Federalist #20
BY MR. HAMILTON AND MR. MADISON.
The same Subject continued, with further Examples.
The United Netherlands are a confederacy of republics, or rather of aristocracies, of a very remarkable texture ; yet confirming all the lessons derived from those which we have already reviewed.
The Union is composed of seven co-equal and sovereign States, and each State or province is a composition of equal and independent cities. In all important cases, not only the provinces, but the cities, must be unanimous.
Now while CATO in the aforementioned letter of my previous post would have you believe that the US constitution was in all aspects the same as the Netherlands. CATO was correct in that it was during the time of the confederacy when the states held ALL the sovereign powers. However, Hamilton & Madison call him out when he makes the claim that the US Constitution was of the same as the Constitution of the Confederate States that was on place until the ratification was complete in 1789. It was NOT and thus our constitution is better because it is based on a federal system, not that of confederate aristocracies. But the underlying form was still that of a Republic and its foundation was based on the fact that the citizens were sovereign & the states & the federal govt derive their sovereignty from the people. NOT the other way around. Hamilton & Madison quote the early enlightened philosophers, NOT that of English law and loyal British magistrates such as Blackstone. So please tell me how is it that you derive that our laws are based on the feudal system of England, when in fact the founders in these very works they spent so much time on to educate the people with the tools they needed to interpret the constitution which was the opposite of the system in place in England speak of everything that is the opposite of English law?
And I will correct myself on one point after doing more research on this subject. Citizenship is NOT something you derive from nature, it is something that must happen by positive law, because citizenship id defined by civil law, not natural law and this is where my arguments have failed me. Citizenship is acquired by a positive act of a person. For an adult, it is acquired by a positive act of the adult person. A child acquires it by the tacit act of the parent, for a child is not in its infancy, able to consent for himself. There MUST be a positive act of the parent and under the laws of the US from the day of the declaration, it has been the positive act of the parent in which children acquire this status. Thus, if a parent does not consent to be a citizen, then neither are the children because there is NO law that gives an alien the authority to do so. Natural born children, those born to 2 citizen parents have absolutely no competing nations for the child's allegiance as concluded by the state fo NY in 1847.
Hamilton & Madison would have us look to Grotius for guidance in the laws of a Federal Republic in which the citizens are the sovereigns not the ruler of the soil. Sovereignty of the soil of the USA, a Fedral Republic, rests soley in the people, not the government for without the people, there is NO government. This is the common rule & core of a Federal Republic which IS the system of government in which we live under and the system of government our Constitution is framed upon.
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.
The mother took the case before the Supreme Court and they dismissed her request as they did not have jusrisdiction to hear the case & thus the lower court ruling was upheld. The child ast birth was NOT a US citizen just because it was born on US soil to a mother who was an American prior to her marriage to the British subject.
A temporary residence does NOT constitute a right of passage to citizenship in the United States to a child born to foreigners who hold not one shred of allegiance to the political jurisdiction of the United States. the child's allegiance is just as local & temporary as the parents and until the parents consent to allegiance, the child remains an alien. This is the rule of International law where there is a child born to parents who hold dualing allegiances. LOOK IT UP! This falls under INTERNATIONAL LAW, not the laws of one nation over the other, especially the laws of a nation that is foreign to the parents. Obama's parents were married & thus according to International law, Obama was British at birth & nothing else. PERIOD, regardless of where he was born.
The Reception of Domicil into English Private International Law [1961]
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UTasLawRw/1961/4.html
YOU look it up! Read WKA. Read the 14th Amendment!
Someone born in the USA who parents are here legally IS a US citizen. Pulling up drivel about the Netherlands or court cases prior to the Constitution being amended doesn’t count for squat - which is why you & birthers LOSE EVERY TIME you set foot in court.