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'm not buying your belief. Real Americans do not believe such stupid things in view of evidence to the contrary UNLESS they have a personal stake in the outcome.
You can't answer my question sensibly, (about why we needed the 14th amendment if the law already said what you believe.) so you just go back to chanting your mantra, like the sheep in "Animal Farm."
"Four legs good... Two legs Baaaaaad."
Hopefully one day you'll stop being a "sheeple."
But according to your theory, the 14th amendment merely says the exact same thing as the previously existing law.
If States were ignoring previous law, (Which you claim said the exact same thing) why would they pay attention to the 14th amendment?
No, it makes no sense whatsoever unless the 14th amendment represents a CHANGE in existing law.
And not once in history did they ever say that Aristotle determined their definitions of citizenship, just as not once in history did they ever say Vattel did.
Again, says you. The Evidence says otherwise. You just don't like it, so you refuse to accept it.
Whoever wants to read the evidence can do so, and I encourage them to. They will find, of course, that everything I've said is true.
A lot, like myself and many other posters here at FR, have done exactly that, and have concluded that you're totally full of ****. You've already lost the argument. The only people remaining on your side are a increasingly small pool of birther deniers.
I don't imagine that the number of Constitution-twisters is ever going to drop to zero. There are thousands if not millions of people who sincerely believe that Elvis is alive and well, that the moon landings were faked, and that the government is completely controlled by reptilian aliens.
That is the wacky company you and your fellows find yourself among. You are wacko, nutjob, fringe conspiracy theorists, and that's unfortunately a permanent condition.
You have no support in the mainstream and are increasingly recognized as nutjobs even here at FR, where, for reasons beyond my understanding, you've been allowed free rein to make your fallacious case at will.
...quoted Vattel, but not in regard to citizenship;
That is a lie with which you attempt to deflect the truth. Both Justice Marshall AND Justice Washington specifically quote Vattel on Citizenship. Justice Marshall goes so far as to say that Vattel is the BEST authority on the subject.
Anyone can read the case for themselves and see that Marshall wasn't talking about a person actually BEING a citizen, he was talking about to what degree an ACKNOWLEDGED American citizen living in an enemy country should be treated as an American, and to what degree he should be treated as being a participant in a country at war with us.
Fallacy: The 1814 Supreme Court case of The Venus shows that the Supreme Court relied on Vattel for the meaning of “natural born citizen.”
Truth: The Opinion in The Venus doesn’t even contain the words “natural born citizen” at all. Justice Marshall makes reference to Vattel’s book, but it’s a more accurate English translation which says “natives or indigenes” (”indigene” is a word in English as well). And when Marshall cites Vattel, he’s not trying to establish a meaning for “natural born citizen.” He is trying to establish to what degree a citizen of America (natural born or naturalized, it made no difference) who was living and actively participating in the society of England should be respected as an American, and to what degree he should be treated similarly to the Englishmen he was acting like.
Therefore, Marshall’s quote in The Venus contributes absolutely nothing to the meaning of “natural born citizen” in American law.
It's been claimed that Justice Washington also supports the "both/and" theory. He doesn't. Consistent with others such as Marshall who have quoted Vattel as an authority on international relations and international law - but not on domestic citizenship - Washington uses ideas from Vattel and others to consider to what extent a citizen of one country, permanently living in a second country, should be treated as a citizen of the first country, or as a participant, or as a "kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens," in the second.
And this is misstating the case. The issue wasn't whether or not Mr. Smith was a citizen, the issue was whether or not Mr. Smith had been a citizen for the required number of years to serve as a representative. Ramsey had argued that Smith had been in England during the Revolution, and remained a British Citizen until he came back.
Parse it any way you want. Ramsay based his case on his claims of what citizenship (according to him) meant, and his claims were voted down a whopping 36 to 1. Obviously, Ramsay is no authority on the matter, but you continue to push him because as pathetic as he is, he's about the best you have.
Chief Justice Waite ...was quoted by the US Supreme Court as having NOT been committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from being born citizens;
Here you go again, attempting to obfuscate what he said. What he said was that there was no doubt whatsoever that people who were born here to citizen parents are "natural born citizens", but there were doubts about people who were simply born here. He also said that the 14th amendment did not create any natural born citizens.
And it's clear what the US Supreme Court understood his statement to mean. My quote is virtually verbatim from them.
It's also clear that you and other history-twisters make a fallacious argument by pretending that "there are doubts about people who were simply born here" means "people who were born here aren't citizens unless their parents were citizens."
The entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1808 ...said absolutely no such thing;
They most certainly did. It was THEIR WORK which Samuel Roberts utilized to write his book, and he gives them credit in the book for having compiled the statutes which were in force in Pennsylvania. The fact that they intentionally left out that British Common law statute you so dearly love was INTENTIONAL!
There was never a "British Common law statute." You display your utter ignorance of the common law by saying there was.
There was a RULE in the common law. It wasn't a STATUTE. And the rule was an ancient one.
Since it was a RULE of the common law, and not a STATUTE, it WOULDN'T be included in a list of STATUTES.
...who never stated citizen parents were required, and was a dual citizen with France WHILE serving as President;
Every time you repeat that "Washington and Jefferson were dual citizens" crap, I think to myself "this man is a F***** idiot, and not worth arguing with. Why you seem to think that means something is utterly beyond me.
Because you and other Constitution-twisters insist that the Founding Fathers and Framers MUST have INSISTED on NOT THE SLIGHTEST POSSIBLE "DUAL ALLEGIANCE."
In fact, this is a FUNDAMENTAL point of your entire claim.
But it simply isn't true, as demonstrated by the FACT that 3 of our first 4 Presidents were dual citizens WHILE serving as President.
And NOBODY CARED.
That fact is a DISPROOF of your entire claim that the Framers insisted on not the slightest hint of any POSSIBLE "dual allegiance."
Four Congressmen in the Debates on the 14th amendment, ...who have been egregiously misquoted,
And this part is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. They have been egregiously misquoted by YOU! You intentionally LIED and I use that word with careful aforethought, YOU LIED about what John Bingham said. You did so intentionally, and with specific knowledge that what you were saying was a lie.
Everything I said was absolutely true, and anyone can look up the original sources and see that it's so.
John Bingham explicitly explained his meaning when he said: All other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens So the question remains, Why do you lie about this? Why do you continue to misrepresent what these men said and intended? That you continue to lie about this ought to tell people that nothing you say can be trusted. You have your own reasons for wanting to claim what you are arguing, but telling the truth is not one of them.
The people who say things that are FALSE are the LIARS. And YOU are the person who CLEARLY continues to make false claims about our Congressmen after the Civil War.
Anyone can look up what I stated about Senator Howard - that just minutes before he said what you misquote, other Senators in the chamber stated that the only exception to those born US citizens on US soil were the children of ambassadors, and that the children of other foreigners, even if they were in the United States temporarily, were born citizens.
So having done so, they can see who's a liar, and who isn't.
It is YOU who has very little to work with. Other than subsequent court decisions far removed from the actual people who would know what they are talking about, you've got almost nothing.
Oh, really? How about every significant legal authority in the United States?
The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen in Early America
"Natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" were used interchangeably by State of Massachusetts (1785-1790).
This is important because it shows that "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject," except for the difference of subservience to a king, were understood to mean exactly the same thing in the early United States. And "natural born subject" had a long legal history. All persons born in the country, even of alien parents, were "natural born subjects," except for the children of representatives of foreign governments, and of invading armies. Here are some examples:
February, 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.”in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
March, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
October, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
In March, 1790, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In many or most of the States, in fact, the use of "natural born subject" in law gradually gave way to use of "natural born citizen" in the same circumstances. French translation of the Constitution by Phillip Mazzei, Thomas Jefferson's VERY close friend and next-door neighbor (translated, 1788):
“Nobody, without being a born citizen, or having been a citizen of the United States at the time…”
This is from Mazzei's sweeping 4-volume work in French, The History and Politics of the United States of America ("Recherches Historiques et Politiques sur les Etats-Unis de l'Amérique Septentrional"). One of the very earliest published statements of what the natural born citizen requirement meant, it equates natural born citizen with born citizen. Given the extremely close lifelong relationship of Jefferson and Mazzei, this can almost certainly be considered authoritative as to what Thomas Jefferson himself understood "natural born citizen" to mean.
James Madison, House of Representatives (1789):
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."
Madison, the Father of the Constitution, mentions both jus soli (the law of the soil, or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (the law of blood, or parentage) here. But notice the emphasis: "In general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."
The First Congress (1790):
"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.".
Our very first Congress specified that the overseas-born children of US citizens "shall be considered as natural born Citizens."
This Congress included James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution." These men were well aware of the Presidential eligibility clause, and they clarified that those born overseas to US citizens were eligible to the Presidency. This makes it absolutely clear: the idea that eligibility requires BOTH birth on US soil AND citizen parents is FALSE. In this instance, our early leaders specified that citizen parents ALONE was quite enough.
French translation by Louis-Alexandre, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, friend of Benjamin Franklin (translated, 1792):
“No one except a ‘natural,’ born a citizen…” (or possibly, “No one except a ‘natural-born citizen’)
By the French Duc de la Rochefoucauld, who knew Benjamin Franklin personally. He and Franklin had previously co-published The Constitutions of the Thirteen United States of America ("Constitutions des Treize Etats-Unis de l'Amérique") in Paris, while Franklin was the American ambassador to France. No mention whatsoever of parentage.
Zephaniah Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Books (1795):
"The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Speaks for the State of Connecticut. Remember, there is no documentation ANYWHERE that says "natural born citizen" ever meant anything different from "natural born subject," except for the difference between "citizen" and "subject." Swift's legal treatise was read all over the United States, including by several Presidents and several US Supreme Court Justices.
Alexander Hamilton on how to understand the meaning of the terms used in the Constitution (1795):
"What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution... unfortunately, there is equally here a want of criterion to distinguish duties, imposts, and excises from taxes... where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived."
Hamilton tells us that our jurisprudence has been derived from that of England, and that if we want to understand the meaning of terms used in the Constitution, the place to look is to the laws of England that came before. This is important because the English common law was the fundamental legal training for every lawyer in America. The Constitution contains a variety of legal terms which appear no place other than in the common law. Those who claim we got the definition from Swiss philosopher Vattel are simply not telling the truth. Vattel never even spoke of "natural born citizens." He spoke of "natives, or indigenes." The latter was mistranslated to "natural born citizens" by a translator in London, England, 10 years after our Constitution was written.
Hamilton said we got the terms in the Constitution from the English common law. It is clear that "natural born citizen" came directly from "natural born subject," which never required citizen or subject parents.
French translation, (translated, 1799):
“No one shall be eligible to the office of President, if he is not born a citizen of the United States…”
Born a citizen. Once again, it appears the correct definition of "natural born citizen" is simply: born a citizen.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803):
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence… A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
Tucker was one of the most important early legal experts. His book became "the most popular reference work for students and practitioners of United States law until the mid-19th century." He totally equates "native-born" (which always simply meant born in America) with "natural born," and approvingly quotes another writer who said natural born citizens are "those born within the state."
Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805):
“...a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”
In Massachusetts, they followed the common law. This is consistent with Wong Kim Ark and everything else. (Except, of course, the claims of birthers.)
Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806):
“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”
Once again, Massachusetts uses the common law as the precedent for citizenship..
Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813):
“Our statutes recognize alienage and its effects, but have not defined it. We must therefore look to the common law for its definition. By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.”
And again.
Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)
“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”
Kentucky equated "natural born citizen" with "CITIZEN BY BIRTH."
From a Spanish language book on the Constitution (translated, 1825):
“The President is elected from among all citizens born in the United States, of the age of thirty-five years…”
From among ALL CITIZENS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. No mention of parentage.
French translation by the private secretary of the Marquis de Lafayette, who was a personal friend of our first six Presidents (1826):
“No individual, other than a citizen born in the United States…”
This translation is important for a number of reasons. First, the Marquis had himself been declared a "natural born citizen forever" of Maryland, by the State's legislature. So he had darn good reason to know what the phrase meant. Secondly, he was a good friend of every single one of our first six Presidents. This included George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. (And John Quincy Adams, too.) He had served as a General in the Revolutionary War under Washington, was instrumental in our gaining France's support, and was such a hero in America and France that he was known as "The Hero of the Two Worlds."
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826):
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
Common law, natural born subjects, SAME THING APPLIES HERE. Also, subject and citizen can be used interchangeably. Kent was another of our top early legal experts, which we are rapidly running out of. More from Kent:
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
Once again, NATIVE. Allegiance simply refers to the same historical precedent. Any person born within the country was born within the allegiance of the country, unless his parents were foreign ambassadors or royalty, or members of an occupying army. We also added two more exceptions: Indians in tribes, because Indian tribes were considered to be just like foreign nations that we did not control and made treaties with, and slaves, because they were legally considered to be property, not people.
French books on the Constitution:
“The President must be a born citizen [or born a citizen] of the United States…" (1826)
Born citizen, born a citizen.
“No one, unless he is a native citizen…” (1829)
Native citizen. No mention of parentage whatsoever.
By the way, the list of quotes from this time period saying the President had to be a "native" is not exhaustive. I have only included those from the most authoritative sources.
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Again explicitly states that birth in the country makes on a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even if one's parents are ALIENS.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
You really can't get any clearer, well-stated, and absolute. Again, Rawle was a legal expert. He was VERY close to both Franklin AND Washington, held meetings with them in the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, and was in Philadelphia WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WAS TAKING PLACE.
Justice Joseph Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830):
“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
Story was a LEGENDARY Justice on the Supreme Court. He would soon write the first comprehensive treatise on the provisions of the U.S. Constitution (see below, in 1840). And he tells us, quite clearly, that NOTHING is BETTER SETTLED.
American Jurist and Law Magazine, January, 1834:
“From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law, unless where they were prevented from becoming citizens by the constitution or statutes of the place of their birth.”
Again: The rule was by the common law.
Another French translation, 1837:
“No one can be President, unless he is born in the United States…”
Once again, born in the US. No mention at all of parentage. As is ALWAYS the case.
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838):
“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens... Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State. The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”
Straight-out tells us: natural born subjects became natural born citizens, and NO OTHER CHANGE in the citizenship rules took place. In other words, children of aliens born in the US were natural born citizens, because they were always natural born subjects before.
From Spanish-language books on the Constitution:
“No one can be President who has not been born a citizen of the United States, or who is one at the time of the adoption of this Constitution…” (1837)
Born a citizen.
“The President must be a citizen born in the United States…" (1848)
Born in the United States. No mention of parents.
Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838):
“That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”
The State of Tennessee defined natural born citizens are those born in the United States. No mention at all of parents.
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his Constitutional handbook, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States. (1840)
"It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people."
Native citizen.
Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843):
“...no person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.”
America's first prominent law dictionary. Uses NATURAL BORN SUBJECT as an exact equivalent for natural born citizen! Thus showing again, there was no practical difference between the two.
Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844):
“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. ”
Flat-out ruled that the US born child of alien parents was eligible to the Presidency.
Mr. Clarke's attorneys actually attempted to invoke Vattel. Vice Chancellor Sandford rejected their arguments, noting:
"[Vattel says] in reference to the inquiry whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens, that the laws have decided the question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations."
In other words, even according to Vattel, the citizenship laws of England and America were different from his Swiss ideas.
Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)
“Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”
Once again, every person born in the country. No mention of parents.
The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)
“It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.”
A natural born citizen is a member of the state by birth within and under it. Just another way of saying "citizen by birth."
The bottom line is this: You will keep spewing your Constitution-twisting nonsense. But you can no longer get away with it. I'm not the only one here who will point out what BS it is. There are quite a few other people who don't go in for twisting the Constitution, who will call you out for it whether I do or not.
You are a loon and I’m not reading your crap.
That's a nice way of saying, "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."
Your text wall of nonsense is crap. Lists of state cases are irrelevant.
And here you reveal what Constitution-twisters have to say about all of our early legal authorities, from the era of our Founding Fathers and Framers.
"Nonsense." "Crap."
That's REALLY what you people think of our Founders. Thank you for admitting it.
Twelve of the colonies adopted some form of English common law. The federal government did not. State cases on this topic, especially after the adoption of the Constitution, are irrelevant.
Your posting of these cases is crap. You intend to put it over that these cases are relevant when they are not. YOU are the twister.
And just to be clear, I said your text wall is crap.
You just can’t help twisting.
Without consulting my notes, I believe you are correct on that point.
And the thirteenth adopted the common law rule for citizenship.
This made the common law rule for citizenship unanimous throughout the thirteen original states.
The federal government did not.
Again, correct. However, we are repeatedly told by authorities such as Framer Alexander Hamilton and the US Supreme Court that the Constitution was framed in the language of the English common law, and it is that language we should look to in order to understand the terms used therein.
So when the Constitution says "natural born," it means the same thing that "natural born" had always meant, which, incidentally, came from the common law of both England and America.
Secondly, the first known court case to adjudicate the meaning of "natural born citizen" WAS a State court case, in New York, in 1844. Vice Chancellor Sandford looked carefully at the history of "natural born citizen" and concluded, quite clearly, that ALL the early American States had adopted the same common law rule for citizenship; and that therefore, the common law rule for the United States as a whole was the same common law rule as had always existed in both England and the United States.
He also concluded, quite clearly, that children born in the United States were NATURAL BORN CITIZENS and eligible to the Presidency without any regard at all to the citizenship of their parents.
Was that good precedent, or not? The US Supreme Court in 1898 reviewed Sandford's decision, quoted it approvingly, and said essentially the same thing as he did: That the SAME RULE had always applied in regard to citizenship. First, in England. Then, in the American Colonies. Then, in the United States after Independence. Then in the United States AFTER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.
And by that rule, children born in the country were NATURAL BORN subjects or citizens (whichever term was in vogue at the time), unless the children of foreign ambassadors or invading armies.
Your posting of these cases is crap. You intend to put it over that these cases are relevant when they are not. YOU are the twister.
Sorry, but this understanding of history and law is agreed upon by pretty much every significant legal authority throughout American history - conservative, liberal, or otherwise.
It is virtually unanimous. And the only people who currently disagree are a bunch of stubborn, nutcase, Constitution-twisting, conspiracy-theorist loons, and those gullible folks whom they have deceived with all of their slick double-talk and fallacious arguments.
Historically speaking, it's not even close.
My "text wall," as you call it, consists of pretty much everything that seems to be currently known of what our genuine very early legal authorities said "natural born citizen" meant, or what Presidential eligibility required.
And they were pretty much unanimous. "Natural born citizen" meant either "born on US soil" or "born a citizen." And Presidential eligibility required either being born on US soil (without regard at all to the citizenship of one's parents) or being born a citizen.
So when you denigrate and disrespect my "text wall," as you call it, you denigrate and disrespect the Founding Generation, including the Founders themselves. You simply want them to say what YOU want them to say, and if they don't say what YOU want them to say, the hell with them.
THAT is your attitude: You give lip service to the Founders and to their Constitution, while denying and trampling on whatever part of it they set up that you don't happen to personally like.
You just can’t help twisting.
You keep making the false accusation, but you can't produce a single instance of anything I've ever twisted. Anyone can look up any of the huge long list of quotes I've produced from early American authorities, and verify that the quotes are absolutely genuine, and that they do not twist the context or the meaning of the originals.
And again and again, it's YOUR side that has been shown to make fallacious argument after fallacious argument. So far, I've documented at least 44 of these fallacious arguments.
Not just that they ARE fallacious. I've documented exactly WHY they are fallacious. And any intelligent person can look up the original sources, in context, and SEE that they are COMPLETE AND ABSOLUTE BS.
We can keep on playing the stupid birther game just as long as you like. Every single time we play it, any intelligent person who reads the interaction comes to understand more fully that you and your compatriots are Constitution-twisting disrespecters of the Founding Fathers and their generation, as well as of the Constitution and our laws.
Cite the statute or state Constitution reception.
The doctrine of "natural born subject" includes perpetual allegiance. The United States has NEVER adopted this doctrine.
As a consequence of perpetual allegiance Great Britain recognized double allegiance. The United States did not.
The Parliament of Great Britain enacts statutes determining which foreigners may be admitted as "natural born subjects". Each Colony adopted select portions of English common law and statutes up until the reign of various monarchs. As a consequence the common law and statutes adopted varied from one Colony to the next. The statutes admitting foreigners as "natural born subjects" varied from one Colony to the next.
Great Britain did not have a naturalization process. The United States does.
The difference between "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" are manifest. It is common sense.
Here is David Ramsay:
People changed from subjects to citizens [and] the difference is immense. Subject... means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty. Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others. Each citizen of a free state contains, within himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as another.
True, but only in regard to really one thing.
The difference between "subject" and "citizen."
As for your making the claim that England adhered to perpetual allegiance and we did not, that's only true to a certain point. In the early United States, we were quite happy to reject the doctrine that citizens of other countries were not permanently bound to the countries of their birth. We were happy enough to welcome them here.
We were not nearly so happy to reject the doctrine that citizens of the UNITED STATES were not permanently bound to the country of THEIR birth.
It was a rather hypocritical position. But it's one we tended to hold in the early days.
But even if we granted, for the sake of argument, that we rejected the doctrine of perpetual allegiance (and EVENTUALLY, we did).
It is still FALLACIOUS to argue that we therefore rejected all aspects of the citizenship rules handed down to us through English, colonial, and American common law.
In order to make that argument, you need to actually SHOW that we rejected the basic citizenship rule.
And you CAN'T. Because we DIDN'T.
In fact, here's a very important early legal authority, who was appointed by GEORGE WASHINGTON to be United States District Attorney for the entire State of Pennsylvania. He was a delegate to Pennsylvania's Constitutional Assembly. He was offered the post of United States Attorney General by GEORGE WASHINGTON - more than once - but always turned the post down.
He was a friend of Founder BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, and used to meet with other important early leaders at Franklin's house to discuss politics, law, etc.
Although he wasn't a delegate, he was present in Philadelphia while the Constitutional Convention was taking place.
He was quoted approvingly as an early American legal authority by the United States Supreme Court.
He was the first president of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, and for 40 years a trustee of the University of Pennsylvania.
He wrote an authoritative guide to the Constitution of the United States, which was used as a textbook on the Constitution in many of our universities.
In fact, it was the standard constitutional law text at Harvard until 1845 and at Dartmouth until 1860.
But you will spit on him and disrespect him, as you spit upon and disrespect any and all from the Founding Generation who disagree with your Constitution-twisting BS.
Here's what William Rawle had to say:
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."
Don't claim to be a friend of the Founders. You and your ilk most certainly aren't.
Or, to be a bit more precise about it:
You're only a friend of the Founders as long as you like what they said. As soon as you don't, you're just as prepared to throw the Founders under the bus as are liberals. Like Mara Zebest, the liberal, Democrat, Hillary-Clinton-supporting author of this article.
More like don't try to bullsh*t me with irrelevant facts. You seldom post anything that has direct linkage to founders, you are all about opinions of dubious provenience.
Your posting of these cases is crap. You intend to put it over that these cases are relevant when they are not. YOU are the twister.
And this is exactly correct. Jeff posts crap that doesn't demonstrate any connection to the Delegates whatsoever, (who are the only people who can say what they meant by the term "natural born citizen") and much of what he posts doesn't even support his own argument.
His text dump is just a mountain of bullsh*t which he hopes will overwhelm any argument through sheer bulk. Again, this is a liar's tactic. Honest people address issues on a point by point basis and establish veracity.
This guy just lies by volume.
Ha!
I'M the one who has posted sources and information with linkage to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and the real authorities of the entire Founding Generation.
YOU'RE the person making a BS argument based on David Ramsay (who was voted down 36 to 1 by our first House of Representatives), an obscure judge whose authority extended to several COUNTIES in the State of Pennsylvania (wow), a pseudonymous letter-writer from 1812 who could've been literally anyone out of millions of people, Congressmen who didn't start speaking about the issue until 75 years after the Constitution and didn't say what you claim they say anyway, a court case in which the Court specifically said they weren't going to decide the issue, and... wait for it...
Alexander Porter Morse, writing in the 1880s.
Who also contradicts himself and in one place actually says the children born here of alien parents are citizens as well.
You are a FRAUD. An absolute FRAUD. And you have been exposed for what you are.
By the way, did I mention what the REAL authorities of early America had to say about natural born citizenship and Presidential eligibility?
See post 84.
No, you're the guy who lies by volume.
So far, I've documented 44 different fallacious arguments made by you and your ilk. The only thing stopping me from posting them all in one go is that I haven't had time yet to go through and explain for each and every one of them where the fallacies are. I'm part way there. I'm sure we'll get there eventually.
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.