“The words posted there have no validity”
huh?!? Dont know who Dr Conspiracy is, I posed a quote from BLACKSTONE!
These were written 200 years ago in a law book that has been of great importance to American jurisprudence. They didnt just get created on a random website.
William Blackstone, Commentaries 1: 354 361–62
“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… all children, born out of the king’s ligeance [i.e on foreign soil], whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.”
“huh?!? Dont know who Dr Conspiracy is, I posed a quote from BLACKSTONE!”
WOSG: “Many of the framers of the Constitution were lawyers, and key ones were English trained, based their understanding and language on English Common Law, and the U. S. Supreme court has said that the Constitution is written in the language of English Common Law (Smith v. Alabama)”
De Vattel: revisited | Obama Conspiracy Theories
6 May 2009 ... Many of the framers of the Constitution were lawyers, and key ones ... They lived and breathed English Common Law, and the U. S. Supreme court has said that the Constitution is written in the language of English Common Law (Smith v. .... The courts have already decided (Smith v. Alabama) that the ...
www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/.../de-vattel-revisited/ - Cached - Similar
The American Journal of Legal History (1974)
English concepts of subjectship and community encompassed a central ambiguity: on the one hand, society and government theoretically rested on individual consent and compact; on the other hand, the legal status and obligations of the individual remained natural, perpetual, and immutable. Across the Atlantic, circumstances almost immediately led men to attenuate and modify the concept of natural allegiance that was part of their legal and intellectual heritage.
____________________________________________________________
Jay to the President of congress Nov 24, 1785
Chief Justice Jay:
It will be sufficient to observe, briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchises, immunities, and privileges ; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory, to him, and a capacity to be advised is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people ; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow-citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.
From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ.
___________________________________________________________
Heritage Guide to the Constitution; page 190:
[T]he third qualification to be president is that one must be a natural born citizen (or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution). Although any citizen may be a member of Congress so long as he held citizenship for the requisite period of time, to be president, one must be a natural born citizen. Undivided loyalty to the United States was a prime concern.[end quote]
Written by James C. Ho who wrote: “Unnatural Born Citizens and Acting Presidents” and was a supporter of Schwarzenegger for president and also for making adopted children born in foreign countries retroactive natural born citizens
___________________________________________________________
St George Tucker(Tucker's Blackstone) statements on Blackstone who WOSG likes to quote as America law. Too bad they only quote Blackstone & not the America Tucker:
Blackstone and Hume have made tories of all England, and are making tories of those young Americans whose native feelings of independence do not place them above the wily sophistries of a Hume or a Blackstone. These two books, but especially the former, have done more towards the suppression of the liberties of man, than all the million of men in arms of Bonaparte, and the millions of human lives with the sacrifice of which he will stand loaded before the judgment seat of his Maker. —
TITLE: To Horatio G. Spafford.
EDITION: Washington ed. vi, 335.
PLACE: Monticello
DATE: 1814
The exclusion from the courts of the malign influence of all authorities after the Georgium Sidus became ascendant, would uncanonize Blackstone, whose book, although the most elegant and best digested of our law catalogue, has been perverted, more than all others, to the degeneracy of legal science. A student finds there a smattering of everything, and his indolence easily persuades him that if he understands that book, he is master of the whole body of the law. The distinction between these, and those who have drawn their stores from the deep and rich mines of Coke on Littleton, seems well understood even by the unlettered common people, who apply the appellation of Blackstone lawyers to these ephemeral insects of the law. —
TITLE: To Judge Tyler.
EDITION: Washington ed. vi, 66.
PLACE: Monticello
DATE: 1812
Tuckers Blackstone (1803) William & Mary College...
From the whole of the preceding examination, we may deduce the following conclusions:
First .... That the common law of England, and every statute of that kingdom, made for the security of the life, liberty, or property of the subject, before the settlement of the British colonies, respectively, so far as the same were applicable to the nature of their situation and circumstances, respectively, were brought over to America, by the first settlers of the colonies, respectively; and remained in full force therein, until repealed, altered, or amended by the legislative authority of the colonies, respectively; or by the constitutional acts of the same, when they became sovereign and independent states.
Secondly .... That neither the common law of England, nor the statutes of that kingdom, were, at any period antecedent to the revolution, the general and uniform law of the land in the British colonies, now constituting the United States.
Thirdly .... That as the adoption or rejection of the common law and statutes of England, or any part thereof, in one colony, could not have any operation or effect in another colony, possessing a constitutional legislature of it's own; so neither could the adoption or rejection thereof by the constitutional, or legislative act of one sovereign and independent state, have any operation or effect in another sovereign independent state; because every such state hath an exclusive right to be governed by it's own laws only.
Fourthly .... Therefore the authority and obligation of the common law and statutes of England, as such in the American states, must depend solely upon the constitutional or legislative authority of each state, respectively; as contained in their several bills of rights, constitutions, and legislative declarations .... which, being different in different states, and. wholly independent of each other, cannot establish any uniform law, or rule of obligation in all the states.
Fifthly .... That neither the articles of confederation and perpetual union, nor, the present constitution of the United States, ever did, or do, authorize the federal government, or any department thereof, to declare the common law or statutes of England, or of any other nation, to be the law of the land in the United States, generally, as one nation; nor to legislate upon, or exercise jurisdiction in, any case of municipal law, not delegated to the United States by the constitution
Tuckers Blackstone Appendix 1803:
Nor must we forget, what was also before slightly mentioned, that a part of the present United States was first settled by a Dutch colony; and another part, by Swedes. The tract claimed by those two nations extended from the thirty-eighth to the forty-first degree of latitude, and was called the New Netherlands, comprehending the present states of New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the Eastern Shore of Maryland: it was conquered by the English, and confirmed to the crown of England by the treaty of Breda in 1667. The Dutch inhabitants remained in their settlements in New-York, and a part of Jersey; the Swedes, if I mistake not, were removed from Delaware to New-York, where they likewise remained. According to judge Blackstone, the laws of England, as such, could have no allowance, or authority there; this being a conquered and ceded country, and not a colony originally planted by Englishmen: and according to his principles, also, the laws of Holland, and of Sweden, were the municipal laws of those provinces, until the period of their conquest; and so continued until other laws were imposed upon them by the crown of England. When, and in what degree, a change was made in this manner; or whether any such change was ever formally made, can only be determined by recurrence to documents not within the reach of the author of these sheets.
From all these considerations it will appear, that in our inquiries how far the common law and statutes of England were adopted in the British colonies; or, in other words, what parts of those laws might be deemed applicable to their respective situations and circumstances, we must again abandon all hope of satisfaction from any general theory, and resort to their several charters, provincial establishments, legislative codes, and civil histories, for information. For although the colonial legislatures are understood to have been inhibited from passing any law derogatory from the sovereignty of the crown, or repugnant to the laws and statutes of England; which seems to have been the only common rule imposed upon them, yet the application of this rule in the several colonies will be found to have been as various as their respective soils, climates, and productions.
(snip for length)
3. Thirdly; what part of the laws of England were abrogated by the revolution, or retained by the several states, when they became sovereign, and independent republics.
And here we may premise, that by the rejection of the sovereignty of the crown of England, not only all the laws of that country by which the dependence of the colonies was secured, but the whole lex prerogativa (or Jura Coronae before mentioned) so far as respected the person of the sovereign and his prerogatives as an individual, was utterly abolished: and, that so far as respected the kingly office, and government, it was either modified, abridged, or annulled, according to the several constitutions and laws of the states, respectively: consequently, that every rule of the common law, and every statute of England, founded on the nature of regal government, in derogation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; or, inconsistent with the nature and principles of democratic governments, were absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively. This is a natural and necessary consequence of the revolution, and the correspondent changes in the nature of the governments, unless we could suppose that the laws of England, like those of the Almighty Ruler of the universe, carry with them an intrinsic moral obligation upon all mankind. A supposition too gross and absurd to require refutation.
___________________________________________________________
Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language (both 1828 & 1846 editions):
ALIEN: 1. Foreign, not belonging to the same country, land or government; 2. belonging to one who is not a citizen
___________________________________________________________
FYI WOSG...quote from Blackstone's commentaries all you want, BUT, it would behoove you to quote the part pertaining to American Law, not British Law if you wish to be taken with any credibility.