Posted on 03/16/2016 4:56:59 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
Alas, there is no definition of same in any law or legal proceeding. The Constitution expressly leaves the definition of citizenship to the Congress -- which defined the two categories of "born citizen" and "naturalized citizen" in a 1790 law. At th time, many of the founders sat in Congress and unanimously approved the law.
But you knew that, too, didn't you?
U.S. law doesn't subscribe to Vattel, it follows British Common Law.
““...born of a country to parents who are its citizens....”
I comprehend just fine. I was asking for a cite of that wording which is not in Article II of the Constitution.”
The USSC decision in Minor v Happersett quotes De Vattel’s “Law of Nations” definition of Natural Born Citizen exactly in answering the question of whether Elizabeth was a citizen. She was born in the US of 2 American citizen parents. Therefore a born US citizen with the quality of being a NBC.
Note that in USSC Decision Wong Kim Arc, Mr. Wong was determined to be a born citizen, but NOT an NBC.
You may want to take a look at the Elg Decision, 1934. Same definition....born in a country to parents who were its citizens.
“defined the two categories of “born citizen” and “naturalized citizen” in a 1790 law.”
The 1790 law was so flawed that in 1795 it was repealed and replaced....”But you knew that, too, didn’t you?” They passed it, then they read it. and then they had to repeal it. Lolololol.....
“U.S. law doesn’t subscribe to Vattel, it follows British Common Law.”
I beg to differ. Reread the Constitution’s Preamble where it states the Constitution is based on Natural Law... De Vattel, Locke, Aquinas, et al.
Common law is law based on Custom. US Law is based on Statute. Vattel’s “Law of Nations” was used in US Law Schools as a textbook until the 1880s. You are mis-informed.
It is silly to say that the US adopted the laws of a country that it found to be unjust, and had just successfully rebelled against in order to establish a new country.
The Founders used 2 texts in writing the Constitution. Blackstone’s Common Law which showed where they had come from, and Vattel’s “Law of Nations” to see where they wanted to go. Again reread the Constitution’s Preamble......
Under British Common Law the People are Subjects....
Under US Law the People are Citizens.
Understanding the difference between Subjects and Citizens is key to understanding the fallacy of “.... it follows British Common Law.”
Under US Law the People are Citizens.
You are correct. But you're missing the point...barely.
The U.S. chose to define its citizens the same way Britain defined its subjects.
Britain defined a British subject as one born of a British father...anywhere in the world. Managing a far-lung empire required British citizens to be posted all around the globe. It was desirable that their children be born British. Accordingly, a British child born in In-jah was just as British as a British child born in Cornwall.
And we've determined citizenship in the same way as Britain has determined its subjects.
By the way, the 1795 citizenship law maintains the same two classifications of citizen. But you knew that...
agreed: the founders used natural law as a definition. everyone agrees that there are exceptions to those laws based on the motives/actions of the parent and laws of congress. these exceptions are the sacred cows of citizenship, however, accept them and there is the opening.
IF you are a bigwig abassador or a common soldier living in a foreign country, your child born there is a NBC - even though that child has CLEARLY been foreign born. so, we’ve now accepted that it is within the power of CONGRESS to declare that foreign soil is AMERICAN soil. it is also within the power of congress to declare that a child actually born on American soil is NOT a citizen because the parents are not under the jurisdiction of American law if they are aliens.
we’ve already accepted foreign born children as NBCs because congress said they were, whether we like it or not.
because this has been done by all countries since the time borders were drawn is not important. the fact is that congress defines citizenship....also whether we like it or not.
Ted talking in tongues, passing around the copper heads and claiming Jesus has anointed him does not make him anymore Christian than Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Jones. I do not like him but this born in Canada crap has not a thing to do with citizenship as his mother was an American citizen. We beat ourselves up over the right of the Kenyan Muslim communist to hold the office and what did it gain, two terms of executive orders and two losers we opted to run against him.
That was the information I was looking for. Thank you.
“By the way, the 1795 citizenship law maintains the same two classifications of citizen.
I don’t dispute that except to say that that Article II requires a born citizen that has the quality of having been born in the US to citizen Parents (2 as there are no immaculate births a much as the Cruzers would like that to be.)
The Founders did not coin the term Natural Born Citizen, but they used the term in Article II for a purpose. It is used as a restrictive requirement designed to eliminate those with foreign influence in their upbringing. It requires a person installed as President was born and reared with 100% US American influence. See Vattel’s explanation on the importance of NBCs to a nation to realize why the Founders used the term in setting up the eligibility requirements for the highest Office in the Land.
The British term “Natural Born Subject” as a corruption of the ages old term NBC used by the Roman REPUBLIC, and adopted by other western governments. It’s (NBS’) real effect is that everyone and every thing born on British soil owes a duty to the King (Queen) as subjects. Foreigners born on British soil are NBSs until they leave British soil.
No matter how much you insist the Founders used Natural Law as stated in the Constitution’s Preamble and rejected the idea of Royal Governance over subjects/serfs.
I’m done with ya!
Good! And I with you.
That’s why I take responsibility for following the rules myself. I can’t change others, but I can control what I do.
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.