Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: OhioBuckeye
Citizens are either natural-born or naturalized. One who is born in the United States or under its jurisdiction is a natural-born citizen without reference to the nationality of his parents. Their presence here constitutes a temporary allegiance, sufficient to make a child a citizen.

Theodore Dwight, Edward Dwight, Commentaries on the law of persons and personal property, pg. 125 (1894)

14 posted on 02/06/2016 2:13:30 AM PST by RC one ("...all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens" US v. WKA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: RC one

SOS....different day.


16 posted on 02/06/2016 2:16:19 AM PST by OhioBuckeye (not voting for Trump...not now...not EVER -- Cruz 2016!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: RC one

It does not work, because the allegiance is divided. The author misconstrued the principle due to an erroneous reading of Blackstone’s Commentaries. Sir Edward Coke in Calvin’s Case 1608 correctly observed any person who was subject-made was naturalized, whereas a subject-born was a subject by birth with two English parents in the jurisdiction of England. However, due to the unique English policy of claiming as a subject any person born in England as a subject of the sovereign of England, commentators adopted the habit of referring to any person born in England, regardless of alien parentage, to be a natural born Englishman, despite the fact their status as English subjects was authorized by a Naturalization Act enacted by Parliament and not by natural law. I makes no difference which of the many sometimes misleading terminologies are used, including natural born subject or naturalized citizen versus natural born citizen, the meaning and substance of the law is what determines whether a child born abroad is figuratively a naturalized subject or citizen by unnatural statutory law or actually a natural born citizen by natural law.

Some people have attempted to argue the phrase, natural born citizen, as it was used in the Constitution could have meant a person born with alien parentage, because English/British law recognized a person born in the jurisdiction with alien parents was an English/British subject. This argument fails for many reasons. Among those failed arguments, we know the original draft only required the President to be a U.S. citizen for the required period of residency. If the authors had intended for the child of one or two alien parents to be sufficient to qualify to become President no further changes would have been needed. But a change was made, and the change was proposed by the future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, John Jay, when he argued the President must be a natural born citizen to keep a foreigner from becoming the Commander-in-Chief of the American Army. The word, foreigner, at that time indicated a person having any personal relationship with a foreign allegiance. Ted Cruz was born with a personal allegiance to two foreign governments, Canada and Cuba. Marco Rubio was born with an allegiance to Cuba, due to his parents being citizens of Cuba at the time he was born in the United States.


53 posted on 02/06/2016 3:22:15 AM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: RC one

Please note that this opinion, like all of the opinions that support Cruz et al, is written long after the adoption of the Constitution and therefore holds little sway.


150 posted on 02/06/2016 7:48:13 AM PST by freedomjusticeruleoflaw (Western Civilization- whisper the words, and it will disappear. So let us talk now about rebirth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson