Posted on 04/12/2013 8:22:32 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
L.A. County Cites 16 ‘Maternity Hotels’ Serving Asian Visitors
LA Times reports the following:
Following a flurry of complaints, Los Angeles County inspectors have cited 16 “maternity hotel” owners for illegally operating boardinghouses in residential zones.No major health or safety issues were found at the hotels, where women from Asia stay to give birth to U.S. citizen babies. But some of the facilities, which were in Rowland Heights or Hacienda Heights, were cited for building and fire code violations, according to a report released Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
I already responded to this, which is why I didn't respond to it a second time.
You obviously have no understanding of the history. Even though James VI became king of England as well as of Scotland, the two countries were still two separate countries, with different parliaments, different administrations, different legal systems...
They were TWO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, who happened at that point to have the same King.
Full unification of the two countries into one didn't take place until a century or so later.
See my previous post, which, if you read it, you didn't understand.
We kept general stuff like routine civil and criminal law. Laws regarding citizenship we specifically eschewed. We didn't hold that a child of foreign parents cannot inherit land. We didn't hold that a man could not be free to change allegiance. (That theory was based on Vattel, by the way.) We rewrote and expunged all sorts of laws which we regarded as incompatible with the needs of the US. (Just as Madison said, posted above.)
So your claim that we must necessarily have come up with some new way of determining citizenship (though you never can produce any actual evidence whatsoever that we did) is beyond idiotic.
That you keep claiming I have produced no evidence is idiotic. You just ignore it, then claim I didn't produce any. I have a lot more, but i'll show you this again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Wilson, along with Benjamin Franklin, was a Delegate to the US Constitutional convention. He was also a member of the Pennsylvania Legislature which Ratified the US Constitution.
In looking through his writings I stumbled across this comment from him.(James Wilson Lectures on Law, 1790-1791)
“Generally speaking,” says the great political authority, Aristotle,* “a citizen is one partaking equally of power and of subordination.”A citizen then—to draw his description as one of the people—I deem him, who acts a personal or a represented part in the legislation of his country. He has other rights; but his legislative I consider as his characteristick right. In this view, a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union: for the members of the house of representatives in the national legislature are chosen, in each state, by electors, who, in that state, have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.c In this view, a citizen of Pennsylvania is he, who has resided in the state two years; and, within that time, has paid a state or county tax: or he is between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years, and the son of a citizen.
I looked up the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776. (Replaced in 1790) It says:
SECT. 5. The freemen of this commonwealth and their sons shall be trained and armed for its defence under such regulations, restrictions, and exceptions as the general assembly shall by law direct, preserving always to the people the right of choosing their colonels and all commissioned officers under that rank, in such manner and as often as by the said laws shall be directed. SECT. 6. Every freemen of the full age of twenty-one years, having resided in this state for the space of one whole year next before the day of election for representatives, and paid public taxes during that time, shall enjoy the right of an elector: Provided always, that sons of freeholders of the age of twenty one years shall be intitled to vote although they have not paid taxes.
And guess who was President of the Convention that produced this document? It was Benjamin Franklin. He signed it.
.
Franklin, who was good friends with Charles W.F. Dumas and Used his version of Vattel's "Droit des Gens" as a secret code book with which to communicate with our agents in Europe.
Do you know who else was at that convention with Benjamin Franklin? Thomas Smith. The Same Thomas Smith who was later on the Supreme Court of Pennyslvania, and who's work Samuel Roberts incorporated into his book "A Digest of Select British laws comprising those which according to the report of the Judges of the Supreme Court ... Appear to be in Force in Pennsylvania."
So Apparently Pennsylvanian legal authorities James Wilson, Thomas Smith and Benjamin Franklin recognized citizenship by descent, so how did RAWLE get it so wrong? (He appears to have waited till most of the REAL authorities were safely dead before publishing his contrary opinion.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Aristotle defined a citizen to be one who's parents are citizens. (Book III section II)
But the citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices. ...
But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens;
Wow, really? After all your squawking about truncated quotes, you post that and don't even note with ellipses where you've cut pieces out? Let's read the whole passage:
What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The Constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The "revisal of the laws" by a Committee of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head.See the bolded part? He's saying that the separation from G.Britain did not throw us into a state of nature--i.e., lawless. If it didn't, then, clearly some body of laws (along with rights and obligations) applied after the separation. What were they?
Let's look at George Mason's letter that this is in response to:
There is no Declaration of Rights; and the Laws of the general Government being paramount to the Laws & Constitution of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no Security. Nor are the people secured even in the Enjoyment of the Benefits of the common-Law which stands here upon no other Foundation than it's having been adopted by the respective Acts forming the Constitutions of the several States.What is his concern? That the benefits provided by the common law are not explicitly secured by the Constitution. It's to this concern that Madison says "What could the Convention have done?" Either the Constitution explicitly adopts all of English common law and in so doing brings along a lot of irrelevant and unwanted crap, plus thereby negates the alterations the states had made; or it lists everything that would be adopted and thereby becomes "a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution."
So if you read Madison's whole quote in conjunction with the letter he was responding to, you can see that the point of the conversation was not to assert that the English common law was no longer in force--rather, the opposite. The English common law--"unwritten law"--could be altered by specific written laws, and the state governments had been doing so. But it's clear to both men that the intent of the Convention was for English common law to be retained in its rights and benefits as well as its restrictions, except where explicitly altered by the states. Independence did not leave us in a "state of nature."
Mason was complaining that we failed to adopt protections which existed under the common law, not that we failed to adopt the common law itself. You do know he is considered the father of the "bill of rights."
He and others maintained, rightly, that the common law also had so many unacceptable things in it that it was simply impossible for us to adopt it wholesale at the national level.
I think you said this as well as I could have. That you can't seem to apply it to feudal based notion of bondage to the Lord of the Soil is beyond me. It is strictly rejected as an American Principle.
If the argument is idiotic, then it ought to make perfect sense to you.
Since my interpretation of "natural born citizen" is supported by all known significant legal authorities from early America, our state courts and Supreme Court, and virtually every real legal expert in US history, and yours is genuinely supported by virtually NO legal authority in all of history, it's YOUR claim that is absurd. And yes, repeating it again and again doesn't make it true.
And here he repeats himself AGAIN! It doesn't matter how many times you show him to be wrong, he repeats this over and over. He's Got Rawle, and he's got some ambiguity on the issue from Tucker (Neither were Delegates.) He's got some commentary from Joseph Story. (Also not a Delegate) And he's got an out of Context quote from Madison. That pretty much sums it up for Jeff's authoritative sources. Even with the ones he's got, I doubt any of them intended an interpretation based on strictly geographical criteria. I expect they meant "place" in the metaphorical sense which includes, but is not limited to geographical criteria. As Madison describes, birth within a community.
I've got Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Monroe, Justice Washington, Justice Marshall, John Adams, James Wilson, Thomas Smith, John Armstrong, Samuel Roberts, Pickney, Henry Lee, James Otis, and various other sources too numerous to list. In other words, Not a bunch of Pansy-@ss British trained lawyers, but men who were the ACTUAL FOUNDERS espousing on their intentions. The People who actually know what they are talking about. First hand witnesses, not third parties. All of those civil law authorities are just gossip mongers who failed to convey the intent of the founders to break with British Subject law.
I have said again and again that there is some argument to be made against birthright citizenship for children of aliens only temporarily in the country, and especially against children of illegal aliens, but no case to be made that the children of resident aliens aren't natural born citizens.
Jeff, You aren't keeping up. The topic is NON-RESIDENT aliens. (See thread title.) I am already on Record as saying Rubio is probably good, even though his father waited a long time to naturalize.
You didn't respond. You simply stated a bunch of things which were true, but were not related to the point. You did NOT answer the question "Why does it take 14 Judges to answer such a simple point of law?"
Here are some possible ACTUAL answers to the question.
1."Because the point of law was not clear and not clearly settled."
2. " Because the Judges were really stupid in those days, and it took a whole lot of them to figure out simple points of law."
3. " The King wanted a specific ruling, and he wanted a LOT of Judges to announce it so as to lend it the appearance of Authoritative and Legal legitimacy."
4. ___________________________________________________________________________ (This space is for you to fill in YOUR answer.)
Now how about an actual answer?
Even though James VI became king of England as well as of Scotland, the two countries were still two separate countries, with different parliaments, different administrations, different legal systems...
Full unification of the two countries into one didn't take place until a century or so later.
Again, you are saying things which are true, but unrelated to the point. Once James I took the throne, His Subject law applied in Scotland too. Such a well established law should not have required the massive court hearing which it subsequently created. The first Magistrate they found should have resolved it quickly. (or peasant, as the case may be.)
Again, if the law was so well established, why did it take 14 Judges to figure it out?
Pr*ck. I provided the link so you could read the whole thing yourself. What I didn't post doesn't materially alter the meaning as did the section Jeff intentionally cut out of John Bingham's statement. (Which in fact, completely REVERSED the meaning.) Jeff is a pain in the @ss, and so I took a shortcut, figuring you could read the whole thing yourself if you wanted to. I presumed you had enough intelligence to notice the space between the excerpts and could surmise their purpose. I obviously overestimated you.
See the bolded part? He's saying that the separation from G.Britain did not throw us into a state of nature--i.e., lawless. If it didn't, then, clearly some body of laws (along with rights and obligations) applied after the separation. What were they?
Why on earth do you regard that passage as significant? Civil and Criminal laws which were not expressly abrogated by statute remained in effect. Madison says that very thing in the part I quoted. His larger point remains; The United States did not adopt, en masse, the common law of England.
I read the rest of your comment and think you are just producing noise. I don't even understand how you think you have a point to convey. I'm not going to spend any more time trying to figure out what you are trying to say.
Wow, really? You post an edited quote with no indication that you've edited it (sorry, simple paragraph spaces aren't enough--how are we to know those spaces weren't in the original?), and I'm a pr*ck for calling you on it? What a pathetic response.
I don't even understand how you think you have a point to convey. I'm not going to spend any more time trying to figure out what you are trying to say.
Surpassed, in the same post, by an even more pathetic response. Congratulations.
Look, it's clear that your only standard for the quality or integrity of an argument is whether you agree with it. Editing quotes is a horrible affront worthy of a boldface liar accusation--except when you do it because you've decided it doesn't materially alter the meaning. Supreme Court decisions are not to be regarded as valid, except when they are, depending on whether it suits your purpose. Jeff's quotes about the basis of citizenship are "argumentum ad numerum," but you're willing to say "I've got Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Monroe, Justice Washington, Justice Marshall, John Adams, James Wilson, Thomas Smith, John Armstrong, Samuel Roberts, Pickney, Henry Lee, James Otis, and various other sources too numerous to list." You're not consistent and you're not honest. And you have the nerve to name yourself after Diogenes!
First of all, it wasn't such a simple point of law, as England had never before had a situation in which the King of England was also the King of another, separate, distinct country.
Secondly, they assembled "all the judges of England" to hear the case because they felt the decision had important ramifications. And it did.
You are a Pr*ck for implying that I was attempting to hide something when the link was prominently posted above it. You are also a Pr*ck for implying that the part not included somehow changes the meaning of what was.
What a pathetic response.
To a pathetic query. à bon chat, bon rat.
As for the rest of your message. F*** You.
Secondly, they assembled "all the judges of England" to hear the case because they felt the decision had important ramifications. And it did.
This point is correct as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. When James I (in Scotland he was James VI) took the throne, he was GOING TO GET HIS PEOPLE RECOGNIZED as English Subjects. As the Judges in England presided by the grace of the King, they were going to give him the decision that he wanted.
You do Realize that the Lord Coke argued on the King's behalf for the Plaintiff "Calvin", don't you?
The case was heard by all of the judges of England, while Coke was Chief Justice of Common Pleas, with arguments by Bacon as Solicitor General and Hobart as Attorney General. Coke was very active in this case, arguing the King’s position throughout and presenting, here the last argument, for Calvin, before the Court’s judgment. The Court, considering arguments based on the nature of allegiance, majesty, conquest, natural reason, and an unalterable law of nature, held that Calvin was not an alien, and he could hold land in England. This case had tremendous implications for James’s view of forging a single nation of Great Britain, as well as for the rights of subjects living in the new colonies overseas. For the effects of citizenship on a local level, see James Bagg’s Case, p. 404.
In a Kingdom, the King gets the laws he wants. I'm surprised he had two hold-outs, and that it wasn't unanimous.
Astonishing.
The guy accuses others of being a LIAR for supposedly not posting all of what Bingham had to say (specifically, the "not owing allegiance to any other sovereignty" language) when he had already posted it a bunch of times to present his spurious claims - so it was clearly already out there - and when I actually HAD posted a nearly identical quote from Bingham upthread.
So THEN, he goes and edits Madisons quote - selectively eliminating a whole passage that is absolutely relevant to the meaning without even providing an ellipsis to show he's deleted stuff.
Here's the full quote, with the part that he selectively eliminated highlighted:
What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The Constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code.
He also stripped the entire quote of its context by failing to include the complaint it was a response to:
There is no Declaration of Rights; and the Laws of the general Government being paramount to the Laws & Constitution of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no Security. Nor are the people secured even in the Enjoyment of the Benefits of the common-Law which stands here upon no other Foundation than it's having been adopted by the respective Acts forming the Constitutions of the several States.
Then, when you call him on his dishonesty, he calls you a "Pr*ck!!"
Man. You just can't make this stuff up.
Once again, for about the 10th time in this thread, he has revealed his own dishonesty and hypocrisy. I could hardly say it better than you did:
Look, it's clear that your only standard for the quality or integrity of an argument is whether you agree with it.
There are obviously two sets of rules: those that anyone who disagrees with him must abide by, and a completely different set of rules for him.
Of course, he's in a lose/lose situation. He can either sit by and watch his nutjob claims being taken apart piece by piece, or he can actively participate in the destruction by continuing to make fallacious argument after fallacious argument and have himself revealed as an ass again and again and again. So far, he's chosen to actively participate.
I'm not sure what he gets out of being repeatedly and publicly outed as a jackass, but hey, it's kind of entertaining.
And you have the nerve to name yourself after Diogenes!
A couple of years ago, in one of my early encounters with this loon, I was darned near mowed down by shrapnel from an exploding heavy-duty industrial irony meter due to that name. The guy creates a screen name that implies he's looking for an honest man. Then, as soon as he finds one, he says he would cheer if he were to be taken out and shot.
The comment unfortunately no longer exists on FR because it was in a thread that became so acrimonious it was deleted. However, there is still some reference to it that was made after the fact.
In any event, it's interesting to watch him spin, spin, spin. Maybe instead of DiogenesLamp he should rename himself DiogenesSpincycle.
Somehow you didn’t get the courtesy ping to my last post.
If he's a Pr*ck, then you're a double or triple-Pr*ck, as it's abundantly clear that I wasn't attempting to hide anything earlier. I had even earlier posted a quote virtually identical to the one you falsely called me a LIAR over.
Although Henry may have conquered some land in France, and although he may have claimed to be the "REAL King of France," he never was in actuality, never ruled over two separate countries in the same way, and his conquests on the continent didn't really even stick.
So my point stands.
In a Kingdom, the King gets the laws he wants. I'm surprised he had two hold-outs, and that it wasn't unanimous.
Yeah, I get it. Every legal authority in history who says your cockamamie theory is BS is incompetent or tainted, and every legal authority in history who doesn't agree with your nonsense is an Obot shill.
The bizarre thing is, he and I tangled on some birther issue a while back without either of us becoming insulting, and at the end of the conversation we acknowledged each other's civility. So when I pointed out his edited quote, it was meant almost in a teasing fashion--like "Dude, you just did the very thing you complain about." I didn't really think he was trying to deceive, but if you're going to make a huge issue out of someone else's treatment of quotes, you better damn sight make sure you treat them properly yourself--a Caesar's wife kind of thing. The violence of his reaction now makes me wonder if he knew full well what he was doing.
So my point stands.
So no English Subjects whatsoever were created when Henry ruled France, eh? Do you really enjoy altering history for the sake of your theories? The point is not worth the trouble to look up examples with which to prove you wrong. You'll just say you were correct anyway.
Yeah, I get it. Every legal authority in history who says your cockamamie theory is BS is incompetent or tainted, and every legal authority in history who doesn't agree with your nonsense is an Obot shill.
Seriously? You are telling me that the Judges of England won't give the King what he has made abundantly clear that he wants?
Of COURSE they found the law to be in compliance with the King's wishes! Had the law been otherwise, they would have absolutely ruled against the King!
Of COURSE they found the law to be in compliance with the King's wishes! Had the law been otherwise, they would have absolutely ruled against the King!
Of course. The King of England ALWAYS got just exactly, precisely, what he wanted.
Why, just look at King James' son, when he took over. HE certainly didn't have any problems in getting whatever he wanted.
It's always some excuse with you, isn't it? There was nothing wrong with the ruling in Calvin's Case. It was a reasonable ruling, and it allowed a small boy to inherit the estate that his relative had left him. It also allowed the two countries, Scotland and England, that now shared a King, to begin to move their peoples closer together in a relationship that would end with them becoming a single country.
There was nothing wrong with any of our early authorities who spoke on natural born citizenship and Presidential eligibility, either. You run the same stupid MO on everything. Any authority in history, no matter how authoritative (including the US Supreme Court and all the judges of England as well) that ever made a pronouncement on citizenship that you personally don't like was somehow "wrong" or "tainted," or you twist their words to try and make them say stuff they never intended to say.
And anyone in history, no matter how UNauthoritative (like David Ramsay and Samuel Roberts), who said something that even SOUNDS like it might support your idiotic BS... why, THEY'RE freakin' geniuses.
Sorry, but you've been called on your BS. Your response has been to push it harder and harder. And every time you push it, anyone watching gets to see once again just what a load of BS you're peddling.
First of all, it wasn't such a simple point of law, as England had never before had a situation in which the King of England was also the King of another, separate, distinct country.
You brought up the Battle of Agincourt. I pointed out that Henry never ruled over two separate and distinct countries, and his conquests of SOME PORTIONS of France didn't even stick.
Now you make it a matter of the fact that he temporarily ruled some land in France. Big deal. Whatever he ruled there, IT WAS NOT SOME SEPARATE COUNTRY FROM ENGLAND WITH A SEPARATE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT THAT HE WAS NOW THE KING OF.
It was just some land he conquered over in France.
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.