YOU'RE the one who denies every significant early authority, the opinions of the United States Supreme Court and every individual Supreme Court Justice who has spoken on the matter in the past 100 years, and every significant authority through United States history, including every significant conservative constitutional organization (e.g., the Heritage Foundation, National Review), and who has no real evidence showing that we ever adopted any definition for "natural born citizen" other than what history and law SAY the definition was.
And you're telling ME to "stop being ridiculous?"
You're an idiot. You deny every early authority of any note at all who ever spoke on the subject, and every authority of any real note who has spoken on it since then.
How does it feel to be a Constitutional and historical and legal idiot? Because, by your behavior and your position, that's what you are.
The states were colonies. The United States NEVER WAS A COLONY.
Of course not.
But when the United States was formed, there had to be some principle or law for determining who was a citizen. So what was it? Lewis Sandford explained it, and the US Supreme Court approvingly quoted his decision and agreed with it. I will give you his explanation in a moment.
A subject is chattel. A subject is beholden to another. A subject is inferior to his monarch.
Somewhat true, but not entirely - as illustrated by the fact that the first complaint some made when the Constitution was adopted was that our failure to adopt the common law wholesale would deprive us of a lot of the RIGHTS that we had previously ENJOYED as SUBJECTS of England.
That complaint led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
Nonetheless, you do have a point. "Subject" implies "subjection." That's why we changed the term for a member of OUR society from "subject" to "citizen."
In the United States ALL ARE CREATED EQUAL. This is ANTITHETICAL to English law.
Again, that's why we changed the term for a member of our new nation from "subject" to "citizen."
But again, terms in the Constitution come from the common law. Do you know where the following terms, found in our Constitution, come from?
Impeachment.
Felonies.
Treason.
Bribery.
Indictment.
Cases in equity.
Bankruptcy.
Attainder.
Writ of habeas corpus?
They don't come from some Swiss guy. They don't come from the Romans, or the Greeks. They don't come from "international law."
They come from the English common law, and were found NO PLACE ELSE.
Likewise, when the Constitution says "natural born," that's a term from the English common law, and it is found NO PLACE ELSE.
“Natural born subjects” are defined by Parliament, not ECL. The United States has not incorporated acts of Parliament!
No. Natural born subjects were defined by the common law. Parliament may have passed a few statutes from time to time saying such things as that children born abroad to English subjects were to be regarded as natural born subjects, but that was an addition to the basic rule of the common law.
Now I'm going to educate you as to how we got OUR rule of citizenship. Lewis Sandford, who was quoted approvingly by the US Supreme Court, who agreed with his general position and decision, has explained it very well. So I will let you read it, from his words.
The states parted with their control of the matter [the determination of who is a citizen] to the federal government. Therefore, there must have been a national principle or rule of law, co-eval with the existence of the Union, governing the subject. And the question whether Julia Lynch was or was not a citizen, must be determined by the national unwritten law.
It is a necessary consequence, from what I have stated, that the law which had prevailed on this subject, in all the states, became the governing principle or common law of the United States. Those states were the constituent parts of the United States, and when the union was formed, and further state regulation on the point terminated, it follows, in the absence of a declaration to the contrary, that the principle which prevailed and was the law on such point in all the states, became immediately the governing principle and rule of law thereon in the nation formed by such union. If there had been any diversity on the subject in the state laws, it might have been difficult to ascertain which of the conflicting state rules was to become, or did become, the national principle. And if such diversity had existed, it is reasonable to believe that the framers of the constitution would have borne in mind, and enacted a uniform rule, or authorized Congress to establish one. The entire silence of the constitution in regard to it, furnishes a strong confirmation, not only that the existing law of the states was entirely uniform, but that there was no intention to abrogate or change it. 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. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to theo office of President," &c. 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. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen...
Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.
“Natural born CITIZEN” is not in ECL or acts of Parliament.
By the way - chill with the insults.
Where there is no treaty, and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations; and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and
commentators, who by years of labor, research and experience, have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects of which they treat.
Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law really is.
The Paquete Habana
And here is Jeff repeating this absolutely absurd claim, which he oddly seems to believe despite the various examples we have shown him. He seems to think that if he repeats it, that will make it true. I'm not going to bother addressing all the numerous and sundry ways in which Jeff's claim is wrong, but I will point out one. (it's the least I can do.)