Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: FromTheSidelines; DiogenesLamp

>> “Do you have ANY proof or reference from the Founding Fathers that they chose to explicitly change from English Common Law (Royal Subjects) to Natural Born citizenship?” <<

Over 160 years of American eighth grade students being taught that Natural Born meant that both of your parents had to be citizens should be a good place to start.

No other idea even existed until the last decade.

All of the SCOTUS cases that ever discussed citizenship were in agreement on that definition, and WKA, the court even had to coin a new term to hang on 14th ammendment citizenship (native citizen) so that they wouldn’t step on Natural Born, which has a different meaning.


244 posted on 09/20/2011 4:58:01 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Sarah Palin - 2012 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies ]


To: editor-surveyor; FromTheSidelines; DiogenesLamp

“Over 160 years of American eighth grade students being taught that Natural Born meant that both of your parents had to be citizens should be a good place to start.

No other idea even existed until the last decade.”


Really?

(page 246)
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

(pg 250)
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf

Was 1844 part of the last decade?

What about 1795?

““It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut - 1795

What about 1803?

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)

“...in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Consitutution, note 274: “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. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”

Sen. Trumbull (author or the Civil Rights Act of 1866) in 1871


Yep, guess it is only in the last decade that anyone thought a NBC could have alien parents...

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


256 posted on 09/20/2011 5:18:18 PM PDT by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson