Posted on 11/12/2010 4:53:42 PM PST by Retired Intelligence Officer
I need some help on this. I was reading where Bobby Jindal was born to immigrants here on visas. If he was born in Baton Rouge before they became naturalized citizens, wouldn't that make him ineligible to become President? I am in a heated argument at another website over this and I need answers to this controversy. Any help would be appreciated.
R.I.O.
... and then proceeds to cite nearly verbatim Vattel's definition of natural born citizen. The term 'common law' is not always a specific reference to English common law, but laws of a general and universal application.
The cases wer on different questions entirely.
Both cases had plaintiffs who were declaring their citizenship rights on which the court had to make a determination. Minor declared its plaintiff to be an NBC. WKA did not. BTW, your citation of Mandoli vs Acheson says nothing about natural born citizenship.
The interpretation of the 14th Amendment because of Wong Ark brought about the change in meaning that all native born citizens may not be natural born citizens, however, all natural born citizens are native born.
Well WOSG it comes at no surprise that "you forgot" to mention this little tidbit in the facts of the case:
"Petitioner Mandoli was born in this country, of unnaturalized Italian parents. These circumstances made him a citizen of the United States by virtue of our Constitution and a national of Italy by virtue of Italian law. "
Here is the reason why the Supreme Court did not consider Mandoli a Natural Born Citizen and is a 14th Amendment citizen...but we already knew about this.
See Kawakita v. United States, 1952 the same year this case was heard.
LOL, you are a legend in your own mind.
That would be you having your delusional Id let you post claims easily refuted that your conscious brain can't see.
When they catch you BS'ing us, I'll explain it.
As for your bogus ad hominem attacks on me, for merely
trying to correct errors in logic and law ...
I wear your scorn as a badge of honor.
I've got to admit you wear it better than most.
“prosecutions [were] to be instituted against all persons who shall within the cognizance of the courts of the United States, violate the Law of Nations” George Washington, April 22 1793
Law of Nations, Chapter XIX
The natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens.
Can understand why Washington would be concerned. “ A society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise.”
I stated his parents were Italian, and he’s a native-born US citizen.
“being native born did not always mean natural born in the lexicon of the court system”
Only in birther-world.
In the real world, we know that the original French Vattel wrote in was “native” and that natural-born and native-born have been use similarly, and that - most importantly - the rights of native-born citizens are the same as natural-born citizens inasmuch as the definitions overlap. Mandoli was a citizen at birth, ergo he was natural-born...
Even the court in Lynch v Clarke knew this ...
“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… 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. ”
Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)
Only thing is ... I dont BS. never have, never will.
Yeah right. Mandoli parents were aliens and "unnaturalized" - they never were US citizens - just as Wong Ark parents foreigners non-citizens from China...the same reason Ark was ruled to be only "a citizen" and not a natural born.
Earth to WOSG Earth to WOSG. ... "Lynch v Clarke" - it looks like a NY state court. If the players in that tried to invoke English common law they were mistaken or would that fly with the US Supreme Court. What is really the law of the land is American, or US common law and NOT English common law. It is not the same. You should quit reading those Demo After-Birther websites they're loony and wrong.
The Lynch v Clarke complainant against the defendant had it right:
The complainant. "5th. That this is more especially the case as the question of alienage belongs in the last resort to the head of the federal judiciary, the Supreme Court of the United States, which recognizes no common law, that of England or any other country, as its rule of action."
What I vaguely remember about this case was ruled possibly incorrect for the time but that doesn't really matter because the British Empire allowed for double allegiances for their subjects and any correlation here goes out the window when speaking about the natural born citizen clause in the US Constitution. And as I recall, the term 'natural born subjects' is a creation of English legislation, or in other words, a 'naturalization law' and therefore, is not the same or equal in meaning to natural born citizens.
American common law are laws that are built on laws that have been developed by this nation and not England. An explanation that "you may" understand that I posted on a similar thread:
- - - -
"We don't see anywhere in the US Constitution that English common law is the supreme law of the land, and English common law is not international law.
"A country which uses common law has a legal system based primarily upon past judicial opinions. [Past judicial opinions based on US judicial opinions] These judicial opinions are interpretations of legislation, which are considered more as a guide than as literal requirements such as under civil law. [And not English Common law]
Thus, common law systems acquire their laws over time and may have their laws altered by single rulings. This practice allows for a more flexible and expeditious legal system bypassing the often reluctant and slow-moving legislative system.
Because it was developed in England, modern examples of countries which use common law are typically former English colonies such as Australia, India, Canada, and the United States. "
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_differences_between_civil_law_and_common_law
As I've said many times before our common law heritage is passed on from England-- that doesn't mean we adopted their laws, on the contrary. The law of nations that de Vattel ,who was the authority of law of nations, compiled those law of nations in his book, which is reflected in our US Constitution."
let us see what Jefferson think of English common law..
In my letter of January 16, I promised you a sample from my common-place book, of the pious disposition of the English judges, to connive at the frauds of the clergy, a disposition which has even rendered them faithful allies in practice.
In truth, the alliance between Church and State in England has ever made their judges accomplices in the frauds of the clergy....
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_cooper.html
““’NBC is not a seperate category from citizenship’
‘What an ignorant statement.’”
So you’re saying natural born CITIZENSHIP is not a quality of citizenship? Who’s the ignoramous?”
No, ignoramous, I’m saying a NBC IS a separate category from citizenship. All NBCs are citizens, but all citizens are NOT NBCs. Therefore, they are a separate category.
“You can have immigrant parents and still be a natural-born citizen of the US”
Yes, as long as they become citizens before your birth. A NBC is not born of non citizens.
“I stated his parents were Italian, and he’s a native-born US citizen.”
“Yeah right. Mandoli parents were aliens and “unnaturalized” - they never were US citizens”
We are in agreement. That was the circumstance, foreign parents, and the Supreme Court called him a ‘native-born citizen’, and gave him the same rights to maintain US citizenship as a citizen from birth as given Ms Elg.
“We don’t see anywhere in the US Constitution that English common law is the supreme law of the land”
Strawman alert.
No one disputes that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
“What is really the law of the land is American, or US common law and NOT English common law.”
Another strawman. Nobody said it was the same, but our common law was derived from English common law.
If you want to argue against many supreme court decision that have allowed the use of common law, our common law derived from English common law, your argument is not with me, but with the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark and in many other cases. They, not I, quoted Blackstone.
You are entitled to your opinion over whether it SHOULD be used, but not entitled to your own facts. And the fact is that our common law is derived from English common law and has been in use in US courts. 49 out of 50 states to be precise, and though there is no ‘common law’ in Federal law, still common law doctrine and terminology has been use - and properly so - in cases like Wong Kim Ark.
That’s IT. I am not a fan of common law per se, but it’s our real legal heritage and it is a part of our legal system today.
“And as I recall, the term ‘natural born subjects’ is a creation of English legislation,...”
No, it’s a creature of English common law. Read your WKA ruling.
Blackstone:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html
“The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. ...
Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. “
Now we see CLEARLY why the “he’s not an NBC” crowd are bashing English common law, anything depose the clear implications of Blackstone’s statement...
“ALL MEN BORN WITHIN THE KING’S DOMINIONS”
We have been quoting from St George Tucker. Who was he? A prominent Jurist in early America... whose commentaries on Blackstone were required reading of Virginia law students:
http://www.virginia1774.org/Commonlaw.html
“St. George Tucker wrote the Iconic work on Blackstone’s Commentaries and within it are several of his decisions he presided over as a Supreme Court justice of Virginia including the landmark setting case of Kamper v. Hawkins, 3 Va. (1 Va. Cases) 20, 24 (1793). Tucker’s work Blackstone’s Commentaries was once required reading of all law students in Virginia.”
Further below, it is noted that common law - of England - was put into force in colonial Virgina. Such a heritage was not removed when America became independent:
“The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly.
(Code 1919, § 2, § 1-10; 2005, c. 839.)”
natural.natural born..innate..inhererate..fitting..belonging by right of birth, descent, lawful..rightful inheritance, heir..kinship..family,..people.
The naturals are those who are born in a country from citizen parents. A nation cannot perpetuate its self otherwise. A society should desire this.
Obama and Jindal are not in this group of natural born citizens no matter how much you attempt to spin it.
A society should desire this.
Justice Scalia called Hamdi “a presumed American citizen.” Hamdi was born in Louisiana, to Saudi parents.
We really do not know if Jindal or Obama are citizens.
There is a vast difference between citizen and a natural born citizen.
“We really do not know if Jindal or Obama are citizens.”
Speak for yourself on that. Jindhal has been a US citizen from his birth. There is no doubt on that. It’s a slander against him to suggest doubts.
“There is a vast difference between citizen and a natural born citizen.”
It is unargued that citizens can be either natural-born or naturalized, so that some citizens are natural-born citizens and some citizens are not.
“The naturals are those who are born in a country from citizen parents. A nation cannot perpetuate its self otherwise. A society should desire this.”
Your desire for what the law should be and what the law actually is are two different things.
I am just illuminating what the law IS.
Justice Scalia called Hamdi “a presumed American citizen.” Hamdi was born in the US to Saudi parents.
Jindal was born in the US..to Indian parents.
Would Justice Scalia call Jindal a presumed American citizen?
If not please explain the difference?
The subject to the jurisdiction qualification in the 14th Amendment applies to Jindal and Obama.
What is the gauge..to determine..subject to the jurisdiction?
The gauge is the moral relation of the parents to the state..it is not jus soli or as Vattel said..”an inanimate piece of land”.
Natural ligence to the parents cannot be altered being born on a piece of land. An example often quoted ..being born within the walls of a church does not make one a Christian.
Jus sanguines is a genuine affiliation with the nation..jus soli is not.
“We the people”....Jindal parents are not... We the people..neither is Obama’s father. We the people pass on citizenship to their children..not foreigners.
We the people...the sovereignty.. the natural born citizens...say you can toss your “illuminating” to the dungpile.
I only agree on the wording and not the modern intent and meaning that is behind "native born" which is not the same as it once was before Wong Ark who was only a native but not natural born.
Another strawman. Nobody said it was the same, but our common law was derived from English common law.
No strawman argument. English law being US law, the law of the land, is the strawman:
You can take it from St. George Tucker who was an American historian and he fought in the Revolutionary War against the British in the battles at Guilford Courthouse and Yorktown.
In the Essay of English Law and the American Experience:
"Tucker concluded that only English laws validly received in America originated from the period before the revolution--a period when the Blackstone's Commentaries had little impact. As Tucker portrayed events, the only influence Blackstone's work was entitled to in the post-revolutionary America was to explain that portion of the common law use prior to the American revolution that had not been modified on nullified by the revolution, by state constitutions, or by state legislative action. Tucker was, in effect, cautioning his readers not to view the Commentaries as a statement of American common law - a power reserved to state legislatures and courts by state constitutions. What remained for Tucker to explain was which aspects of English law, as portrayed by Blackstone...."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2630127/posts?page=58#58
You again - If you want to argue against many supreme court decision that have allowed the use of common law, our common law derived from English common law, your argument is not with me, but with the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark and in many other cases. They, not I, quoted Blackstone.
As you've been shown repeatably Blackstone was a very very small player in law. Gray cited Blackstone because he could not cite the law maker's intent and meaning behind the 14th Amendment that Wong Ark was not a US citizen so Gray went activist judge in his 1898 Ark Opinion.
Some more of St. George Tucker:
"Tucker began by pointing out that in the establishment of the federal government, the intention was, as confirmed by the Tenth Amendment, to give it only limit powers. He explained, referring to Vattel, that the Tenth Amendment is nothing more than "an express recognition of the law of nations" which permits independent states to unite in a confederacy... Tucker then examined all the "enumerated" powers in the Constitution and concluded that there was no grant of general jurisdiction to either federal or state courts in cases at common law."
Let the names of Tory and Whig be extinct..and let none other be heard among us..that those of a good citizen..Thomas Paine.
Chief Justice Story “Vattel considers the general doctrine to be that children generally acquire the nationality of their parents”
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.