HA! He's calling it "Ancient"! It's about as "Ancient" as Calvin's case meaning 1608. (about 180 years before the US Constitution.) It was cobbled together by Lord Coke as a means of addressing issues with the Unification of Scotland and England.Do you make your living as a clown?
Actually, the idea of natural born citizenship seems to go back even before Calvin's Case. But 1607 is quite old enough.
I referred to it as "ancient" because that's exactly the same adjective used to describe it by the United States Supreme Court in 1898:
There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there was any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.
And:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.
So once again, you reveal yourself as being an idiot. I would think it would get old after a while, but you don't seem to have lost the taste for it.
Knowing that this would throw a severe kink into the plan to unite the Kingdom, (The Scots would not accept this.) Lord Coke got a bunch of Judges together to agree to make up some bullsh*t and claim it was "the common law." Just as today, Politics trumped the truth and the existing law of the time.
Yes, yes, we know. Lord Coke and all the high judges of the country of England were all just a bunch of Obot hacks:
"The two cases were adjourned to the Exchequer Chamber to be heard by all the King's Bench and Common Pleas justices as well as the Lord Chancellor and barons of the Exchequer. In June 1608, fourteen justices assembled for arguments in the case. Coke reports that 'the five judges of the King's Bench, who adjourned this case into the Exchequer Chamber, rather adjourned it for weight than difficulty.'"
Unlike our legal system, the English legal system had two courts. They felt the case was important, so they combined the high justices of both courts into a sort of truly-Supreme-Court.
Really, do you never tire of posting idiotic stuff that only reveals you as a nutjob?
Prior to Lord Coke and Calvin's case, it was Roman law as far back as the eye can see, and we ALL know what was the Roman (and Greek) law; The Parents must be citizens.
So yeah, let's make yet another idiotic argument here: that a legal precedent that had been in place, and been THE LAW for 180 years, just wasn't old enough.
We need to go back to the ROMANS, and the GREEKS, who weren't even English.
Good heavens.
Once again, you show that there's simply NO length you won't go to in order to fling your BS. Precedent that's 180 years old isn't old enough for you. You claim that the precedent was overruled by some previous policy of more than 1000 years earlier.
The English precedent that we inherited from our ENGLISH Colonies isn't American enough for you. You claim that we got our policy from the Swiss, which we had virtually nothing to do with, or from the ROMANS, or the GREEKS, who were thousands of miles and thousands of years away.
And your evidence to prove this is... BUPKIS.
Except that you REALLY, REALLY WANT it to be true.
You're like a little 4 year old who, told he can't have the 5-pound Hershey's bar at the grocery store, begs and whines and pleads incessantly. I'll bet you did that as a kid, didn't you? I'd almost be willing to bet that your mother gave in to your little begging and tantrums as well.
Because that's the other part of it. When the facts don't match what you want them to be, you throw a little tantrum. You accuse others of being "liars." "Obots." "Paid." "Shills."
So Jeff is trying to snow us into accepting his claim that this was a well established and "Ancient" aspect of English Common law, when in fact it was only as far back as King James I. It was younger than our US Constitution is today.
More than 4 centuries is ancient enough for me. It was ancient enough for the US Supreme Court to call it "ancient," and I put more credence into their words than I do the words of some clown on the internet.
Do you make your living as a clown? No need, you provide all the entertainment we can stand.
Actually, the idea of natural born citizenship seems to go back even before Calvin's Case.
If this is true, why did "Calvin" need to bring his case? Why would it need 14 judges to decide it? Seems like the first peasant that came along could explain it. If Only Peasant Jeff had come along, it could have saved everybody a lot of trouble when he explained to them what the "common" law was.
"Your Honors, the Law's quite simple, it is." (Pictured below, Peasant Jeff explaining the law to the Judges)
.
.
But 1607 is quite old enough.
What have you got older than 1608? Show it.
The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli; this makes it co-extensive with the term “native born.” Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are “natural born” and not “naturalized” citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis is applied. England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929).
I'm not farting with the rest of your message. You write too much crap.