept of natural citizenship deriving from the citizenship of the parents.
If you were as enamoured as you claim to the 14th, you would have been aware that this issue was high on congress’ schedule of discussion in preparing the ammendment. They had no intention of trampling on this sacred concept, and by their own testimony, they left it untouched in their creation of What WKA called “native citizenship.”
It was at the time aimed solely at conferring citizenship to the slaves.
You need to read what you posted a few more times. you’re not getting their message. They said that they were leaving the issue alone. They didn’t think it was theirs to tamper with.
>> “Unless Cuba was considered a US territory...” <<
.
It was not. - It was a sovereign protectorate.
He was smacking his own image in the mirror.
Oh no, he got you good on that one. :)
>> “The doctrine of stare decisis says that judges should be bound by prior court decisions. Since the definition of natural born citizen was not a matter for the court to decide in the Minor case then any comments made on that subject were made in dicta and are not binding” <<
.
Nobody ever has said that they were binding. Are you deliberately avoiding the point? The point is that they were stating what was and had been the well understood meaning of the term. This is valid evidence that should have swayed these disruptors posting here that persist in saying that birth in country created Natural Born Citizenship; it clearly did not.
An "anchor baby" is the child of an illegal alien (an invader). Marco Rubio was born to permanent residents living under the jurisdiction of the United States under the protection of political asylum. Marco Rubio does not have dual citizenship.
Do you have any actual legal arguments to back up your bald faced assertions?
Or should we just accept your opinions as law?
No, he made a fool of himself by his total lack of understanding.
The founders read the text in French, not English. They understood the French language fully, because they were educated men.
The justices in the four SCOTUS decisions that stated agreement with the two parent requirement in their dicta were also educated men.
You trolls all need to carry your wounded carcases back to Obamaland to lick your wounds.
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.