Posted on 01/19/2024 4:57:37 PM PST by CDR Kerchner
“In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.”
Thank you for proving my point. Born in allegiance means the parents were citizens.
There are children being born of parents who just jumped the border. The parents are definitely NOT in allegiance to the United States.
Immigrants going through naturalization ceremonies have to raise their hands and pledge allegiance before they are declared citizens.
Again, you are so stupid.
Not one word on Switzerland origin.
c. 1300, citisein (fem. citeseine) "inhabitant of a city or town," from Anglo-French citesein, citezein "city-dweller, town-dweller, citizen" (Old French citeien, 12c., Modern French citoyen), from cite (see city) + -ain (see -ian). According to Middle English Compendium, the -s-/-z- in Anglo-French presumably replaced an earlier *-th-. Old English words were burhsittend and ceasterware.Sense of "freeman or inhabitant of a country, member of the state or nation, not an alien" is late 14c. Meaning "private person" (as opposed to a civil officer or soldier) is from c. 1600. As a title, 1795, from French: During the French Revolution, citoyen was used as a republican alternative to Monsieur.
Here's where the Swiss part comes in. This is from the Swiss Charte des prêtres, which is an early founding document of the Swiss Confederation in 1370.
Nous sommes également convenus à l'unanimité d'assurer la sécurité de toutes les routes passent sur le territoire de notre Confédération, depuis le pont écumant [entre Göschenen et Andermatt] jusqu'à Zurich. N'importe qui, étranger ou indigène, hôte ou citoyen d'une ville ou d'un pays, quel que soit son titre, doit pouvoir voyager dans tous nos districts et territoires, et aussi dans ceux des gens qui dépendent de nous, sans danger aucun pour sa personne et ses biens, et nul ne doit l'inquiéter, l'arrêter ou lui causer un dommage.
Remember etymologyonline saying "Sense of "freeman or inhabitant of a country, member of the state or nation, not an alien" is late 14c." Well 1370 is late 14th century. This is the crux of how "citizen" came to have it's modern meaning. The word was only used in this manner in Switzerland.
What that highlighted area says is "Citizens of Villages or Citizens of the Country.
The old Swiss Republic was created by the Union of 8 Cities. At the time, the word "citizen" meant inhabitant of a city, and when 8 cities became a Republic, they kept using the word "city dweller", and it came to mean a national. Someone who belongs to a nation, rather than a city.
This is where the modern meaning of "citizen" came from. In England, it still meant "someone who lives in a city." Only in Switzerland did it mean a member of a nation.
You can look at old English dictionaries, and from the 1750s, and it still says "citizen" means "someone who lives in a city."
But these ARE your words.
There was a specific reason why the founders declined to identify and describe what exactly an NBC is. Do you know why? I do.
You deflected from answering my question re: your words versus Hamilton's words, suggesting that the NBC clause was "a vague and unclear notion." You followed that up with To claim complete perfect knowledge either for or against the meaning and intent of NBC is blind stupid arrogance."
First, I asked you to remark on Hamilton's words, and you declined, waiving it off as "vague and unclear." That's your interpretation, I don't think "thousands of scholars" have remarked on Hamilton's words in Federalist #68.
Second, you demand a high bar of "complete perfect knowledge" as if anything less is not worthy of your comment? I didn't ask for complete and perfect knowledge, only your interpetation of Hamilton. Are you not capable of drawing your own conclusions about the meaning of what Hamilton wrote?
Are you refusing to comment on Hamiltons words in Federalist #68 because you know it blows holes in your argument that the Framers left it to Congress? Hamilton didn't think so, he seemed quite proud and confident in what the "convention" had done.
-PJ
Jeez. Hamilton, Hamilton, Hamilton.
I read your comments you made about what Hamilton said which didn’t pertain at all to NBC.
And you want my comments on that? Here they are.
Find another unrelated point to try and shore up your arguments. Cause those points don’t apply.
Hamilton is clearly on point because Federalist #86 is about the Electoral College and voting for the President.
You just want to ignore anything that disagrees with your POV.
Got it.
-PJ
-PJ
Especially references related to Natural Born Citizen.
There is however his admission the election process is not perfect....
I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.
You must not have read the 5th paragraph about foreign powers gaining improper ascendent in our councils. You must not have gleaned the meaning of guarding against the danger of creatures of foreign powers raising to the position of chief magistrate of the Union. You must have missed the part about how the convention guarded against all dangers of this sort.
Either that, or you're just a very pedantic thinker.
-PJ
Indeed, it has been raised by others and me since the 2008 Obama eligibility question first arose. There has been a lot of muddled, confused thinking on the issue in addition to intentional deception across the nation.
IMO, the NBC language it is not susceptible of more than a single interpretation and thus is not an ambiguous statement. The only issue can be what did the founders intend when they used the NBC term?.
It is clear to many of us they (Jay and Washington) primarily wanted to insure a President, who also serves as CIC, as well as their immediate family has no allegiance to England; and most, if not all, who signed the document agreed.
Most of the litigation has addressed the citizenship of those born outside of the U.S. and none squarely addressing NBC has been properly presented to the USSC (which, of course, acts with few exceptions as a court of appeal).
But there is hope. While there is nothing to reverse in this instance but confusion, the court did have the courage to reverse its Dred Scott decision as well as Roe v Wade.
No way Nimrata or Vivek would have been considered NBCs had they been born, say, in 1790 during George Washington’s first administration, as (later to be POTUS) John Tyler was.
Did you know a grandson of John Tyler yet lives?
Off topic...
If you ever watched Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld, did you know that his original sidekick Bill Schultz was a descendant of William Dawes who rode with Paul Revere on his "midnight ride?"
-PJ
The initial filing could discuss that evidence and depending on the court include in the initial filing. Ultimately as you note these cases were defective for a variety of reasons..
And, here we are. There’s genuine disagreement re: NBC.
“Born in allegiance means the parents were citizens.”
You do not get to make up your own facts! Born “in allegiance” specifically means, as it meant with natural born subject, BORN UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE KING. Ie, in the land where the king ruled.
I gave you extensive quotes and a link to the Supreme Court cases that discussed it in detail.
But you? You just make up your own “facts” and then blame the courts for not bowing to your totally worthless stupidity!
““The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance—also called ‘ligealty,’ ‘obedience,’ ‘faith,’ or ‘power’—of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,—as expressed in the maxim, ‘Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,’—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king....”
Yes we clearly need a USSC definition. They rejected 6 cases on Sotero.
Jay and Washington exchanged a letter expressing their concern about a “foreigner” being commander -in-chief.
We also have Vattel’s definition from 1744 which the founders knew about. A NBC has citizen parents and is born in country.
Here is the logic. If a child born in the US but has foreigners as parents, the child has a choice of citizenship. Using Sotero, his father was British as a Kenya at that time. So Sotero could have declared british or US. Does anyone think the founders would have accepted a Brit as commander in chief, especially after two wars?
The ability to have options about your citizenship means you are not automatically a NBC; thus you are ineligible to be president.
This recently applied to Jindal, Harris, Sotero, and I don’t know about Vivek’s parents.
I am willing to let anyone born in the colonies before 1789 be an automatic natural born citizen. Are you with me?
I would like to see that letter that Obama Sr. wrote. All of the accounts say she flew from Kenya after a meeting with the in-laws.
Can you explain why, and how, idiot, that generations of Americans were taught, in all the institutions of higher learning, that natural born meant born of citizen parents, as demonstrated directly in the Naturalization Act of 1790. Just how could all these deeply trained scholars in American history got it so wrong and idiots like you so easily got it so right.
I don’t know what is in it for you idiots. It must be that you are all from Bombay, India, and just can’t wait to have anti-American Hindu to be president.
If born in allegiance simply means born under the authority of the king, then you intend to mean that all those babies born of illegal aliens in this country are natural born citizens. It takes a complete idiot to believe that is what the Founders had in mind, when they were so strict, that citizenship only descended through the father, as spelled out in the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Also, the rules of citizenship of another country has no bearings on the rules of citizenship in this country. We have never had a king and most of our laws were written in defiance and opposition of all that goes with kingship.
“Can you explain why, and how, idiot, that generations of Americans were taught...”
Most were not. But those who were taught that were being taught from Vattel - except they didn’t know Vattel NEVER WROTE THAT. Vattel was considered an outstanding source of info on international law and the bad American translation of 1797 was the only version most American lawyers would have had access to.
However, most lawyers who STUDIED the issue repeatedly concluded what the US Supreme Court said in Wong Kim Ark, with their long and detailed analysis of what the term ACTUALLY meant.
“then you intend to mean that all those babies born of illegal aliens in this country are natural born citizens.”
Nope. If you are here illegally, then by definition you are not here under the authority of the government. Or “in amity”, as the Wong Kim Ark decision called it. Those born to illegal aliens are more aligned with those born to a foreign invading army, which Wong Kim Ark noted had never been considered NBC.
You are full of bombast and personal attacks, but you can’t be bothered to read a few paragraphs and find out why NO COURT has ever backed a birther. It is simple: Birthers are wrong on the facts. Period.
You can call me names, but you will never win a court case and, post-Obama, 99% of Americans don’t give a rat’s rear end about your ravings. Suck it up, buttercup!
“Most were not.”
They all were, and you saying they were not does not change reality. The college professor who taught me that, who was from New Jersey, and we were in Louisiana, was of the Korean War generation and he did not just pull it out of his ass.
“Vattel was considered an outstanding source of info on international law and the bad American translation of 1797 was the only version most American lawyers would have had access to.”
What is your point with that, may I ask? It matters not what Vattel wrote, since he did not write the Constitution. And if American lawyers misunderstood it and wrote the misunderstanding into the Constitution, so be it. But there was no mistranslation. John Jay wrote Washington a letter and asked him that “none but a natural born citizen” be placed in charge of the military. Why would he stipulate natural born over just citizen if they were the same? Why would the writers of the Constitution stipulate natural born citizen rather than citizen if they were the same?
People like you still ignore the definition of what a natural born citizen is that is directly defined in the Naturalization Act of 1790.
You absolutely refuse to. You ingore and think that the rest of us will ignore it.
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.