Posted on 01/19/2024 4:57:37 PM PST by CDR Kerchner
thanx
You didn't strike me as the sort of man who would be deceptive. I had believed you to be honest and forthright, yet here you are once again, using the presidents who were specifically exempted from the "natural born citizen" requirement to push your claim that two citizen parents weren't necessary.
The grandfather clause exempted persons from the natural born citizen requirement.
It did NOT exempt them from the imaginary two citizen parent requirement which is NOT mentioned in either the grandfather clause or the requirements clause. Neither is is mentioned in the Constitutional Convention nor in any ratifying convention. As noted by the Congressional Research Service report of January 11, 1916, this rejected theory "has not garnered serious legal consideration after Wong Kim Ark in 1898."
It feels like you are trying to deceive people by using these men to which the "natural born citizen" requirement didn't apply.
No, you are trying to deceive people with an imaginary two citizen parent requirement that does not exist.
The first presidents did not have two citizen parents and it did not matter because nobody ever in the history of the nation was ever required to have two citizen parents, or even one citizen parent.
Elliott v. Cruz
Full Opinion of the Court quoted to you here:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4209895/posts?page=178#178
[*1]No. 77 M.D. 2016
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Elliott v. Cruz, 77 M.d. BEFORE: HONORABLE SENIOR JUDGE DAN PELLEGRINI.
OPINION NOT REPORTED
OPINION BY Senior Judge DAN PELLEGRINI.
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
SENIOR JUDGE PELLEGRINIFILED: March 10, 2016
Before this Court is a petition to set aside the nomination petition of Ted Cruz (Candidate), pursuant to which he seeks to appear on the April 26, 2016 primary election ballot for the Office of the President of the United States of America, filed by Carmon Elliott (Objector), a registered Republican who resides and votes in Pennsylvania, asserting that the Candidate is ineligible to hold that office under the United States Constitution.
The parties have stipulated that the Candidate was born on December 22, 1970, in Calgary, Alberta, Canada; that his mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born on November 23, 1934, in the State of Delaware; that his mother is and has always has been a United States citizen, since the moment of her birth; that at the time of
[*2]
the Candidate's birth, his mother had been physically present in the United States for more than ten years of her life, including at least five years after she reached the age of fourteen; and that the Candidate was a citizen from the moment of his birth.
Because the Candidate was born in Canada, Petitioner contends that Candidate's name should be stricken from the Pennsylvania 2016 primary ballot because he is not a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of Article II, Section 1,1 clause 5 of the United States Constitution.
[...]
While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother. [See Monica Langley, Ted Cruz, Invoking Reagan, Angers GOP Colleagues But Wins Fans Elsewhere, WALL ST. J. (Apr. 18, 2014, 11:36 PM).] Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790.
* * * *
There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent—whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone—is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.
Id. at 161–64.
- - - - - - - - -
Congressional Research Service
Informing the legislative debate since 1914
Qualifications for President and the "Natural Born" citizenship Eligibility Requirement
Jack Maskell
Legislative Attorney
January 11, 2016
[excerpt]
Citizenship of Parents Concerning specifically the reading into the Constitution of a two-citizen-parent requirement for “natural born” citizenship status, it should be noted that there is, significantly, no historical nor controlling legal holding in American jurisprudence to support the argument that parental citizenship governs and controls the eligibility of a native born United States citizen to be President. As indicated in the discussion of the history of the constitutional provision, there is also no justification for this unique theory, which would exclude an entire class of native born U.S. citizens from eligibility for the Presidency, in any of the statements or writings of the framers of the Constitution, or in the entire record of the ratification debates of the United States Constitution.200____________________
200 As an historical matter it may be noted that Chester A. Arthur, 21st President of the United States, was apparently born in the United States (despite rumors being spread by opponents that he was born in Canada) in 1829 to a U.S. citizen-mother and a father who was not a U.S. citizen, but rather a citizen of Ireland and a British subject, although there have been assertions by some that this fact was not widely known at the time. See Thomas Reeves, GENTLEMAN BOSS: THE LIFE OF CHESTER ALAN ARTHUR, 202-203 (1975)). There was also a question raised concerning Charles Evans Hughes, Republican candidate for President who narrowly lost to Woodrow Wilson in 1916, and who was born in the United States to parents who were British subjects. Note Medina, The Presidential Qualifications Clause, supra at 267, n. 72, citing to Long, Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a “Natural Born Citizen” Within the Meaning of the Constitution? 49 CHIC. LEGAL NEWS 146 (1916). Although a question was raised by this individual at the time of Hughes’ candidacy, it did not appear to be an issue of any significance for Hughes or other presidential or vice-presidential candidates who were born in the U.S. of recent immigrants, as the “two-citizen-parent” argument with respect to native born U.S. citizens has not garnered serious legal consideration after Wong Kim Ark in 1898. The question did not appear to merit even a mention in the definitive, two-volume biography of Hughes. Merlo J. Pusey, CHARLES EVANS HUGHES, 316-366 (New York 1963).
It did NOT exempt them from the imaginary two citizen parent requirement which is NOT mentioned in either the grandfather clause or the requirements clause.
I cannot grasp what you are trying to say here. If they are exempted from the requirement, they are exempt from the requirement.
As for "two parents", that's just confusing nonsense that other people have injected into the discussion over the years.
In 1787, any woman who married an American automatically acquired American citizenship. If the child is born within wedlock, the child would be born to two American parents, so long as one of them was the father.
It was always about the father, and only the father. Even the naturalization acts of the 1790s say it's about the father.
Go here for the issues related to Barack Obama’s Natural Born Citizenship. Be sure to look at Page 5:
https://law.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Berg-Complaint-8-21-08.pdf
I could not find the website for the “Obama Files.” It has been scrubbed. Every account about Obama’s history has said his birth was at Honolulu, Hawaii. I think the history has been well revised—just like the 2020 elections fraud.
...there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” (I added some helpful bold print.)
Notice how this lower state court also jumped from mere citizenship to NBC with no effort at all?
As for the Congressional Research Service opinion you cited, it relies almost entirely on Wong Kim Ark. - ...the “two-citizen-parent” argument with respect to native born U.S. citizens has not garnered serious legal consideration after Wong Kim Ark in 1898.
The problem here is that WKA was not about NBC nor did the court decide NBC.
The CRS article also discusses the Chester Alan Arthur presidency but boldly recognizes Arthur was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen The author of that article also misses the boat.
But then a lot of folks have known liberal attorneys, military officers and judges who are/were in the bag for extending NBC to anyone with the merest of citizenship. That hasn't worked very well for us in the immediate past.
The grandfather clause exempted persons from the natural born citizen requirement.It did NOT exempt them from the imaginary two citizen parent requirement which is NOT mentioned in either the grandfather clause or the requirements clause.
I cannot grasp what you are trying to say here. If they are exempted from the requirement, they are exempt from the requirement.
Being exempted from the requirement to be a natural born citizen has nothinjg to do with parents. Chester Arthur had a foreign parent and served as President and Vice President. Ted Cruz had a foreign p[arent and was found by the Court to be a natural born citizen. Presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes was accused, and in fact had a foreign parent. Hughes was not disqualified. As the CRS Report stated: "Although a question was raised by this individual at the time of Hughes’ candidacy, it did not appear to be an issue of any significance for Hughes or other presidential or vice-presidential candidates who were born in the U.S. of recent immigrants, as the “two-citizen-parent” argument with respect to native born U.S. citizens has not garnered serious legal consideration after Wong Kim Ark in 1898."
The two citizen parent requirement exists nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in the records of the Constitutional Convention, nor anywhere in any of the state Ratification Debates. Such requirement has never existed.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:
In United States 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. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."
In the Senate, Sen. Jacob Howard offered an amendment to Rep. Bingham's House bill to include a citizenship clause of Sen. Howard's drafting. Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866, page 2890, column 2, near the bottom.
The words proposed by Sen. Jacob Howard were incorporated into the Constitution via Section I of the 14th Amendment in 1868 — "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
As shown by the introduction of the 14A citizenship clause by Mr. Howard, his intent of the clause was quite clear and specific.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard.]Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html#M301_1_1
[State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual]
8 FAM 301.1-1 INTRODUCTION
(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that;
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 698
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, as originally framed by the House of Representatives, lacked the opening sentence. When it came before the Senate in May, 1866, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, moved to amend by prefixing the sentence in its present form (less the words "or naturalized"), and reading,"All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State herein they reside."
Mr. Cowan objected upon the ground that the Mongolian race ought to be excluded, and said:
"Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? . . . I do not know how my honorable friend from California looks upon Chinese, but I do know how some of his fellow citizens regard them. I have no doubt that now they are useful, and I have no doubt that, within proper restraints, allowing that State and the other Pacific States to manage them as they may see fit, they may be useful; but I would not tie their hands by the Constitution of the United States so as to prevent them hereafter from dealing with them as in their wisdom they see fit."
Mr. Conness, of California, replied:
"The proposition before us relates simply, in that respect, to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the Nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. . . . We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this Constitutional Amendment that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of [169 U. S. 699] the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others."
149 U. S. 716.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that"all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,"
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. 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 natural born citizen is one who acquires citizenship at birth. Citizen includes naturalized citizens and natural born citzens. There are two classes of citizen, and two only. Your straining to invent a third class is unavailing.
In re Look Tin Sing, Circuit Court, D. California, 21 Federal Reporter 905 (29 Sep 1884), Field J.
21 Fed. Rep. 906:
The first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside.” This language would seem to be sufficiently broad to cover the case of the petitioner. He is a person born in the United States. Any doubt on the subject, if there can be any, must arise out of the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” They alone are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who are within their dominions and under the protection of their laws, and with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered; and only those thus subject by their birth or naturalization are within the terms of the amendment. The jurisdiction over these latter must, at the time, be both actual and exclusive. The words mentioned except from citizenship children born in the United States of persons engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, such as ministers and ambassadors, whose residence, by a fiction of public law, is regarded as part of their own country. This ex-territoriality of their residence secures to their children born here all the rights and privileges which would inure to them had they been born in the country of their parents.
21 Fed. Rep. 909
With this explanation of the meaning of the words in the fourteenth amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” it is evident that they do not exclude the petitioner from being a citizen. He is not within any of the classes of persons excepted from citizenship, and the jurisdiction of the United States over him at the time of his birth was exclusive of that of any other country.
Notice how this lower state court also jumped from mere citizenship to NBC with no effort at all?As for the Congressional Research Service opinion you cited, it relies almost entirely on Wong Kim Ark. - ...the “two-citizen-parent” argument with respect to native born U.S. citizens has not garnered serious legal consideration after Wong Kim Ark in 1898.
It is effortless. Wong Kim Ark has been the prevailing U.S. Supreme Court binding precedent since 1898. 14A prevails against any prior brainfart you may mention or invent.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:
In United States 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. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."
The CRS presents the law, not birther brainfarts.
The CRS article also discusses the Chester Alan Arthur presidency but boldly recognizes Arthur was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen.
Chester Arthur served two of the FIFTEEN terms served as President or Vice-President without two U.S. citizen parents. Reality 15, birthers zero.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/179/1017/546639/
Mustata v. U.S. Department of Justice
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) Argued Sept. 21, 1998. Decided and Filed June 17, 1999
Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States. They legally entered the United States in late 1991 and, shortly thereafter, applied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") for asylum.
The CRS Report noted, "See also United States v. Carlos Jesus Marguet-Pillado, 648 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2011), agreeing with the underlying legal accuracy of proposed jury instruction defining “natural born citizen” as including one born in the United States, without reference to the citizenship of one’s parents.
Which is why you don't bring it up in a discussion *ABOUT* the "natural born citizen" requirement.
It did NOT exempt them from the imaginary two citizen parent requirement which is NOT mentioned in either the grandfather clause or the requirements clause.
I have already explained to you that it was only the father that mattered, and I have given you an example (the naturalization acts of the 1790s) which illustrate that *ONLY* the father mattered regarding citizenship.
Somehow it seems as if you aren't understanding what I am saying, and it makes me wonder if you are okay? Despite our differences on this issue, I see you as a FRiend and Ally, and this seeming inability to understand what I have said is worrisome.
I have already explained to you that it was only the father that mattered, and I have given you an example (the naturalization acts of the 1790s) which illustrate that *ONLY* the father mattered regarding citizenship.
You have previously explained your insanity. What you do not explain is how your insanity takes precedent over the 14th amendment of the Constitution or the Supreme Court precedents, beginning with Wong Kim Ark.
Just because you have your personal opinion, supported only by your own insanity, does not convert your irrational claims into law.
Were anything prior to 14A to be in conflict with 14A in any way, it is overridden by 14A. No statute will ever override a constitutional provision. The more recent Supreme Court holding sets precedent over older inconsistent Supreme Court holdings. A Supreme Court interpretation of a constitutional provision can only be overridden by another Supreme Court holding, or by a constitutional amendment.
Attributing irrational, insane claims to real legislation does not create birther law.
Vattel is irrelevant to United States citizenship law.
Yes I have. This is another example where I get the impression you either aren't reading, or aren't understanding what I have said to you.
A naturalization amendment designed for the purpose of giving slaves citizenship, is *NOT* a repeal of "natural born citizen." The two things are not even slightly related.
The only understanding of "natural born citizen" that anyone should concern themselves with is that of the founding era. What happened 81 years later is irrelevant to what was meant in 1787.
1. True, but not as precedence for NBC. The court did not hold WKA was a NBC, with two non-citizen parents that simply was not in issue. In this regard, Google "dicta".
2. The 14thA does not deal with NBC nor does it supersede the founders use of the term; it is irrelevant in the context of NBC.
Regarding your cite of Marguet-Pillado, that case was remanded not because of any NBC issue but rather because the instructions were flawed based on M-P's claim he had derivative citizenship. He was born in Mexico and neither of his biological parents were U.S. citizens - a far cry from NBC.
At this point one can conclude your legal research skills need major improvement.
You say:
14A prevails against any prior brainfart you may mention or invent.
The CRS presents the law, not birther brainfarts.
Get back to me when you can hold an adult conversation.
Ingrassia doesn’t have the guts to initiate legal action regarding this.
It’s easy to write an article claiming what he does.
It takes guts to walk the walk.
So the Constitution was amended (14th) to help redefine what NBC really means. That didn't work. So Supreme Court decisions have been handed down throughout the decades. Of course those didn't work either. In Obama's case there were 226 challenges brought about challenging his status as Natural Born Citizen. None. Zero. Nada were even admitted or heard before any court.
In dismissing Ankeny, the Court of Appeals directly ruled upon the birther arguments, found said arguments to have no legal merit, and affirmed the lower court's dismissal for that reason.
https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana/court-of-appeals/2009/11120903-ebb.html
Ankeny v Governor Of State Of Indiana
No. 49A02-0904-CV-353.
916 N.E.2d 678 (2009)
Steve ANKENY and Bill Kruse, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. GOVERNOR OF the STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Respondent.
Court of Appeals of Indiana.
November 12, 2009.
At pages 11-19:
The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs' argument is that [*12] "[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there's a very clear distinction between a 'citizen of the United States' and a 'natural born Citizen,' and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance." Appellants' Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.The bases of the Plaintiffs' arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled "The Law of Nations," and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.11 For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Plaintiffs' arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs' complaint.
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . ." U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a "natural born Citizen." U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that "[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization." Minor v. [*13] Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167, 22 L.Ed. 627 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.Id. at 167-168, 22 L.Ed. 627. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12
Then, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898), the United States Supreme Court confronted the question of "whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China. . . becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment. . . ." 169 U.S. at 653, 18 S.Ct. at 458. We find this case instructive. The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words "citizen of the United States" and "natural-born citizen of the United States" "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." Id. at 654, 18 S.Ct. at 459. They noted that "[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States [*14] is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history." Id. at 655, 18 S.Ct. at 459 (quoting Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478, 8 S.Ct. 564, 569, 31 L.Ed. 508 (1888)). The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:
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.This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case known as 'Calvin's Case,' or the 'Case of the Postnati,' decided in 1608, after a hearing in the exchequer chamber before the lord chancellor and all the judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere, Postnati, 62-64; s. c. 2 How. St. Tr. 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.
The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co. Litt. 8a, 128b; Lord Hale, in Harg. Law Tracts, 210, and in 1 Hale, P.C. 61, 62; 1 Bl. Comm. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 Term R. 300, 308; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.
* * * * * *
[*15] Lord Chief Justice Cockburn . . . said: 'By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.' Cockb. Nat. 7.
Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics: "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.' The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two: '(1) Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.' '(2) Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the crown by the sovereign of a foreign state is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.' And he adds: 'The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory at least depended, not upon the locality of a man's birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the king of England; and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of the crown.' Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.
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 [*16] 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, and 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. 13
Id. at 655-658, 18 S.Ct. at 459-460.
Also, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors' Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830), that "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." Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 660, 18 S.Ct. at 461 (quoting Inglis, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) at 164 (Story, J., concurring)). The Court also cited Justice Curtis's dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 15 L.Ed. 691 (1856):
The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.[*17] Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 662, 18 S.Ct. at 462 (quoting Dred Scott, 60 U.S. (19 How.) at 576 (Curtis, J., dissenting)).
The Court in Wong Kim Ark also cited authority which notes that:
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. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.Id. at 662-663, 18 S.Ct. at 462 (quotations and citations omitted). The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States "at the time of his birth." 14 Id. at 705, 18 S.Ct. at 478.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens."15
[*18] The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs' arguments fall under the category of "conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions" that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs' case. [16] See generally McCalment v. Eli Lilly & Co., 860 N.E.2d 884 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007) (holding that the plaintiffs' arguments had been sufficiently addressed by Indiana Supreme Court precedent and therefore the trial court did not err when it granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted); see also, e.g., Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir.1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was [*19] not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were "natural-born citizens of the United States"), cert. denied 462 U.S. 1132, 103 S.Ct. 3112, 77 L.Ed.2d 1367 (1983).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's grant of the Governor's motion to dismiss.
Affirmed.
CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur.
My recollection is that 80% of the population will pretend to believe something so long as they think the majority believe it.
There is another phenomena identified by the Milgram obedience experiments, also in the 1970s. The Majority of people will believe or do whatever an "Authority" figure tells them.
Add this to the phenomena of "preference cascade", and you have a simple way of understanding how all these ignorant people can be so very wrong about something.
The courts are not a deliberative body, they are a herd, and they will believe whatever they think the herd believes.
-PJ
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.