Sorry, but this is factually inaccurate. Minor did not cite English common law for definining natural born citizenship:
"all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens"
For comparison, Vattel's definition ... with matching phrases underlined: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
The 14th amendment was made necessary by Dred Scott, where citizenship was denied to blacks.
... because the English common law principle was not in effect in all states ... Thanks, W, you're making my argument for me.
The quotes birthers use from Minor were asking the question of whether women were citizens.
The answer, as has been shown, is based on Vattel's definition of natural born citizenship ... in rejection of the 14th amendment.
So women didn’t need the 14th amendment to be considered citizens.
No, not as a class, but the children of aliens, on the other hand (whether men or women), DID need the 14th amendment to be considered citizens.
The logical fallacy that birthers have is to conclude that ONLY THOSE WHO SATISFY REASON X can be natural-born citizens.
It's not a fallacy. Waite said those who were born in the country to parents who were citizens were natural born citizens ... (pay attention) as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. The very definition here sets up a proposition that if you weren't born in the country of citizen parents, you were an alien or a foreigner. Waite addressed those who did not meet the definition of natural born citizenship by CREATING 14th amendment citizenship at birth. Again, if the English common law were accepted by the states as THE solitary principle of citizenship, there was no need for the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment.
That makes NO sense, that Gray would have to overturn ‘women are citizens” if he claimed that a child of aliens was natural-born!?!?
He would have had to overturn the principle that women born in the country to citizen parents are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. IOW, Gray was bound to accept this declaration and was forced to create a new way to define citizenship but without undermining the previous ruling. Harken back to your Liacakos court citation. The plaintiff called himself a natural-born citizen. That court accepted the claim at face value and used the same terminology. Yet Gray did NOT do this for WKA. He avoided saying anything about Ark being a natural born citizen and avoided saying that the lower court ruling was affirmed. If you look at the Minor decision, it says at the beginning "From the opinion we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here." At end of the decision, "we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT."
By contrast, WKA says nothing about the lower court, but only that "The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties," none of which says anything about WKA being a natural-born citizen, but instead, a 'native-born citizen.'
WKA continues, "The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution ..." Notice it does not use the term natural-born citizen, but instead the term used in reference to eligibility for Congress - citizen of the United States.
The conclusion of the decision says, "The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative." Again, it does not say that Ark was a natural born citizen. It does not talk about the lower court ruling or say that the judgment is affirmed; just that they answered the question in the affirmative.
I'm going to skip past your 'legal planets, out to lunch and fine fruit' blatherings.
The writing was subtle for reasons I mentioned prior. Gray answered the question he needed to answer and not more. He may have been restrained for political reasons, if there was in this case a tinge of ‘how can we let a chinaman become President?’
Under Gray's decision, that question CAN be answered ... by having the 'chinaman's' parent naturalized as U.S. citizens prior to birth on U.S. soil.
“ALL the Justices on both sides agreed to the basic point that English common law definition of citizenship was what drove the definition of citizenship prior to the 14th. vattel is besides the point.
Sorry, but this is factually inaccurate. Minor did not cite English common law for definining natural born citizenship: “
OH YES IT DID!
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,...”
THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN MINOR WAS SAYING THAT NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS WERE A CREATURE OF COMMON LAW, AND THE NOMENCLATURE WAS UNDERSTOOD BY THE FRAMERS.
Moreover, in saying “Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” HE CONFIRMS THE STANDARD UNDERSTANDING THAT ANY CITIZEN IS EITHER A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OR A NATURALIZED CITIZEN.
“The 14th amendment was made necessary by Dred Scott, where citizenship was denied to blacks.”
“... because the English common law principle was not in effect in all states ... Thanks, W, you’re making my argument for me.”
Wow, that is stunningly ignorant of what the real problems and consequences of Dred Scott was. The court declared that not only was Dred Scott not a citizen, but no law had the power to MAKE blacks, whether slave or free, citizens. “Negroes, whether slaves or free, that is, men of the African race, are not citizens of the United States by the Constitution.” It disenfranchised free blacks. Did that come from the revered Vattel? In substance, it undermines and is against any claim that citizenship is based on ‘natural law’ that applies to all. Stunningly ignorant of you to think it hung on English common law or against same, for it was on far different ground. Just read the ruling - and the dissent - and get educated ...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393
“The logical fallacy that birthers have is to conclude that ONLY THOSE WHO SATISFY REASON X can be natural-born citizens.”
“It’s not a fallacy. Waite said those who were born in the country to parents who were citizens were natural born citizens ... (pay attention) as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
It is a fallacy. One quote, out of context. Natural-born citizens are not aliens, we know that. NOTHING there says that the ONLY way to be a natural-born citizen is to have citizen parents. NOT THERE. YOU MISREAD IT.
You have ONE or TWO quotes - MISREAD ONES - against the weight of evidence ...
Blacks Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.” That definition does not require citizens to be parents.
“The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that “natural born Citizen” means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.”
Albert Orville Wright, AN EXPOSITION ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (31st Ed.) (1888)
“All persons born in the United States, except wild Indians, are natural-born citizens, and any foreigner may become an adopted citizen by being naturalized....”
Black defines “natural born” as “In English law one born within the dominion of the King.” Black defines “naturalize” as “to confer citizenship upon an alien; to make a foreigner the same, in regard to rights and privileges, as if he were a native citizen or subject.”
Bancroft’s History of the U.S. (1876) VI, xxvi. 27, states. “Every one who first saw the light on the American soil was a natural-born American citizen.”
As stated in Van Dyne on Citizenship of the United States, pp. 32:
“It was almost universally conceded that citizenship by birth in the United States was governed by the principles of the English common law. It is very doubtful whether the common law covered the case of children born abroad to subjects of England. Statutes were enacted in England to supply their deficiency. Hence, it was deemed necessary to enact a similar law In the United States to extend citizenship to children born to American parents out of the United States.”
In Doe v. Jones, 4 T.R. 300, 308, 100 Reprint 1031, Lord Kenyon stated:
“The character of a natural-born subject, anterior to any or the statutes, was incidental to birth only; whatever were the situations of his parents, the being born in the allegiance of the King, constituted a naturalborn subject.”
In Dicey’s Conflicts of Law (1896) It is stated: (pp.173).
“Natural-born subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of birth.
“A naturalized British subject means any British subject who is not a natural-born British subject. (pp 175) Rule 22. Subject to the exceptions herinafter mentioned. any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.”
Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961) (holding that where evidence supported contention that person was born in US (to two citizens of Greece), he was a “natural born citizen” of the US):
The plaintiff claims that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, having been born in Wheeling, West Virginia, on July 14, 1900. He claims that when he was two or three years of age his parents returned to their native Greece… ***
The Court is of the opinion that, weighing the evidence on both sides, the plaintiff has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and the Court so finds.
Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918) (child born in the US to Russian citizen was “natural born citizen” of US):
Appellant was therefore, as correctly decided by the General Land Office and the Department of the Interior, not an heir of the deceased entryman, while at the time of the final proof at least the grandchild Esther Gustafson undoubtedly was. She was born in a state of the United States, and whether her parents were naturalized or not, under the Constitution she is a natural-born citizen of the United States entitled to the benefits of all the laws of the United States and of the state. U. S. Const. Amend. 14, § 1.
“Subjects are of two kinds: Citizens and Aliens. A citizen is one who owes to the state, of which he is a citizen, an universal and perpetual allegiance. Citizens of the United States are of two classes: Native born and Naturalized. A native born citizen is one who was born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. The jurisdiction of the United States is co-extensive with its territory, and embraces all persons resident therein, except Indians and the official representatives of foreign states. The allegiance of the United States includes all its citizens, whether at home or abroad, and all other persons, *except Indians and the official representatives of foreign states,) who are permanently domiciled within its jurisdiction. The persons born within this jurisdiction and allegiance are the following: 1) Those born either at home or abroad of parents who are citizens; 2) Those born within the territory of the United States of alien parents (Indians and the official representatives of foreign states excepted) who are permanently domiciled within the United States.” - William Callyhan Robinson, Elementary law, 1882
This is from the Congressional record 1967:
” To summarize; a natural-born citizen of the United States, as that term is used in the Constitution of the United States, means a citizen born within the territorial limits of the United States and subject to the laws of the United States at the time of such birth. ”
In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at page 655, the court said:
“The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also calling ‘ligealty,’ ‘obedience,’ ‘faith,’ or ‘power’ of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -as expressed in the maxim, protecti trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience or the power, or, as would be said, to this day, within the jurisdiction Of the King.” (Thus, a child born In Mexico of English parents was not a natural-born subject, despite his automatic naturalization by Act of Parliament). Later In the same opinion (l.c. 658) the court said: “It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign; and therefore every child born in England, of alien parents, was a natural born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
The Court further held:
“The same rule was in force In all of the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continues to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
“There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
Albert Orville Wright, AN EXPOSITION ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (31st Ed.) (1888)
“”1. Citizenship Defined.—The question of who are and who are not citizens had been left somewhat vague till this amendment (14th Amendment) was adopted. And the exact position of free negros was in doubt. The thirteenth amendment had made all negroes free persons. This amendment now made them citizens. Hereafter there can be no question as to who are citizens of the United States.
All persons born in the United States, except wild Indians, are natural-born citizens, and any foreigner may become an adopted citizen by being naturalized....”
The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that “natural born Citizen” means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements. [28] The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation, prepared for the United States Senate by this agency, agrees with the majority of scholarship on the issue, noting that “[ w ]hatever the term ‘natural born’ means, it no doubt does not include a person who is ‘naturalized’,” that is, one who must go through the legal process of naturalization and, after discussing historical and legal precedents and arguments, concludes that “[t]here is reason to believe … that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens. [29]
[28] Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F.Supp.2d 1144, 1145-1146 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Jill Pryor, “The Natural Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach to Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty,” 97 Yale LJ. 881 (1988); Charles Gordon, “Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. I (1968); Michael Nelson, “Constitutional Qualifications for President,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. XVII, Number 2, at 384-391 (Spring 1987); Warren Freedman, Comment, “Presidential Timber: Foreign Born Children of American Parents,” 35 Cornell L.Q. 357 (1950); Alexander Porter Morse, “Natural Born Citizen of the United States – Eligibility for the Office of President,” 66 Albany LJ. 99 (1904); Akil Amar, “Natural Born Killjoy, Why the Constitution Won’t Let Immigrants Run for President, and Why That Should Change,” Legal Affairs, 16, 17 (Mar-Apr. 2004): ” … the presidency and vice presidency were reserved for citizens by birth.” For the opposing view, see Isidor Blum, “Is Gov. George Romney Eligible to Be President?,” N. y’LJ., Oct. 16 & 17, 1967, at I. In a more restrictive analyses one author would include children of U.S. citizens who are born abroad when one or both of the parents are abroad under the direction of and officially representing, or on duty for, the United States Government, either in the military or in a civilian governmental role. Lohman, Christina. “Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause,” 36 Gonzaga Law Review 349, 369 (2000/2001).
[29] The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation, S. Doc. 108-17, 108th Cong., 2d Sess. at 456- 457 (2004). The United States Senate has also stated its opinion by way of unanimous consent, in S. Res. 511, 11 Oth Congress, that “natural born citizens” include those persons who are citizens “at birth” by statute by virtue of being born abroad of United States citizens.
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: “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.”