Replies

In other words, St. George Tucker takes a very slightly different approach from Alexander Hamilton, Vice Chancellor Sandford, and the US Supreme Court, but all basically arrive at the same place.

In Hamilton’s view, the terms in the Constitution are to be understood by their definitions from the English common law. This implies that “natural born” in the Constitution means what it meant in the common law. By this approach, children born on US soil to legal alien parents are natural born citizens.

In Sandford’s view, it is obvious that there must have been an unwritten national rule for citizenship. Where is that rule to be found? Look to the States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. It turns out that in every single instance, each State had adopted the rule of the common law. Therefore, the national rule was the same, the rule of the common law. By this approach, children born on US soil to legal alien parents are natural born citizens.

In Tucker’s view, the common law is not the general law of the United States, but in matters on which the statutory law is silent, it becomes a resource, among others, for deciding what the law is. Since citizenship is the province of a nation’s own laws, then the common law would be the appropriate place to look. By the way, Tucker says clearly that on the matter of whether children born on US soil to alien parents are citizens, the law of the United States agrees with the law of England. So according to St. George Tucker, children born on US soil to legal alien parents are natural born citizens.

The US Supreme Court examined all of the legal authorities and sources of information, and concluded that the same rule always applied, first in England, then in the Colonies, then in the United States after independence, and then in the United States after the adoption of the Constitution. And that rule was the rule of the common law. Therefore, according to the US Supreme Court, children born on US soil to legal alien parents are natural born citizens.

We could add to this James Madison’s view, who told us that there were two things that produced the allegiance that made for citizenship - place of birth and parentage. He said that in general, place of birth was “the most certain” and that it was “what applies in the United States.” It follows that by James Madison’s view, children born on US soil to legal alien parents are natural born citizens.

So we have several different perspectives, and very slightly varying approaches to the question, but in every instance, DiogenesLamp is full of you know what.

“St. George Tucker takes a very slightly different approach”

His approach is even more different than the one taken by Chief Justice Ellsworth who thought the English Common Law was part of US Federal Law.

Chief Justice Ellsworth was not only a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, he was one of the more vocal members according to the notes of James Madison. Ellsworth wrote articles supporting the ratification of the Constitution (Letters of a Landholder). He was in the Continental Congress, Connecticut legislature, the Confederation Congress, the Connecticut Superior Court, the US Senate and the US Supreme Court.

In Tucker’s view, the common law is not the general law of the United States, but in matters on which the statutory law is silent, it becomes a resource, among others, for deciding what the law is.

And that's the important context I keep referring to, that DL omitted. When we separated from England, we didn't end up with no law (the "state of nature" Madison refers to), or only state laws. But the new federal government didn't sit down and write all new laws to cover everything, either. So then what was the law? What would be the basis for figuring it out? Clearly, Madison thought the "civil rights and obligations"--i.e., applicable parts of the common law--continued after independence.