Posted on 03/20/2016 11:46:56 AM PDT by conservativejoy
But in English law and practice, only existed at the municipal level. The concept of a citizen "National" did not exist in 1776 England.
So the concept of "citizen" does not stem from English common law. That is my point.
“So the concept of “citizen” does not stem from English common law. That is my point.”
Correct, because it is traceable linguistically and conceptually to the Roman civitas and conceptually to the earlier Greek Polis.
Did you happen to see John Greschak's analysis? He went into that.
“Did you happen to see John Greschak’s analysis? He went into that.”
Yes, I did. He did some very good work presenting screenshots of the original sources. His proposed amendment at the end wouldn’t fly. It is really difficult to draft an amendment that is effective in denying the ability to twist or circumvent its intent and letter. It is very worthwhile to examine the parts in which he presents the information about natural born subjects. One of my pet peeves are the people who ignorantly attempt to equate natural born subjects with natural born citizens. That’s sheer dumb and stupid craziness.
And nearly universal in how our legal community views the subject.
Did you happen to see my theory of how the citizenship issue got so conflated with English Common law?
“Did you happen to see my theory of how the citizenship issue got so conflated with English Common law?”
Probably, but I don’t recall now. I’ve seen so many of these various arguments. There certainly has been no shortage of so-called lawyers ignorantly arguing for English common law origins ever since the early 19th Century. Justice Grey in particular was responsible for screwing that one up as well.
From what I have been able to determine, the primary source for screwing it up was William Rawle. In his "A View of the Constitution" He explicitly states that American Citizenship derives from English Common law.
What makes this worse is that he was told differently by pretty much the entire legal community of Philadelphia, and yet he published that falsehood anyway.
Rest assured, he was not the origin of the lawyer joke....
Duh. Thanks for repeating my point. They were NOT born in the US; and required a special exemption. Period.
They weren’t born in the US. Period. They can no more be considered Americans by birth than a Russian born today can be born in the Soviet Union. The OP claimed all US Presidents were born in America. They weren’t; in fact they recognized they weren’t and wrote themselves a special Constitutional exemption to grant themselves eligibility.
They themselves realized they were NOT Americans by birth, and had to carve out a Constitutional exemption for themselves as a result. Nothing changes that.
The OP claimed all previous Presidents were US citizens at birth, which is a thoroughly preposterous fiction.
So you are saying Ted Cruz was born before the Constitution?
Otherwise he has to be a natural born citizen.
Various of his allies attempted to salvage his laughable claim, including you, but there is no repairing it. Eight of our Presidents were not born in the United States. That is a fact.
As to the rest, the courts -- not deranged billionaires with a cult following -- will make those decisions. So far, not a single one of these challenges has enjoyed any fate but to be laughed out of court; so much for TheDonald's® grasp of the law.
those claiming that common law had no place in America’s constitution ignore the fact that America went by common law during the American colonies in the 1700’s, and the Natural born term was commonly used and stemmed from the colonies borrowing statutory laws used in England- These colony laws were American laws, based on English laws- and common law- But birthers want to throw out this part of history because it conflicts with their “I hate Ted” ideology- The inclusion of the term ‘natural born citizen’ in the 1790 act was pretty obviously a result of the Colonies using the term to mean exactly what the English statute declared it meant- and not some fictional ‘born on American soil to 2 us parents’
Like the CRS report states, the weight of legal and historical authorities indicate that the term NBC refers to a person who is entitled to all the privileges and responsibility of us citizenship at birth or by birth- Recent court results show there is no difference between the two terms at birth and by birth . Those born off soil, and meeting the legal requirements for US citizenship AT BIRTH are not required to go through a naturalization process
Those making the claim that it is a form of naturalization because it is ‘granted by way of statute’ are essentially creating a third category for acquiring citizenship when the courts have declared several times there are only 2 ways- they declare that there is now a process of naturalization that does NOT require an actual process- but they cite no evidence, historical or legal, to show that the courts even recognize this third category of citizenship- The weight of evidence shows that there are only two ways to become a citizen- one: At Birth and By Birth, and two: After Birth- where immigrants must in almost every circumstance, take an oath of allegiance - Those saying that a process of naturalization isn’t needed for naturalization to occur have created a fictitious third category of citizenship- Naturalization by statute alone (with no need for the actual process of naturalization that all immigrants must undergo)
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.