Posted on 12/16/2022 4:02:55 PM PST by CDR Kerchner
It is not the correct document. Nobody is suggesting that an original birth certificate from Hawaii would not be accepted.
The approved method for a state to prove an official document is to apply a seal and the signature of an appropriate official. Once this is done, the document is proved as official and must be accepted as authentic by all Federal courts, and courts of all other states.
That you feel the document is somehow incorrect is legally meaningless. Your opinion does not negate the provision of the Constitution, Art. 4, Sec. 1.
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.
The founders adopted the existing laws in the colonies as the prevailing laws in the newborn states, with little exception. There was no philosophising about it. The legal system remained in place and the laws themselves remained basically unchanged.
Take for example, Delaware which was typical and not exceptional.
Constitution of Delaware — 1776.ART. 24. All acts of assembly in force in this State on the 15th day of May last (and not hereby altered, or contrary to the resolutions of Congress or of the late house of assembly of this State) shall so continue, until altered or repealed by the legislature of this State, unless where they are temporary, in which case they shall expire at the times respectively limited for their duration.
ART. 25. The common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this State, shall remain in force, unless they shall be altered by a future law of the legislature; such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this constitution, and the declaration of rights, &c., agreed to by this convention.
Dead philosophers who wrote in French about a different body of law were not consulted.
Each and every one of the thirteen original states simarly adopted the English common law, either in its constitution or explicitly its statute law.
They only changed from one government saying what the law is to a different government saying what the law is.
The founders were not idiots. The document certified must be a *VALID* document of the type being sought. I believe the commonly used legal language is a "true and correct copy of the original."
You don't put a official stamp of approval on a horse racing schedule and call it a birth certificate. It is false on the face of it, official state stamp notwithstanding.
That you feel the document is somehow incorrect is legally meaningless.
The fault, dear friend, is not with me. It is with a system so rigid in it's processes and procedures that it can be convinced to accept crap as the truth.
But while we are on the subject, is there an enforcement mechanism for presidential qualifications? and if so, in your opinion, what would that be?
So you admit there were exceptions. Good. We are making progress. And what might some of those exceptions be?
No one doubts that the Founders made exceptions and changes to the Common Law. And in most cases they liberalized the laws not make them more restrictive.
Maryland changed their law in 1771 so that naturalized subjects could be elected to the Assembly (this was to allow Jonathan Hager, a naturalized subject to serve in the Assembly).
They incorporated the English Common Law into their state constitution in 1777.
In 1779, the Maryland Assembly passed a naturalization act that used the term “natural born subjects” five times.
In 1780, the Assembly granted the sons of Baron de Kalb the rights of natural born subjects.
In 1784, the Assembly granted the “major-general the marquis de la Fayette” and his male sons the rights of natural born citizens of Maryland.
BTW, Pennsylvania’s 1776 constitution also allowed naturalized natural born subjects to serve in their legislature after two years.
“Circumstantial evidence” versus state certified evidence and contemporaneous documentation.
What Hawaii submitted actually does prove he was born in Hawaii.
If you mean Hawaii statute §338-17.8, it did not exist in 1961.
If you talking about Title 11 Chapter 8A, the dates on the certificate 08-4-1961 (birth) and 08-08-1961 (mother’s and doctor’s signatures) mean it doesn’t apply. The doctor would know the difference between a 4 day old infant and a 1 year old one.
No one has even examined the certified copy so claims of it being a fake seem at best to be exaggerated.
The approved method for a state to prove an official document is to apply a seal and the signature of an appropriate official. Once this is done, the document is proved as official and must be accepted as authentic by all Federal courts, and courts of all other states.The founders were not idiots. The document certified must be a *VALID* document of the type being sought. I believe the commonly used legal language is a "true and correct copy of the original."
The FOUNDERS were not idiots and adopted a firm league of friendship and cooperation with no executive or judicial branch.
Artcles 2 and 3 of the Articles of Confederation provided:
II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.
For the Founders, each state was sovereign and independent, and there was no Federal judiciary branch to rule upon the authenticity of any sovereign state document.
The Articles of Confederation, Article 4 provided:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.
The FOUNDERS created no method of challenging an official State document whatever. As each State retained its sovereignty and independence, each held sovereign immunity from external legal challenge to what it asserted as its official records.
The FRAMERS were not idiots. Each state ratified a clause for proving a state document that barred legal challenge in any Federal or other State court. A document certified by one state cannot have its authenticity challenged in any Federal or other State court.
Article IV, 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.
The Act of May 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 122) states
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,That the acts of the legislatures of the several states shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective states affixed thereto:
That the records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any state, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, as the case may be, that the said attestation is in due form.
28 U.S.C. § 1738 (2020)
§1738. State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit
The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto.The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.
Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.
U.S. Supreme Court in MILWAUKEE COUNTY v. M.E. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268 (1935).
2. The faith and credit required to be given to judgments does not depend on the Constitution alone. Article 4, 1, not only commands that 'full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State' but it adds "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." And Congress has exercised this power, by Act of May 26, 1790, c. 11, 28 U.S.C. 687, 28 USCA 687, which provides the manner of proof of judgments of one state in the courts of another, and specifically directs that judgments "shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 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.
(A) In General. Each of the following evidences a foreign official record — or an entry in it — that is otherwise admissible:
(i) an official publication of the record; or
(ii) the record — or a copy — that is attested by an authorized person and is accompanied either by a final certification of genuineness or by a certification under a treaty or convention to which the United States and the country where the record is located are parties.
(B) Final Certification of Genuineness. A final certification must certify the genuineness of the signature and official position of the attester or of any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness relates to the attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness relating to the attestation. A final certification may be made by a secretary of a United States embassy or legation; by a consul general, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States; or by a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or accredited to the United States.
(C) Other Means of Proof. If all parties have had a reasonable opportunity to investigate a foreign record's authenticity and accuracy, the court may, for good cause, either:
(i) admit an attested copy without final certification; or
(ii) permit the record to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without a final certification.
(b) Lack of Record.
A written statement that a diligent search of designated records revealed no record or entry of a specified tenor is admissible as evidence that the records contain no such record or entry. For domestic records, the statement must be authenticated under Rule 44(a)(1). For foreign records, the statement must comply with (a)(2)(C)(ii).
(c) Other Proof.
A party may prove an official record — or an entry or lack of an entry in it — by any other method authorized by law.
The fault, dear friend, is not with me. It is with a system so rigid in it's processes and procedures that it can be convinced to accept crap as the truth.
I take it under advisement that you do not approve of the Constitution or the actual laws of the United States and prefer to quote 18th century European legal philosophy about natural law and international law.
You are entitled to your own imaginary constitution and imaginary system of law and imaginary statutes, but they only apply in your imagination.
So you admit there were exceptions. Good. We are making progress. And what might some of those exceptions be?
Each state made the application of the English common law clear in its constitution or statute laws. The language was clear to 18th century colonials. It may not be clear to 21st century dreamers seeking to find the law of European philosophers as their guiding light. I cannot help with the myopia of those who will not see.
Constitution of Connecticut — 1776.
PARAGRAPH 1. Be it enacted and declared by the Governor, and Council, and House of Representatives, in General Court assembled, That the ancient Form of Civil Government, contained in the Charter from Charles the Second, King of England, and adopted by the People of this State, shall be and remain the Civil Constitution of this State, under the sole authority of the People thereof, independent of any King or Prince whatever. And that this Republic is, and shall forever be and remain, a free, sovereign and independent State, by the Name of the STATE OF CONNECTICUT.
Georgia, Act of February 25, 1784
3. Sec. I. Be it enacted, &c. That all and singular the several acts, clauses, and parts of acts, that were in force and binding on the inhabitants of the said province, on the 14th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1776, so far as they are not contrary to the constitution, laws, and form of government now established in this state, shall be, and are hereby declared to be in full force, virtue, and effect, and binding on the inhabitants of this state, immediately from and after the passing of this act, as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if the said acts, and each of them, had been made and enacted by this general assembly, until the same shall he repealed, amended, or otherwise altered by the legislature: And also the common laws of England, and such of the statute laws as were usually in force in the said province, except as before excepted.
Constitution of Maryland — 1776.
III. That the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England, and the trial by jury, according to the course of that law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their first emigration, and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances, and of such others as have been since made in England, or Great Britain, and have been introduced, used and practised by the courts of law or equity; and also to acts of Assembly, in force on the first of June seventeen hundred and seventy-four, except such as may have since expired, or have been or may be altered by acts of Convention, or this Declaration of Rights — subject, nevertheless, to the revision of, and amendment or repeal by, the Legislature of this State: and the inhabitants of Maryland are also entitled to all property, derived to them, from or under the Charter, granted by his Majesty Charles I. to Cæcilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore.
Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780
ART. VI. All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used, and approved in the province, colony, or State of Massachusetts Bay, and usually practised on in the courts of law, shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislature, such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and liberties contained in this constitution.
Constitution of New Jersey — 1776
XXII. That the common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law, as have been heretofore practised in this Colony, shall still remain in force, until they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature; such parts only excepted, as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Charter; and that the inestimable right of trial by jury shall remain confirmed as a part of the law of this Colony, without repeal, forever.
North Carolina, Act of 1778, Chap. 133
2. Be it enacted, &c. That all such statutes, and such parts of the common law, as were heretofore in force and use within this territory, (b) and all the acts of the late general assemblies thereof, or so much of the said statutes, common law, and acts assembly, as are not destructive of, repugnant to, or inconsistent with the freedom and independence of this state, and the form of government therein established, and which have not been otherwise provided for, in the whole or in part, not abrogated, repealed, expired, or become obsolete, are hereby declared to be in full force within this state.
Pennsylvania, Act of 1777
II. Be it therefore enacted, and it is hereby enacted, That each and every one of the laws or acts of General Assembly, that were in force and binding on the inhabitants of the said be province on the fourteenth day of May last, shall be in force from and binding on the inhabitants of this state from and after the tenth 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 all and every person and persons whomsoever are hereby enjoined and required to yield obedience to the said laws, as the case may require until the said laws or acts of General Assembly respectively shall be repealed or altered, or until they expire by their own limitation; and the common law and such of the statute laws of England as have heretofore been in force in the said province, except as is hereafter excepted.
Constitution of South Carolina— 1776
XXIX. That the resolutions of this or any former congress of this colony, and all laws now of force here, (and not hereby altered,) shall so continue until altered or repealed by the legislature of this colony, unless where they are temporary, in which case they shall expire at the times respectively limited for their duration.
Patrick Henry, Debates and Other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia, 2nd Ed., pp. 316-17.
When our government was first instituted in Virginia, we declared the common law of England to be in force.
Virginia, Statute § 1-200, The Common Law, (Code 1919, § 2, § 1-10; 2005, c. 839.)
§ 1-200. The common law.The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly.
(Code 1919, § 2, § 1-10; 2005, c. 839.)
Vermont Act of November 4, 1797; An Act, adopting the common law of England, and declaring that all persons shall be equally entitled to the benefit and privilege of law and justice.
Sect. 1. It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont, That so much of common law of England, as is applicable to the local situation, and circumstances, and is not repugnant to the constitution, or to any of the acts of the legislature of this state, be, and hereby is adopted law, within this state; and all courts are to take notice thereof, and govern themselves accordingly.
1 V.S.A. § 271, common law adopted
§ 271. Common law adoptedSo much of the common law of England as is applicable to the local situation and circumstances and is not repugnant to the constitution or laws shall be laws in this state and courts shall take notice thereof and govern themselves accordingly.
Northwest Territory, Act of July 14, 1795, A Law declaring what laws shall be in force.
The common law of England, all statutes or acts of the British 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) and also the several laws in force in this Territory, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered, as of full force, until repealed by legislative authority, or disapproved of by congress.
“They only changed from one government saying what the law is to a different government saying what the law is.”
I have not waded into this thread and/or debate. But your comment above reminded me of “The Powder Alarm” which took place in Charlestown about 6 months(?) prior to the “shot heard round the world”.
The local militia at the time was an English militia. Formed to protect themselves from Indians, bandits, etc. Then the British soldiers marched on them and took a bunch of their powder.
Soon after the militia called a meeting, and voted on dismantling the militia and it passed.
They then voted on forming a new militia to be under the jurisdiction of the colony. That too was passed. Elections were held for all of the various positions. All of the new positions were taken by the previous members that had been elected under the old militia!
Some have theorized that the colonists would have won the Battle of Bunker Hill if the British soldiers had not taken their powder prior to the war.
https://davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html
In 1779, the Maryland Assembly passed a naturalization act that used the term “natural born subjects” five times.
In 1780, the Assembly granted the sons of Baron de Kalb the rights of natural born subjects.
BTW, Pennsylvania’s 1776 constitution also allowed naturalized natural born subjects to serve in their legislature after two years.
As I have pointed out to you, in this era, the normal and usual word to describe membership status in a nation was "subject." The word "subject" is tied to Monarchical rule and English common law. We threw it that off, and with it we threw off this relationship to the government known as "subject."
The word "citizen" does not come from English common law. It comes from Swiss law and practice.
In 1784, the Assembly granted the “major-general the marquis de la Fayette” and his male sons the rights of natural born citizens of Maryland.
Sons? You mean the mantle of citizenship only descends from males? That sounds strangely like Vattel.
Exactly. Facts can't lie. State officials can and do. The circumstantial evidence makes it virtually impossible for Obama to have been born in Hawaii on August 4th, 1961. When something cannot be true, it doesn't matter how many liars swear that it is, or put pretty stamps on pieces of paper saying it is.
What Hawaii submitted actually does prove he was born in Hawaii.
I would like to hear how you think it does.
If you mean Hawaii statute §338-17.8, it did not exist in 1961.
It has been years since I wandered through the Hawaiian statutes on birth and birth certificates, adoption, and so forth, and so I do not remember what each particular one said by number, but what I do recall is that Hawaii has always allowed people born elsewhere to be given Hawaiian birth certificates. This is a long practice that derived from the fact so many children were born while their mothers were on a ship traveling to Hawaii. The first Hawaiian port reached becomes designated as the place of birth. That was true prior to 1961, and it is still true today.
No one has even examined the certified copy so claims of it being a fake seem at best to be exaggerated.
You have clearly not participated in various threads in which this fabricated thing was taken apart numerous different ways. I can only think you didn't participate in these discussions because you didn't want to, but rest assured, there are many ways that have been shown to prove what Hawaii submitted is a fake. Hawaii doesn't even swear it is a "true and correct copy of the original", which is the legal language they used to use back in the 1960s.
Again, if something can't possibly be true, it doesn't matter how many liars there are swearing it is, or how many liars put pretty stamps on their pieces of paper saying it is true.
This is not even being contested. The fact that they put in the constitution "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,"
Proves that they didn't consider themselves to be "natural born citizens."
So let's say Obama was born in Canada, but Hawaii issued a birth certificate for him in August of 1961.
*YOU* and others claim the English common law applies to citizenship, so if Obama is born in Canada, he is *NOT* a citizen under *YOUR* preferred rules.
So Hawaiian law allows them to give him a birth certificate though he was born in Canada.
Now you come along and say all courts must accept this thing that does not prove what needs to be proved. (birth in the US.)
Are you telling us that you simply do not care where he was born, or if he is even a citizen at all?
Your arguments achieve that result, so one begins to think you are okay with a lie so long as it achieves the result you want.
Yes. Pennsylvania made it very clear that we don't follow English common law regarding citizenship. As I pointed out before, Pennsylvania hosted the Constitutional convention, and there is no better source for what was the intent of "natural born citizen" than the legal authorities of Pennsylvania from that era.
They spell it out plainly that Vattel is the source for "citizen". You've got Rawle, and perhaps Madison if you overlook his double talking on the topic.
Who else you got?
Sure they did. Read the debates in the Constitutional Convention. But first consider this.
In July, 1785, John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson several letters. In the first he mentioned a treaty of commerce between the US and England.
“I have given to Lord Carmarthen long ago, an Explanation of the power of Congress to form Treaties of Commerce…”
In a second letter about a treaty of commerce with England, Adams wrote,
““The Britons alliens Duty is a very burthensome Thing, and they may carry it hereafter as far upon Tobacco, Rice Indigo and twenty other Things, as they do now upon oil. to obviate this, I think of Substituting, the Words “natural born Citizens of the United States,” and “natural born Subjects of Great Britain,” instead of “the most favoured Nation.””
On April 4th, 1786, Adams and Jefferson submitted a draft treaty of commerce to Lord Carmarthen,
“My Lord
Agreably to your Lordships request expressed to one of us in Conversation, and again communicated to us through Mr. Fraser, we have drawn up the enclosed Project of a Treaty of Commerce, which we do ourselves the Honour to propose to the Consideration of his Majesty’s Ministers.
We have the honor to be
J Adams T: Jefferson“
The treaty has this clause:
“The Subjects of His Britannic Majesty may frequent all the Coasts and Countries Bay’s, Harbours, Creeks, Rivers and Ports of the United States of America, and reside and trade there, in all Sorts of Produce, Manufactures, and Merchandize, and Shall pay within the said United States, no other or greater Duties, Charges, or fees whatsoever than the natural born Citizens of the United States themselves are or shall be obliged to pay; and they shall enjoy all the Rights, Priviledges, and Exemptions in trade Navigation and Commerce which the natural born Citizens of the said United States do or shall enjoy.”
Article 3 of the treaty had this clause:
“…only as are or shall be paid by the natural-born subjects of Great Britain, in the Dominions of His Britannic Majesty, and the natural born Citizens of the said United States within their Dominions.”
Who were the natural born citizens of the United States in 1786?
To boil it down to it's essence, you say whatever Hawaii says is good enough, even if it's a lie, because procedures and good will says so.
It is not what I say — it is what the Constitution and U.S. law says, as I cited and quoted. The authenticity of an official state document by the issuing state is final and not subject to challenge in federal court or in any court of any other state.
It is not a matter of procedures and good will but of state sovereignty. Neither New York, California, nor the Federal government tell Hawaii what is an official state document of Hawaii.
As you asked about the FOUNDERS (as opposed to the FRAMERS), I noted and documented that not only was the state determination not appealable, there was no place to appeal it to. Each state was explicitly stated to be a free, sovereign and independent state within the Article of Confederation. Under the FOUNDERS' Articles, state sovereignty was absolute and a state could not even be taxed without its permission.
*YOU* and others claim the English common law applies to citizenship, so if Obama is born in Canada, he is *NOT* a citizen under *YOUR* preferred rules.
This is utter nonsense. Nobody but you has said any such ridiculous thing.
As I have documented, one can be a natural born United States citizen, and eligible to be President of the United States, incident to a birth in a foreign country, provided the conditions for birth citizenship set forth in U.S. citizenship law at the time of birth are met.
Now you come along and say all courts must accept this thing that does not prove what needs to be proved. (birth in the US.)
NO, I cited and quoted the Constitution and statute laws. You just disagree with what they say and make up your own imaginary bullcrap and vomit it up on the board.
Birth in the United States need not be proved. Acquisition of U.S. citizenship at the moment of birth, acquired incident to the birth is required. An official state document is proved in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and Federal law. When a State "proves" one of its official documents in the proper form, it's authenticity as an official state document is established. Its sovereign act is not reviewable by any federal or other state court.
Are you telling us that you simply do not care where he was born, or if he is even a citizen at all?
NO. I linked, cited and quoted what the law is. You do not like what it says.
You seem to have a problem with state sovereignty. In your world, apparently the Federal government would determine what is, and is not, an official State document.
Your arguments achieve that result, so one begins to think you are okay with a lie so long as it achieves the result you want.
Your ridiculous arguments purport to achieve the result you want despite the necessity of disregarding the Constitution, laws, and court opinions. If actually taken to court, they would result in dismissal, and possibly sanctions for frivolous filing.
Excerpts from Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
[664] The term 'citizen,' as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term 'subject' in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a 'subject of the king' is now 'a citizen of the State.'"[665] "The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution, and, by that principle, the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned,"
(namely, foreign-born children of citizens, under statutes to be presently referred to)
[666-667] IV. It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.
But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, "citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France," and
"mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil;"
and children born in a foreign country, of a French father who had not established his domicil there nor given up the intention of returning, were also deemed Frenchmen, as Laurent says, by "a favor, a sort of fiction," and Calvo, "by a sort of fiction of exterritoriality, considered as born in France, and therefore invested with French nationality."
[667] The Code Napoleon of 1807 changed the law of France and adopted, instead of the rule of country of birth, jus soli, the rule of descent or blood, jus sanguinis, as the leading principle; but an eminent commentator has observed that the framers of that code
"appear not to have wholly freed themselves from the ancient rule of France, or rather, indeed, ancient rule of Europe — de la vielle regle francaise, ou plutot meme de la vielle regle europienne — according to which nationality had always been, in former times, determined by the place of birth."
[668] Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.
[688] The effect of the enactments conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of American parents has been defined, and the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion of the United States, notwithstanding alienage of parents, has been affirmed, in well considered opinions of the executive departments of the Government since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Yes. Pennsylvania made it very clear that we don't follow English common law regarding citizenship. As I pointed out before, Pennsylvania hosted the Constitutional convention, and there is no better source for what was the intent of "natural born citizen" than the legal authorities of Pennsylvania from that era.
Your imaginary garbage lies directly contrary to a precedential holding of the U.S. Supreme Court. Your fantasies on law are based on nothing more than the fantasies infecting your mind. That's why you cannot cite or quote actual laws or court opinions supporting your positions.
Nonsense, vomited up with great conviction, remains nonsense.
As for acquisition of United States citizenship, the leading precedential case is Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Opinion of the Court excerpted below for your education.
[654] The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States."[654] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 114 U. S. 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 624, 116 U. S. 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law.
[655] In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 88 U. S. 167.
[657] "'British subject' means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. 'Permanent' allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes 'temporary' allegiance to the Crown. 'Natural-born British subject' means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.' 'Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality."
[658] It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
[660] "Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth."
[661] As that statute included persons born "within any of the King's realms or dominions," it, of course, extended to the Colonies, and, not having been repealed in Maryland, was in force there.
[662] Again, in Levy v. McCartee (1832), 6 Pet. 102, 31 U. S. 112, 31 U. S. 113, 31 U. S. 115, which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the State of New York, where the statute of 11 & 12 Will. III had been repealed, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co.Lit. 8a
“Who else you got?”
In chronological order:
1777
George Washington
Requiring that only “natives” make up his personal guards.
1785
Maryland and Massachusetts legislatures naturalizing foreigners with the rights of natural born citizens.
1785/1786
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson drafting a treaty of commerce with the term “natural born citizens of the United States”.
1787
Framers debating if only “natives” should be allowed as members of Congress. James Wilson opposes the requirement since he and other Framers are not natives (BTW, the grandfather clause avoided this problem).
1788
James Iredell
President must be a native.
1788
Thomas Jefferson to John Jay
“Native citizens, on several valuable accounts, are preferable to Aliens, and to citizens alien-born.”
1789
James Madison
Place of birth is the most certain criteria for allegiance.
“all those persons who are natives of America, but who took part against the revolution, [are] citizens of the United States”
1795
Congressman Zephaniah Swift
The children of aliens born in Connecticut are natural born subjects.
1795
Congressman James Hillhouse
Aliens can come to the United States refuse to be naturalized and their children would be natural born citizens.
1799
George Nicholas
Poor to the Constitution the people of the states consisted of either natural born citizens (born in the state) or aliens (born outside the state).
1825
William Rawle
1826
James Kent
“As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States”
1830
Supreme Court Justice William Johnson
Shanks became a natural born citizen of South Carolina on July 4th, 1776
None of these individuals from the Founding period use the terms “natives, or natural born” in a way that could be based on Vattel’s two citizen parents definition. But in a way which could be based on Blackstone’s definition of natives or natural born.
It took me awhile to grasp where you were going with this, but now I think I understand what your point is. You are saying that references to "natural born citizens" of the US in 1785 and 1786 constitute evidence that they considered themselves to be "natural born citizens" at that time, and therefore the notion that "natural born citizens" could only be those born after July 4, 1776, is wrong.
I can see where you get the idea that these quotes support your claim, but your claim is not the only possible explanation for why someone would have made such statements.
My first thought is that the writers were not looking at the issue from a specifically legal technicality perspective and were careless in the usage of such terms.
The reason I think this is the case is because of what the constitution specifically says.
"or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,"
Well the Constitution was written in 1787, and so the only "natural born" citizens would be at most 11 years old, so clearly they weren't referring to these.
Could they have been referring to immigrants? People who came to the US between 1776 and 1787?
Well that doesn't make any sense, because immigrants is explicitly the class excluded by the "natural born citizen" clause.
If it refers to everybody in the US, then the qualification of " or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, doesn't make any sense, because everybody is already a "natural born citizen."
The *ONLY* explanation for those words that make any sense is if people born as "natural born subjects" become citizens in 1776. Indeed, the Supreme court holds that US citizenship begins July 4, 1776. (Inglis vs Sailor's Snug Harbor, if I recall correctly.)
I think Adams, Jefferson and others used that term of art in an effort to avoid having to provide a complicated explanation of the distinction between "subject" and "citizen", and were more interested in conveying the idea to the English using terms which the English could understand in their own way.
That's what *YOU* say it says. My understanding of constitutional law is that it cannot be interpreted in such a way as to allow idiocy.
A document which *DOES NOT PROVE* the thing needing to be proved, is worthless. It cannot be called "proof" if it cannot prove anything.
This is like calling a man a "woman" because he puts on women's clothes. A lie dressed up in official drag does not make it the truth.
*YOU* and others claim the English common law applies to citizenship, so if Obama is born in Canada, he is *NOT* a citizen under *YOUR* preferred rules.
This is utter nonsense. Nobody but you has said any such ridiculous thing.
I'm a little unclear about what particular "ridiculous thing" you are referring to. From all the reading I have done of the naturalization acts since the Cable act of 1922, I see nothing in there that would allow a woman to convey citizenship to a child of a foreign father born in a foreign country, without the woman having first met the US residency requirements stipulated in the various acts.
We know Stanley Ann Dunham did not meet these residency requirements, and therefore if Obama was *NOT* born in Hawaii, (or some other US jurisdiction) he has no US citizenship.
So what part is ridiculous?
As I have documented, one can be a natural born United States citizen, and eligible to be President of the United States, incident to a birth in a foreign country, provided the conditions for birth citizenship set forth in U.S. citizenship law at the time of birth are met.
Two things.
1. Stanley Ann Dunham clearly did not meet the residency requirements as stipulated in the naturalization act of 1952. (I think that's the right one)
2. The Supreme court disagreed with your claim regarding children born in foreign countries, in their US vs Wong Kim Ark decision. They specifically say that such children are naturalized citizens.
Yes, it's dicta, but that's what it says. I'll point it out for you if you like. :)
Birth in the United States need not be proved. Acquisition of U.S. citizenship at the moment of birth, acquired incident to the birth is required.
In the case of Stanley Ann Dunham, acquisition of US citizenship cannot be proven unless he was physically born in the US. If he was not, then he does not have US Citizenship because Stanley Ann failed to meet the residency requirements for foreign born children to acquire US citizenship from their mothers.
Excerpts from Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
I'm glad you are familiar with it. If you read further into it you will find a section that says foreign born children cannot acquire citizenship except by a naturalization act created by congress.
"Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by n abling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts."
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.