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 ...
The First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was a Vattel “birther”
Justice Daniel was a Vattel “birther”
Justice Harlan.
Justice Clifford
Justice Swayne
Justice Miller
Justice Davis
Justice Field
Justice Strong
Justice Bradley
Justice Hunt
The list is not limited to the above
I think others do, because what the Court did not do is rule on what the definition of natural born citizen was. Because that was not a matter before the court at the time.
edge919 did.
The point is that they were stating what was and had been the well understood meaning of the term.
Not by everyone. Decades before Constitutional scholars like William Rawle and James Kent had come to entirely different conclusions. And in the Minor case itself the Court acknowledges that the definition of a natural born citizen as only someone born in the U.S. of two citizen parents is not held by everyone.
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.
Depends on who you talk to.
Well, if all them people were Vattle Birthers (which I doubt because of something I found JUST LAST NIGHT!!!), then it should be REAL easy to find at least one case thingy that says that it takes 2 citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. Because from what I have read here the only case the Vattle Birthers can find is one that says it is NOT discussing THE DOUBTS at all because it isn’t relevant. Which, I just bet the Vattle Birthers wouldn’t do if there was a real one.
Yes, it does and YOU cited the EXPLICITY language that confirms it. "These are the NATIVES ..." Helps if you think before you post.
To repeat for emphasis
“For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
... because Virginia Minor met the definition of NATIVES. To repeat for emphasis, here's point No. 2 from the syllabus:
2. In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since.
Notice that above the court affirms its own definition of NATIVES (born in the country to citizen parents). This isn't just a definition for Virginia Minor, but for women (and men as noted in the Opinion) as a class. Notice it says this is true as much before the 14th amendment as since it was adopted. This means that the 14th amendment did NOT change the definition of natural born citizen. It created a new definition for those persons born in the country NOT meeting any other definition. WKA added that such persons must be born to parents with permanent domicil in order to meet the subject clause.
Also...do you realize that a decision that comes after Minor would expand or clarify Minor, or expressly reject it - as they rejected the Slaughterhouse decision.
They didn't reject Slaughterhouse. They expanded on it by citing Minor and Elk showing that the court was "committed to the view 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 ..." It worked around the Elk decision by baselessly claiming that Indians had a "peculiar relation to the National Government." Also, it used dicta from the dissent in Elk to claim an Indian could become subject to a state by severing himself from a tribe and becoming a " a bona fide resident of a State." In one fell swoop, Gray INVENTED a rationalization for his own residency requirement to meet the subject clause. He did NOT do any such thing with the Minor decision. Minor was NOT discussed further NOR was the term natural-born citizen, instead opting for the generic, second-class term "citizenship by birth." Read it.
Actually, they told the Slaughterhouse decision to pound sand:
No, Gray only took exception to Justice Miller lumping together consuls and "foreign ministers." Gray noted that Miller later concurred in a ruling that consuls were not in the same class. It's worth noting here, that Gray cites the law of nations in this passage (note that the court's definition of NBC matches that of the law of nations):
... or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers ...
Gray disputes nothing else from Miller's exceptions to the subject clause, particularly the part underlined below:
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.
That EXCLUSION is supported in Minor. One other note: It's poor form for Gray to say, "It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness ..." about Miller's consul exclusion, when Gray's "peculiar relation" comment about Indians in regard to the Elk decision is "unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities ..." etc.
They then cited Minor as evidence that the court had NOT excluded children of foreigners as citizens - although the Slaughterhouse case specifically did so.
Absolutely false. He said the court was "committed to the view 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 ..." and that this was MANIFEST from a UNANIMOUS judgment in the Minor decision. Let's look at Minor again:
There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position.
Do you understand what that says?? Women did NOT need the 14th amendment to be citizens. Waite repeats this exclusion.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
This is a statement made AFTER the adoption of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment is part of the Constitution. Neither the 14th amendment NOR the Constitution defines NBC. Waite said you must look elsewhere and gets a verbatim definition matching Vattel's definition in law of nations, and further that this definition is sufficient for the purposes of the case. That is a rejection of the 14th amendment as including natural born citizens. But wait, that's not all ....
The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men.
IOW, if you met the NBC definition, you were excluded from the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment.
In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment ... did not confer citizenship on her.
There you have it. Here is a citizen whose citizenship was NOT conferred by the 14th amendment, because she was a natural born citizen. She, as a woman and a class of persons, was "EXCLUDED from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment" in a UNANIMOUS decision.
Again, you can squeal about my interpretation, but you cannot get around the fact that 50 states, Congress, the Supreme Court & every Congressman (and the GOP & Rush Limbaugh) agree with me, and disagree with you.
Sorry, but this is a logical fallacy. A concensus of incorrect opinion doesn't invalidate legal precedent. The definiton from Minor is clear: "... all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens. These were the NATIVES, or natural-born citizens ..." That definition was cited and UPHELD in Wong Kim Ark.
OK, since you cannot read, I'll repeat what they said:
"That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view 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 is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench..."
You say: "the court was "committed to the view"
WKA says: "neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view"
Frankly, if you cannot see the 180 deg difference between what you say and the court said, then there is no point in discussing. Go learn to diagram a sentence. Go learn to read. Start small: "See Dick run. See Dick not run."
You say: "They didn't reject Slaughterhouse."
The court wrote:
Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:
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.
16 Wall. 73. 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 is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together -- whereas it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse [p679] with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside. 1 Kent Com. 44; Story Conflict of Laws § 48; Wheaton International Law (8th ed.) § 249; The Anne (1818), 3 Wheat. 435, 445, 446; Gittings v. Crawford (1838), Taney 1, 10; In re Baiz (1890), 135 U.S. 403, 424.
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. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated."
He didn't say that about "ALL" citizenship. He said citizenship was necessary to perpetuate a civil society and that it needed to be accomplished through the children of citizens, specifically that children naturally follow the condition of the father (which was stated by the Supreme Court in Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harbor - but ignored by Gray in WKA).
Vattel clearly says "I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen ..." meaning this is his opinion. This certainly is not a comprehensivie statement about ALL citizenship.
Further, Vattel acknowledges that there are LAWS that oversee the regulation of citizenship in some countries:
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.
Vattel again, puts his commentary in perspective as his personal observation:
... I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise ...
Vattel specifically cites England as a country that "naturalizes" children born of foreigners at birth:
Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.The parents only count if the birth is outside the USA, so the Founders were NOT following Vattel.
Not exactly. Vattel said the laws of other countries must be followed. Your example, however, does mean the Founders were NOT inherently following English common law as described by Blackstone.
... all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception ...
The founders had to enact a section in the Naturalization Act of 1790 to do something similar, obviously because this was not universally accepted under the country's common law. You've just destroyed your own arguments yet again. Brilliant, Rogers, brilliant.
That's NOT what the court said. Their comment was that some authorites go further in defining citizens. It didn't say anything about other definitions of natural born citizenship or who did or didn't hold the court's definition of citizenship. They said the opposite. Of those who fit the definition of natural born citizen, there were no doubts. This means EVERYONE would have held that opinion. What wasn't shared is if other people could be considered citizens if born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents.
So...the only place where you think the Founders were following Vattel is on who can be President, and you base this on a translation made 10 years AFTER the Constitution. At the same time, you agree they rejected all his other ideas about citizenship.
Weird.
I'm not the one with the reading problem. I'll school you yet again momentarily.
WKA says: "neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view"
Frankly, if you cannot see the 180 deg difference between what you say and the court said, then there is no point in discussing. Go learn to diagram a sentence. Go learn to read. Start small: "See Dick run. See Dick not run."
Did YOU read what you posted?? The first part of the sentence said the justices in Slaughterhouse did NOT understand the court be committed to a view.
Let's break it down, piece by piece:
Justice Miller and the other justices did NOT understand something when they decided Slaughterhouse.
What did they not understand?? They did NOT understand the court was going to be committed to a view.
What view was the court committed to?? 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."
What evidence is there that the court was committed to this view of excluding NBCs and children of foreign subjects from the 14th amendment?? The same sentence explains. The evidence is "manifest" (made clear) from a UNANIMOUS decision in the Minor decision.
What did the Minor decision say?? In the next paragraph, Gray cites Minor that "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens" were natural born citizens.
Is that true?? How do we know the Minor decision declared citizenship on the basis of citizen parents (as distinguished from birth clause of the 14th amendment)?? It's repeated two paragraphs later:
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ...
So what difference does it make whether Miller or the other justices did not understand this when Slaughterhouse was decided?? None actually, because Miller and those other justices voted unanimously in the Minor decison that defined natural born citizenship. Gray's point was that we can't look ONLY at Slaughterhouse for guidance on exclusions from the subject clause. He quoted Justice Marshall saying general expressions only apply to the case in question. So Miller's exclusions in Slaughterhouse are not sufficient by themselves.
For other exclusions, Gray turned to Minor and to Elk v. Wilkins. Gray wiggled around Elk, but he could NOT wiggle around Minor. He affirmed Minor and ne'er again uttered the phrase "natural-born citizen" in the decision, opting for a different phrase "citizenship by birth" wholly dependent on domicil to satisfy the subject clause.
Rogers, what other lessons will you require today??
The Supreme Court agrees with me. They called this, "the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar." And you've already been shown that "naturel" was translated to "natural born" SIX years BEFORE the Constitution. You have nothing.
Weird.
And a PS. I’ve already shown other citations of law of nations by the Supreme Court ... one was within WKA in its citation from Slaugherhouse. I mentioned the Vattel-matching reference from Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harborn. Justice Marshall cited Vattels on citizenship in The Venus. There are other citations of Vattel in the journals of the Continental Congress and the Annals of Congress. So, no, this is NOT the only place where the founders were following Vattel.
Learn to read. See Spot run. See Spot not run.
When you know the difference between those two, get back to me...
You’ve got to do better than that. I’ve broken down the paragraph phrase by phrase so that even YOU can understand it. If you disagree, you’ll need to explain specifically where and why.
“If you disagree, you’ll need to explain specifically where and why.”
I did, in post 566:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2781065/posts?page=566#566
You cannot understand basic English, as you proved again in post 570.
I cannot help someone who reads WKA and concludes “the court was committed to this view of excluding NBCs and children of foreign subjects from the 14th amendment”.
Here, again, is what the court wrote...get back to me when you know the difference between see Spot run, and see Spot not run:
“Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:
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.16 Wall. 73.
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..
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. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated.”
A court cannot reject Slaughterhouse more thoroughly than that.
That was all that was required by the 1790 citizenship law, iirc, 3 years resident and appearance before a magistrate to declare intentions.
If the original language is seen in the constitution, then the original process is seen in the first law passed by congress to codify that intent.
This argument I find persuasive. I am not totally sold on it yet, but it seems reasonable. Do you know when his father appeared before the magistrate to declare his intent? Also, do you know of any other supporting founding era documents other than the two I mentioned?
If you haven't done so, you ought to read the debates on the "naturalization act of 1790." It seems fairly clear from them that the founders were very desirous of people coming to the United States to become citizens, because they made every effort to make it easy for them. They were pretty adamant about the intent to declare though.
Nonsense. The whole paragraph is broken down. The part of the phrase you cite, I agreed that Miller and the other justice did not understand something. I explained what they did NOT understand. The fact they misunderstood it doesn't change the fact that the Supreme Court was committed to the cited view. Those justices who "misunderstood" and were divided in Slaughterhouse were NOT divided in Minor. They ALL voted unanimously in a decision that specifically REJECTED the 14th amendment in favor of a citizenship based on an NBC definition matching Vattel's in Law of Nations. You need to start being honest and wrap your head around that. Juvenile comments about "See Spot run" only demonstrates YOUR level of reading ability and nothing more.
And speaking of honesty, you completely lopped off this part of Slaughterhouse:
is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together -- whereas it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse [p679] with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside.
This was the ONLY part of Slaughterhouse that Gray rejected. That's far from the so-called thorough rejection as you tried to dishonestly characterize it.
“And speaking of honesty, you completely lopped off this part of Slaughterhouse:”
Actually, I included it in post 566. I deleted it in 575 to save space, and because it was irrelevant to the fact that WKA overturns Slaughterhouse.
In fact, in legalese, WKA spits in the face of Slaughterhouse, tells them they were stupid idiots, and to go pound sand.
One of the founders, (and I don't recall which, but I think it was Madison) said that they intentionally did not define many words because they expected posterity to use the meaning in use during the founders time.
I didn't find the Madison quote, but I found the Jefferson quote.
“On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
On further looking, I did find these two Madison quotes. They are not the one I am looking for, but they tend in the same direction.
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
The General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy.
My point is, I don't think that a body of men who have pored over every jot (indeed, Franklin said so in his thank you letter to Charles Dumas) of Vattel's book since it was first sent to them in 1775, (Franklin and Adams used it as a cipher code book for secret messages to and from Europe) would be unaware of the specific meaning of the term of art "natural born citizen."
If there is a weak spot in your argument, I perceive this is it. Support for your argument can be found in the Debates on the Naturalization act of 1790. See link in my previous message above.
Your squeeks are likewise not worthy of notice.
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.