Posted on 12/16/2022 4:02:55 PM PST by CDR Kerchner
(Dec. 15, 2022) — What if your humble servant were to reveal something here at The P&E which could, once and for all, put an end to “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) debate raging in the comments sections of numerous posts here? What if recently-discovered “hard” evidence – in the form of a letter from John Jay to David Brearley, Chairman of the “Committee on Postponed Matters” at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 – was produced? And what if that letter confirmed the intent of the Founders to rely on § 212 of Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations for its definition of an nbC, requiring birth in the nation to parents who were already U.S. Citizens? Would that change any of the minds of those who believe that the only criterion for an nbC is to be born here as a “citizen at birth” or a “citizen by birth?” Curious? Read on. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Pennsylvania legislature which ratified the Constitution in Pennsylvania.
I think you mean he was at the Pennsylvania state constitution convention. It resulted in the 1790 Pennsylvania Constitution.
US Constitution ratification. And the Pennsylvania constitution also said that the fathers were what mattered, not whether you were born in Pennsylvania.
My quibble is that he cites no law of Pennsylvania or the United States. In the footnote 12 he simply states “In this particular, our laws differ from the English laws”. Which laws would those be?
The Jus Soli interpretation of English subjectude derives from Calvin's case, which was *NOT* a Unanimous decision. From my recollection, there is no statute law prior to Calvin's case which made someone born on English soil into an Englishmen.
I have researched Calvin's case, and it became immediately clear to me that this case was rendered the way it was, not because it is correct law, but because it solves a very serious political problem at the time.
The fact that it had dissenters is amazing, because the King very badly needed it to go the way it went. It is hard to believe that any judge would consent to opposing the King's position unless a very powerful belief compelled them to do so.
I think the majority of Judges went along with the King in Calvin's case because this was the decision that the nation very badly needed to solve the political crises at the time.
But the preponderance of the evidence of American citizenship indicates it derives from Vattel's natural law ideas rather than English judicial decisions.
My quibble is that he cites no law of Pennsylvania or the United States. In the footnote 12 he simply states “In this particular, our laws differ from the English laws”. Which laws would those be?
I also wish to add that this is not solely the opinion of Samuel Roberts. It is the collected opinion of all the Judges of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and probably the entire legal community of Pennsylvania.
If it were wrong, it would have been denounced by the entire legal community of Pennsylvania, but instead, this was a common law book in law offices all across Pennsylvania.
Only Rawle seems to be the outlier on this particular topic.
I wanted to discuss this point further with you. What is a court case but the opinion of a Judge? Citing previous judges opinions has somehow become significant in law nowadays, but it still boils down to the opinion of a Judge.
In the case of the "Digest of British Statutes..." it is the opinion of multiple judges. That it does not have any specific court cases (of which we are currently aware) does not detract from it at all.
Presumably these Judges all got together and held hearings on the matters dealt with in that book, and this is their conclusion. Presumably they called forth whatever witnesses or authorities they thought were necessary to arrive at their decisions.
They did in fact have something very much like a "trial" and they simply handled many matters at the same time.
That there was no plaintiff or defendant is immaterial to the point that their judicial proceedings arrived at this result.
A lot of modern court cases simply ignore evidence and end up putting forth a ruling of whatever the Judge's personal preferences are, and they have no concern for what the reality of the law is anyway.
Because he’s not him. Puppet master Jarrett is pulling the strings.
He said Kenya because Canada doesn’t sound as cool or African.
The Pennsylvania legislature did not ratify the Constitution. They elected delegates who attended a Ratification Convention.
Lewis is not listed as a delegate to the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention. It took place on December 12 1787.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratpa.asp#b1
Or on page 45 below:
I’m not having any luck finding the word father or parent in the 1790 Pennsylvania Constitution. Can you point it out to me?
https://www.paconstitution.org/texts-of-the-constitution/1790-2/
That is not what I recall, but it has been several years since I looked this stuff up. I will have to go back to some of the stuff I posted in the past and see if I can find out if I got this wrong and if so how.
In any case, JASPER YEATES. is listed as a delegate. Guess what? He is one of the Judges of the Pennsylvania Supreme court that wrote that book.
I’m not having any luck finding the word father or parent in the 1790 Pennsylvania Constitution. Can you point it out to me?
1776 Constitution.
SECT. 5. The freemen of this commonwealth and their sons shall be trained and armed for its defence under such regulations, restrictions, and exceptions as the general assembly shall by law direct, preserving always to the people the right of choosing their colonels and all commissioned officers under that rank, in such manner and as often as by the said laws shall be directed.SECT. 6. Every freemen of the full age of twenty-one years, having resided in this state for the space of one whole year next before the day of election for representatives, and paid public taxes during that time, shall enjoy the right of an elector: Provided always, that sons of freeholders of the age of twenty one years shall be intitled to vote although they have not paid taxes.
1790 Constitution.
Of elections. Section I. In elections by the citizens, every freeman of the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the state two years next before the election, and within that time paid a state or county tax, which shall have been assessed at least six months before the election, shall enjoy the rights of an elector: Provided, that the sons of persons qualified as aforesaid, between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-two years, shall be entitled to vote, although they shall not have paid taxes.
James Wilson, along with Benjamin Franklin, *was* a Delegate to the US Constitutional convention.
In looking through his writings I stumbled across this comment from him.(James Wilson Lectures on Law, 1790-1791)
"Generally speaking,” says the great political authority,b Aristotle, “a citizen is one partaking equally of power and of subordination.”A citizen then—to draw his description as one of the people—I deem him, who acts a personal or a represented part in the legislation of his country. He has other rights; but his legislative I consider as his characteristick right. In this view, a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union: for the members of the house of representatives in the national legislature are chosen, in each state, by electors, who, in that state, have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.c In this view, a citizen of Pennsylvania is he, who has resided in the state two years; and, within that time, has paid a state or county tax: or he is between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years, and the son of a citizen.
You're happy to use the strength of John Jay's words when he affirms a point you wish to make, but you tell us Jay's words about a natural born citizen needing to have citizen parents--which disagrees with your point--should be disregarded.That seems rather opportunistic and lacking logic.
I cited and quoted a REAL letter and provided a link to an image of that handwritten letter showing the emphasis John Jay actually gave.
You rely upon an IMAGINARY letter not written by John Jay, but conjured up by Joseph DiMaio. As that imaginary letter author wrote in his article, "for the slower-than-normal – the “what-ifs?” prefacing the discussions of the image of the letter should have been a give-away: the image is the product of your humble servant’s stitching together of a few pieces of historical facts and a bit of not-so-far-fetched hypothetical discussions which might – but then again might not – have taken place back in Philadelphia…"
I rely on the prevailing precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark. Even had the fictional letter you relied upon been real, the most recent utterance of the U.S. Supreme Court would be the prevailing precedent.
The most obvious evidence that the law according to Vattel was not adopted is the undeniable fact that millions of Americans today would find that they, and their ancestors, never became citizens. In the early United States, under the Constitution, many aliens came and subsequently had children who were considered citizens who needed no naturalization, and who obtained no naturalization. Under Vattel's law, those children never became citizens, and down through the generations, the children of said non-citizens could not have become citizens. That simply did not happen.
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 694 (1898)
To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.
However, if that laws of citizenship of that other country (in dual citizenship) requires fealty to only that other country, one might be left with someone wanting or claiming to be a US citizen when he or she owes complete allegiance via oath and agreeing signature to another country.
1) It appears Indonesia disallows dual citizenship. Barry has been identified in at least two ways as an Indonesian citizen. a) attending a school reserved only for non-foreigners, and b) apparently having possessed an Indonesian passport while being of majority age. c) Since Indonesia also requires birth certificates, it could appear Barry's step-mom would have had to present a false one that both Barry and she later hid from the Hawai'i Department of Health (HDOH) and US State Department or until Analysis Corp President and CEO John Brennan happened by such records with Lieutenant Quarels Harris in tow. (Or is the name "Soebarkah" relevant here?)
2) No valid, official document shows Barry to have been born in Hawaii. A US attorney, an officer of the court has made a representation that he has seen (and presumably retained) a copy of a British Columbian name change record for someone who sought and received from the court a change to the name "Barack Hussein Obama." That comports with a wider story of a Peace Arch Hospital, White Rock, BC birth to a bloodline/hierarchy woman in 1961. It also would defy any attempt at characterizing this as coincidence.
3) Are we expected to affirm that a majority-age Barry that had sworn his complete fealty to Indonesia would be eligible for the US presidency in the eyes of the crafters and ratifiers of the Constitution, irrespective of where he was born? What would our country's forefathers have intended? I think things become clearer in such circumstance, for surely no one has ever thought them, collectively, to be fools.
Even Nancy Pelosi, in 49 of the 50 nomination letters to the states that she sent out on Barry's behalf, demurred from saying that Barry was legally qualified, saying only the candidates Obama and Biden "were duly nominated as candidates of said [Democratic] Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively.."
To the State of Hawaii alone she wrote "THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 through 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.. "
4) Barry and his handlers put forth an invalid birth record that in whatever form it may ever have existed, had been amended. Its 4/27/2011 contained many indicia that prove that document did not exist in 1961 and that, furthermore, we can all bear witness was not the "half typed and half handwritten" record for Barry the previous HDOH Director, Chiyome Fukino, M.D., publicly represented to have seen on multiple occasions.
5) We may not have answers to why Barry and/or his (many CIA) handlers saw fit to alter his birth record (in ever so many ways) and put forth the forged and fraudulent one they did, but the bottom line as it states on all HDOH certificates, "ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE."
What is a court case but the opinion of a Judge? Citing previous judges opinions has somehow become significant in law nowadays, but it still boils down to the opinion of a Judge.
The English common law system does not exist without judicial opinions being significant. That goes back about a thousand years.
A case is a legal dispute or controversy, and the Opinion sets forth the issues, applicable law, and the decision of the case. The courts are constitutionally empowered to state what the law is. The precedential holdings of the higher court are binding on subordinate courts, but not themselves.
The United States uses the common law system of law. Every State but Louisiana uses the common law system.
Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed.
common law. The body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions, Caselaw.[...]
American common law. (1813) 1. The body of English law that was adopted as the law of the American colonies and supplemented with local enactments and judgments. (2) The body of judge-made law that developed during and after the United States' colonial period, esp. since independence.
[...]
4. The body of law deriving from the law courts as opposed to those sitting in equity. ... The common law of England was one of the three main historical sources of English law. The other two were legislation and equity. The common law evolved from custom and was the body of law created by and administered by the king's courts.
Without court opinions and judicial precedents, the common law system cannot exist.
From the cited Digest of Select British Statutes, preface at XVI,
The report which they have submitted, is, doubtless, entitled to high respect and consideration, as containing the opinions of men who rank in the highest grade of the profession, and in the public confidence, but it ought to be carefully distinguished from a JUDICIAL DECISION; of the character of which it does not partake.The distinguished characters who have made the report, it is confidently presumed, would not wish that it should be so considered; but on the contrary, that whenever the question comes judicially before them, whether a particular English statute, or any part of it, is or is not in force in Pennsylvania, they will hear without prejudice, whatever may be urged on either side; and without otherwise adverting to the circumstance whether such statute be comprised in the report or not, will be solicitous only to form a correct decision.
The opinion of the superior court, in any state, determines the law, in relation to questions judicially decided. Stare decisis is a maxim, in adhering to which the public tranquillity is deeply interested. It being, in a certain degree, less important what the law is, than that it should be ascertained and known. In respect to ascertaining the law, the judiciary have an arduous and sacred duty to fulfil. In the discharge of which every Judge must feel the high responsibility which rests upon him. He must be sensible of the necessity of viewing the subject in all its bearings; and to enable him to do so must be anxious to hear the arguments of learned counsel, on both sides of the question; and that his opinion should be the result of careful research, and due reflection.
Such are the opinions which ought to ascertain the law: and a point thus settled should not be the subject of future litigation or argument.
2) No valid, official document shows Barry to have been born in Hawaii.3) Are we expected to affirm that a majority-age Barry that had sworn his complete fealty to Indonesia would be eligible for the US presidency in the eyes of the crafters and ratifiers of the Constitution,
You are entitled to your opinion but it is legally meaningless. Once a State proves a document, it must be accepted by all Federal and State courts pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 1:
Section 1.Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule44.htm
Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 44. Proving an Official Record
(a) Means of Proving.
(1) Domestic Record.
Each of the following evidences an official record — or an entry in it — that is otherwise admissible and is kept within the United States, any state, district, or commonwealth, or any territory subject to the administrative or judicial jurisdiction of the United States:
(A) an official publication of the record; or
(B) a copy attested by the officer with legal custody of the record — or by the officer's deputy — and accompanied by a certificate that the officer has custody. The certificate must be made under seal:
(i) by a judge of a court of record in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept; or
(ii) by any public officer with a seal of office and with official duties in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept.
(2) Foreign Record.
[...]
This Indonesia thing could have been argued to a Court. Oh wait, Berg v. Obama, PAED 08-cv- 04083, Plaintiff Berg, Doc 13:
Even if Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii, he lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother re-married and moved to Indonesia with her Indonesian husband. In or about 1966, when Obama was approximately five (5) years old, his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, whom she had met at the Hawaii University, and moved to Indonesia with Obama. Obama lost his U.S. citizenship, when his mother married Lolo Soetoro, and took up residency in Indonesia. Loss of citizenship, in these circumstances, under U.S. law (as in effect in 1967) required that foreign citizenship be achieved through “application.” Such type of naturalization occurred, for example, when a person acquired a foreign nationality by marriage to a national of that country.
Result: Dismissed.
Appeal Result: "On consideration whereof, it is now ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court entered October 27, 2008, be and the same is hereby affirmed. Costs taxed against Appellant."
CERT: Denied.
An American citizen child cannot revoke his citizenship. Only an adult can do that, and an adult cannot do that for a child. A five-year old cannot swear his complete fealty to Indonesia.
I agree, but the state has to do this. So far we have seen no valid document from the state of Hawaii that supports the claim he was born there.
Till Hawaii comes clean with the truth, we have no proof he was born there or not born there.
The evidence of which I am aware indicates he was born in Canada and only acquired a Hawaiian birth certificate as a consequence of efforts by his grandmother.
The evidence of which I am aware indicates that in August of 1961, Stanley Ann Dunham was either in Northern Washington, or in Canada.
Dare I say that this is argumentum ad antiquitatum?
I've read quite a bit of "natural law" from the 1700s, and the common thinking of the natural law philosophers is that the laws of nature and of nature's God can be discovered by clear thinking and some foundational principles.
Like mathematicians with their proofs, the natural law philosophers tend to start out with some basic principles, and derive further insight into natural law by the use of reason.
That something has always been done that way before does not enter into their thinking.
That decisions are seldom derived from "first principles" is one thing that I have always seen as a flaw in our legal system.
The reason I see it as a flaw is because if any precedent has an error in it, that error translates into subsequent errors for any decisions using it as precedent.
Plessy vs Ferguson comes to mind.
Once a State proves a document, it must be accepted by all Federal and State courts pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 1:I agree, but the state has to do this. So far we have seen no valid document from the state of Hawaii that supports the claim he was born there.
Hawaii put out a document with seal and signature. There is no Federal judicial review of a document that the state has proved in the specified form.
Dare I say that this is argumentum ad antiquitatum?
You are free to say that but I prefer English.
I've read quite a bit of "natural law" from the 1700s, and the common thinking of the natural law philosophers is that the laws of nature and of nature's God can be discovered by clear thinking and some foundational principles.
I do not get law from philosophers who speak of their opinion on the way things ought to be. The law is whatever the government says it is. Whether it is stupid or not does not matter. A philosopher's opinion about how the law ought to be does not change how the law actually is.
Rawle’s treatise is about the US Constitution and federal citizenship and therefore is based on all of the states. Roberts’ book is only about Pennsylvania law.
Rawle’s explanation included the widest understanding of all the states as most had incorporated the English Common Law in their state constitutions or by reception statutes.
New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Massachusetts incorporated the Common law directly into their Constitutions. Other states used reception laws to make the Common law. Part of their legal structure.
For example, Virginia’s reception law of 1776 had the following section;
“ And be it further ordained, That the common law of England, all statutes or acts of Parliament made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the first, and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, together with the several acts of the General Assembly of this colony now in force, so far as the same may consist with several ordinances, declarations, and resolutions of the General Convention, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered as in full force, until the same shall be altered by the legislative power of this colony.”
The 1779 citizenship law (drafted by Thomas Jefferson) is based on this reception act - “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth … shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.”
The Pennsylvania Charter of 1681 has the following provision,
“That the said Lawes bee consonant to reason, and bee not repugnant or contrarie, but as neare as conveniently may bee agreeable to the Lawes and Statutes, and rights of this Our Kingdome of England”
So Pennsylvania could make their own laws as long as they weren’t “repugnant or contrarie” to English law.
This was followed by the Constitution of 1776 which had this English legal term
“SECT. 42. Every foreigner of good character who comes to settle in this state, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year's residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this state”
[footnote: in describing this part of the 1777 constitution, Judge Roberts replaces the phrase “natural born subjects” with “natural born citizens”]
Pennsylvania reception law of January, 1777 has the following section:
“ (1.) Each and every one of the laws or acts of general assembly, that were in force and binding on the inhabitants of the said province on the l4th day of May last, shall be in force and binding on the inhabitants of this state, from and after the 10th day of February next, as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if the said laws, and each of them, had been made or enacted by this general assembly . . . and the common law and such of the statute laws of England, as have heretofore been in force in the said province, except as hereafter excepted. (2.) Provided always, that so much of every law or act of general assembly of the province aforesaid, . . . as declares, orders, directs or commands any matter or thing repugnant to, against, or inconsistent with the constitution of this commonwealth, is hereby declared not to be revived, but shall be null and void, and of no force or effect; and so much of the statute laws of England aforesaid relating to felonies, as takes notice of or relates to treason or misprision of treason, or directs the style of the process in any case whatsoever, shall be, and is hereby declared, of no force or effect, anything herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.”
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Acts_of_the_General_Assembly_of_the/Ndw1AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Each+and+every+one+of+the+laws+or+acts+of+general+assembly,+that+were+in+force+and+binding+on+the+inhabitants+of+the+said+province+on+the+l4th+day+of+May+last,+shall+be+in+force+and+binding+on+the+inhabitants+of+this+state&pg=PA3&printsec=frontcover
The acceptance of the English Common Law by the Pennsylvania Charter was recognized by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the 1810 case of Kirk v Dean. Chief Justice Tilghman wrote, “Although the charter of Pennsylvania extended the common law of England to this country yet a practice very soon prevailed, and was long continued, for married women to convey not only their right of dower, but their own estates of inheritance, by deed ”
https://cite.case.law/binn/2/341/
Kirk v Dean is a good example of how the colonies could make changes to the common law to suit their situation. No one disputes that ability. But if Pennsylvania made such a change in their citizenship laws from common law to law of nations where is it documented?
George Nicholas (member of the Virginia ratifying Convention) wrote an often cited letter.
“ Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration.”
https://archive.org/details/letterfromgeorge00nichrich/page/6/mode/2up
In his dissenting opinion in Shanks v DuPont (1830), Justice Johnson (nominated to the Court by President Jefferson) wrote about Mrs. Shanks,
“It is the doctrine of the American court that the issue of the Revolutionary War settled the point, that the American states were free and independent on 4 July, 1776. On that day, Mrs. Shanks was found under allegiance to the State of South Carolina as a natural born citizen to a community…”
Obama’s mother never gave up or lost her US citizenship. She continually renewed her US passport until the late 1980s. This can only mean Obama never lost his US citizenship. Under US law his mother could not give up his US citizen while he was a minor.
There is no evidence that the schools Obama attended in Indonesia were closed to foreigners.
Hawaii issued a certified letter of verification to the federal court in Mississippi which is legal proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.
What we are saying is that Hawaii did not provide such a document. They provided a fake document that does not establish the necessary thing that needs to be established; that Barack Obama was actually born there.
In reality, the fault lies with all the other states for not demanding proof before allowing him on the ballot. They never should have accepted signed statements as proof of his citizenship.
All the Sec States fell down on the job.
Ah. You made a funny. For awhile there I wasn't sure if you had a sense of humor. :)
I do not get law from philosophers who speak of their opinion on the way things ought to be.
Well believe it or not, *THAT* is how they acquired the idea that they could throw off their allegiance to the king. Without that philosophizing, we don't become independent.
The law is whatever the government says it is.
The founders rejected the claim that the King could just make up a law and they would have to obey it. We are back to that philosophizing.
Whether it is stupid or not does not matter.
Disagree. People have an instinct for what justice is, and when we had laws that made some people the lifetime servants of other people, people knew this was wrong and worked to change it.
In our system, the government obeys the people, not the other way around.
Well the question is whether or not Obama ever had US Citizenship, and at the moment, I still regard the question as unanswered.
Circumstantial evidence indicates he was born in Canada.
Hawaii issued a certified letter of verification to the federal court in Mississippi which is legal proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.
But is it real proof? Judges are idiots and they are stuck in a rut when it comes to understanding things. What Hawaii submitted does not actually prove Obama was born in Hawaii.
Hawaii is a peculiar state. It will issue birth certificates for children who are *NOT* born in Hawaii, so a Hawaiian birth certificate, especially a cobbled together fake one, does not actually prove birth in Hawaii.
Mothers of children born elsewhere have up to a year to get a Hawaiian birth certificate, and the physician that examines the child after the child arrives in Hawaii is considered the "birth" physician.
If I recall properly, it's in the Hawaiian statutes in place at that time.
So no real proof. Just allegations from a state that won't tell the truth.
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.