Posted on 06/22/2010 3:40:28 PM PDT by bushpilot1
In the Journals of the Continental Congress there is a translation of the French word naturels to natural born. Meaning the Founders understood Vattel's naturels to mean natural born.
The document and its translation by the Founders must have been overlooked over the years by the courts, congress and the news media.
In French.
ARTICLE III Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera.
The Founders Translation.
The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them.
What did Snug Harbor say?
“What are the rights of the individuals composing a society and living under the protection of the government when a revolution occurs, a dismemberment takes place, and when new governments are formed and new relations between the government and the people are established? A person born in New York before 4 July, 1776, and who remained an infant with his father in the City of New York during the period it was occupied by the British troops, his father being a loyalist and having adhered to the British government and left New York with the British troops, taking his son with him, who never returned to the United States, but afterwards became a bishop of the Episcopal Church in Nova Scotia; such a person was born a British subject, and continued an alien, and is disabled from taking land by inheritance in the State of New York.
If such a person had been born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776, when the British troops took possession of the City of New York and the adjacent places, his infancy incapacitated him from making an election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his father, subject to the right of disaffirmance in a reasonable time after the termination of his minority, which never having been done, he remained a British subject, and disabled from inheriting land in the State of New York.
The rule as to the point of time at which the American ante nati ceased to be British subjects differs in this country and in England, as established by the courts of justice in the respective countries. The English rule is to take the date of the Treaty of Peace in 1783. Our rule is to take the date of the declaration of independence.
The settled doctrine in this country is that a person born here, but who left the country before the declaration of independence and never returned here, became an alien and incapable of taking lands subsequently by descent. The right to inherit depends upon the existing state of allegiance at the time of the descent cast...
...The British doctrine therefore is that the American ante nati, by remaining in America after the peace, lost their character of British subjects, and our doctrine is that by withdrawing from this country, and adhering to the British government, they lost, or perhaps more properly speaking, never acquired the character of American citizens.”
So the birth in country is critical, but it needs to be recognized as the US at the time - thus disputes about those who were born before and lived after the Revolution - the ‘ante nati’.
Sorry, but your theories are way out of line with American law, as practiced and accepted for hundreds of years. Which is why those who adhere to your theories LOSE...
It didn't matter whether they left the country or not. As long as they resided in the US under the protection of the British government, showing where their loyalty lied, they were still British at birth. Birth on the soil could not be used to gain access to the rights of citizenship and there in lies the crux of the debate. It was formally announced prior to the revolution that parents who were loyal to the revolution became citizens as well as their wives and all their descendants, whether born before or after the revolution. And children born in the US to natives or aliens who made it known that they wished to retain their foreign citizenship, were deemed to be aliens. It all goes to inheritance and children of aliens could not inherit in the US and vice versa. This was the FINAL ruling in Snug Harbor. The child was born prior to the revolution & taken from the country by the father, even though the mother stayed in the US, could not inherit; because prior to Sept 1776 the family moved into NY under the protection of the crown and the mother remained living under the protection of the crown. At no time during the revolution did the father & child come back and move the family back under the protection of the United States. As the court stated, had the parents changed their minds and taken action to throw off their allegiance to the crown prior to the Treaty of 1783, the child would then have become a US citizen. It didn't matter when or where the child was born, on US soil or not, it was the action of the parents becoming citizens that made the child a citizen.
If you cannot read a decision better than that, we have no reason to discuss further. You have TOTALLY misread the decision.
Not so fast there buster. That ‘ante nati’ thangy, according to the court it was connected to the parents, if the parents didn't possess ‘ante nati’ to the US, neither did the child. If it wasn't the case, then the child would have been able to inherit.
The settled doctrine in this country is that a person born here, but who left the country before the declaration of independence and never returned here, became an alien and incapable of taking lands subsequently by descent. The right to inherit depends upon the existing state of allegiance at the time of the descent cast.
Do you not understand the concept of descent?
When new governments are formed and new relations between the government and the people are established? A person born in New York before 4 July, 1776, and who remained an infant with his father in the City of New York during the period it was occupied by the British troops, his father being a loyalist and having adhered to the British government and left New York with the British troops, taking his son with him, who never returned to the United States, but afterwards became a bishop of the Episcopal Church in Nova Scotia; such a person was born a British subject, and continued an alien, and is disabled from taking land by inheritance in the State of New York.
New forms of government, new forms of relations and that would be new forms of relations regarding citizenship & the laws of inheritance. According to Snug Harbor soil no longer held any ‘ante nati’. The ‘ante nati’ naturally attached to the child born on US soil through the citizen parents or by the consent of an adult through naturalization or statute as in the case of children born abroad to citizen parents.
All the congressional debates of 1790 speak of the father or single mother. Theirs is the political citizenship that attaches the family to the country. Wives & children held derivitive citizenship therough the husband or father respectively. This was the actual law on the books:
http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/5596748?action=jp2resize&op=j&imagesize=1200&pvHeight=2400&pvWidth=2400&n=1&rotation=0&bbx1=0&bby1=0&bbx2=87&bby2=130&jp2Res=0.25&pres=0.5&jp2x=0&jp2y=0&large.x=5&large.y=11
Please show me where it distinguishes between children born to aliens abroad or on US soil? This is NOT am ambiguous law. It follows the exact law that was in place from July 1776 forward which was the law that was applied in Snug Harbor.
“According to Snug Harbor soil no longer held any ‘ante nati’.
Please look up terms before you try to use them.
The court declared that the children were NOT US citizens and could NOT inherit because their parents did NOT throw off their British allegiance, therefore, the children, whether born before or after the revolution ON US soil, were NOT us citizens by birth on US soil. To become a citizen an act of consent, whether by the parents or by the child upon becoming an adult was the rule of law. Since the child taken abroad did not return to the US and renounce his British citizenship by taking an oath and declaring his intent to become a US citizen when he reached the age of consent, the plaintiff remained an alien to the US. According to your doctrine, it wouldn't have mattered as allegiance to the soil is perpetual and could not be cast off no matter what. Show me the codified law that says US citizenship is perpetual and that the right of emigration & expatriation never existed in the US because that is the only way your argument can be made. Emigration & expatriation is a natural right of movement & what is NOT disallowed by positive law, remains in tact so show me the positive codified law that was adopted by the US and can be found on the books that codified some feudal concept/notion of dual allegiance.
In English feudal law it is in the Crown & all the soil attached to the crown regardless of the fact that the child was born to an alien parents & even in the cases where the parents were allowed to naturalize, the child was given higher rights than the parents just by mere fact of being born on the soil & under the "ante nati' of the sovereign king. The crown held a higher right to the child than the parents. Under English feudal law, a subjects rights came from the crown.
In natural law which is the law of the US, sovereignty is in the citizens, no matter where they roam the earth & the government holds no right to the child. The US adopted the law of natural rights and the only rights the sovereign citizens gave up are those restricted by positive law. The US states & federal governments derive their sovereignty FROM the people.
Until positive law is passed that an infant child is capable of entering into contracts or courts of law, suri juris, thereby being able to consent to becoming an alien to the parents, can a child born to an alien, whether the alien is a sovereign or subject of a foreign nation, possess the the right to personally consent to becoming a US citizen.
Barry v. Mercein 46 U. S. 103 (1847) Case Footnote:
4. The plaintiff in error being of legeance to the crown of England, his child, though born in the United States during his father’s temporary residence therein – twenty-two months and twenty days – not withstanding its mother be an American citizen, is not a citizen of the United States. It is incapacitate by its infancy from making any present election, follows the legeance of its father, partus sequitur patrem, and is a British subject. The father being domiciled and resident within the dominions of Her Britannic Majesty, such is also the proper and rightful domicil of his wife and child, and he has a legal right to remove them thither. The child being detained from the father, its natural guardian and protector, without authority of law, and writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is his appropriate legal remedy for its restoration to him from its present illegal detention and restraint. Constitution United States, art. 3, sec. 2; Judiciary Act, 1789, sec. 11; Inglis v. Trustees Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 3 Peters, 99; 7 Anne, cap. 5; 4 Geo. III. cap. 21; Warrender v. Warrender, 2 Clar. & Fin. Ap. Ca. 523; Story’s Confl. Laws, 30, 36, 43, 74, 160; Shelford on Marriage, Ferg. Rep. 397, 398.
‘ante nati’ is nationality attached to a person. In the US it refers to the father/ancestry thus the inclusion of domicil & inheritance into the positive laws of the rights of citizenship. Story's "Conficts of Laws" explains it all quite nicely. It also is why we have surnames and when we(women) are married, well atleast those of us who still believe in the sanctity of it as handed down to us by our Creator, we take the name of our husbands. It is why all the positive laws at the founding & well into the 20th century stated that women followed the condition of the husband. But the funny thing, and the fact you neglect to address, is that the child born in wedlock, still takes the name (‘ante nati’) of the father. Women recieved by positive law the right to hold seperate citizenhip from the husband, but never has a positive law been passed that took the right away from the father that attached ‘ante nati’ to his child and place it on the mother. The only time this right is afforded to the mother is when the child is born out of wedlock and it's right there in the law today.
“The court declared that the children were NOT US citizens and could NOT inherit because their parents did NOT throw off their British allegiance, therefore, the children, whether born before or after the revolution ON US soil, were NOT us citizens by birth on US soil.”
WRONG! Read it again.
“ANTENATI. Born before. This term is applied to those who were born or resided within the United States before or at the time of the declaration of independence. These had all the rights of citizens. 2 Kent, Com. 51, et seq.”
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Antenati
Which of these people do you know personally? Can you personally vouch they aren’t scumbags?
Or are you a delusional nutcase who thinks people on television are your close personal friends?
Thank you for conceding Bary never lost his British subjecthood.
I can assure you that President Reagan was not in the habit of appointing “scumbags” to the federal judiciary.
Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth is not a “scumbag.” Judge Lamberth was born in San Antonio, Texas in 1943. He graduated from the University of Texas and the University of Texas Law School. He served as a Captain in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps of the US Army including one year of in country service in Vietnam. He served in the Reagan Administration as an Asssitant US Attorney and was promoted to Chief of the Civil Division before being appointed to be a US Federal Judge by President Reagan in 1987. Judge Lamberth has also been Chief Judge of the FISA Court (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) for seven years protecting the United States from terrorism.
“This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth in dismissing the Quo Warranto claim in “Taitz v Obama”—April 14, 2010
antenati has everything to do with allegiance of the person connected to the property through descent. The right to inherit. You try & make yourself sound soooooo superior, when in fact, much of the law was actually made 1000's of years ago in terms so common place that a common lay person could understand it. You might try & read Aristotle.
Parse & edit what doesn’t work. It’s the classic mark of a liberal progressive. Just as Clinton, Obama & Kagan, they are both getting slammed for editing out the words of scholars that don’t fit their agenda.
antenati has everything to do with allegiance of the person connected to the property through descent. The right to inherit. You try & make yourself sound soooooo superior, when in fact, much of the law was actually made 1000’s of years ago in terms so common place that a common lay person could understand it. You might try & read Aristotle.
They did not want that.
They wanted natural born Americans.
[Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token…
Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?
[Ms.] Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.
Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.
I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.
I don’t think you’re disagreeing.
It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argument
What’s your point brainless child?
In Bouvier’s “A law dictionary: adapted to the Constitution and laws of the United States” there isn’t even any reference or definition of the term “jus soli” aka birthright citizenship. Since this was the 1st widely used law dictionary FOR AMERICAN LAW, I would think we’d be able to find it. NO?
No, it has everything to do with those born and raised in the British colonies who chose to remain loyal to the British during and after the Revolution, or who chose to switch allegiance to the new United States. It had NOTHING to do with their parents!
In the case we were discussing, a child born in the British colonies, who moved with his parents to England due to the war and who remained there and refused to return to the US was considered a British subject, not American. Not because of his parents, but because of the colonial status and his subsequent departure.
yes the child was born prior to the revolution, BUT....
only the father & son left the states, the mother remained until her death.
Me thinks you better go back further, A LOT FURTHER, to understand it’s true meaning because it does have everything to do with allegiance. It is what attaches a nationality to a person.
You’re still lying. Barry would have had to affirm his Kenyan nationality in order to explicitly reject his British subjecthood. As far as the public knows, he never did such a thing.
Thank you for confirming you are a delusional nutcase who conjures up relations of trust inside your head with people you have never met.
In Bouvier’s “A law dictionary: adapted to the Constitution and laws of the United States” there isn’t even any reference or definition of the term “jus soli” aka birthright citizenship. Since this was the 1st widely used law dictionary FOR AMERICAN LAW, I would think we’d be able to find it. NO?
It was the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 that established the principle of birthright citizenship or “jus soli” in the United States. That was 29 years after the first edition of Bouvier’s Law Dictionary. The 4th and final edition was being prepared when Bouvier died in 1851, still 17 years before the 14th Amendment institutionalized the concept of jus soli in the US Constitution.
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.