Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.
(Excerpt) Read more at caaflog.com ...
Ping to 857
“The 14th has 3 criterion, birth or naturalization & “subject to the jurisdiction”. Now until immigrants no longer have to renounce any foreign allegiance as a requirement to becoming a US citizen, then ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ means exactly what it was intended by the framers of the 14th, a complete political allegiance,”
According to the Supreme Court, “II. 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.”
The United States went to war with Great Britain twice to not be subjects of a king. The second war with England was over the kidnapping of American sailors. The British said, once a British subject always a British subject. No, the United States made a break away from English Common law that had anything to do with being a subject of a king. Our citizenship has nothing to do what post here.
According to the Supreme Court, “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...The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law.”
You might not agree, but you can hardly expect a lower court to follow Red Steel instead of the Supreme Court.
I guess that’s why the Congress felt compelled to pass a law clarifying the citizenship of American Indians. Unfortunately, the anchor baby issue has never been resolved. I think that its silly to insist that a child of aliens (not a diplomat) born in this country is a citizen by virtue of birth, but it does seem to be the legal presumption that’s in fashion these days. All of this has nothing to do with this thread, so I will defer further discussion to a good anchor baby thread.
That's what I want to know, who is the King? What master are we subject to? Subject is analogous to citizen according to Tucker's Blackstone & since Tucker was part of the ratifying of the constitution, I think Kent misspoke. In fact, I know he misspoke as many, including the brilliant international writers on law from England refuted Kent and his misinterpretation that subject was equivalent to a free citizen. Also, Kent was NEVER a Supreme Court Justice. He may have been chief justice at the state level, but if you read his works, other than his commentaries, he never really let go of his loyalty to England in his heart. Not once in any of his commentaries does Kent truly define citizen and that is where his works fall short. But on the other hand, he does refute England's laws if inheritance which are based on feudal doctrine. The laws of domicil & inheritance are the foundation of all civilization where citizenship laws are concerned. Those feudal laws were rejected by the founders according to Kent & thus citizenship laws must be defined accordingly. Thus US citizenship laws rejected feudal doctrine.
The Expatriation Act of 1868 clearly refuted birth-right citizenship & any notion some people held that there existed some sort of law recognizing dual citizenship in the US.
No, it's because I run Linux on most of my computers. My mother gets viruses, but that's just because she doesn't practice smart browsing. It doesn't mean anyone's trying to stop her.
And I think it's safe to say you haven't figured out your ass from a hole in the ground.
You got me there. I still recommend that you pay your taxes. (I can Google too, it doesn’t make me a Constitutional scholar)
The Expatriation Act:
CHAP. CCXLIX – An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States.
Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this princi-ple, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of for-eign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Therefore,
July 27, 1868.
Rights of American citi- zens in foreign states.
Preamble.
Right of ex- patriation de- clared.
Protection to naturalized citi- zens in foreign states.
Release of citi- zens imprisoned by foreign gov- ernments to be demanded.
Facts to be communicated to Congress.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruc- tion, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and prop-erty that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circum-stances.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That whenever it shall be made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons for such imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the Presi-dent shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, it shall be the duty of the President to use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress.
Approved, July 27, 1868.
And I told him or someone on this thread that de Vattel who wrote the the Law of Nations was the authority and history on the subject when the US Constitution was adopted. His works where well read by members of the Congresses. It doesn't take a Constitutional scholar to figure it out that de Vattel had a big influence of our Founding fathers.
And BTW, the "Law of Nations" are capitalized in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.
“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.”
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838) cited in WKA
If you read the Constitution, you'll notice many nouns are capitalized. In the same section, the words, 'Piracies,' 'Felonies,' 'Seas,' 'and Offenses' are also capitalized.
You're point is meaningless.
Not as pointless as yours.
Hey, I could use some extra money, what does a troll job pay?
How many times a day do you have to service the bamster?
If you have to do Mooshell too, is it a deal breaker or does it pay in extra knee pads so you can do Rahmbo and AxleROD too??
For a poster who said a long time ago that this whole issue was a waste of time, you spend all of yours here.
It must either pay or .............
......bammie sends his love.....after he's done with Reggie.
You wrote (797), “We do see however that the Law of Nations is referenced in Article 1, Section 8.
“To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;”
The idea that the Constitution is referring to Vattel’s “Law of Nations” is laughable. It takes a remarkable person to repeat such folly.
The Law of Nations in the Constitution refers to “jus gentium”, as I pointed out earlier.
“In the debate on the floor of the Convention, the discussion turned on the question as to whether the terms, ‘’felonies’’ and the ‘’law of nations,’’ were sufficiently precise to be generally understood. The view that these terms were often so vague and indefinite as to require definition eventually prevailed and Congress was authorized to define as well as punish piracies, felonies, and offenses against the law of nations.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/40.html
Do you agree with the following?
The enemy who attacks me unjustly, gives me an undoubted right to repel his violence; and he who takes up arms to oppose me when I demand only my right, becomes himself the real aggressor by his unjust resistance: he is the first author of the violence, and obliges me to employ forcible means in order to secure myself against the wrong which he intends to do me either in my person or my property.
If the forcible means I employ produce such effect as even to take away his life...
Ping to 876.
Well, apparently you have time to read my posts and make your own...so how much do YOU get paid? And does it include extra for photoshopped pictures, or do you merely collect based on degree of juvenile expression?
FYI..who were the original Roman citizens?
“Athens citizenship belonged to only people with 2 citizen parents”
“Fathers & Sons in Athens” is quite the read on ancient Roman civilization & the definition of citizen. Aristotle, while very well versed on ancient law & government & an inhabitant of ancient Rome & Athens, was not a citizen because his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth and according to historical archives, he never sought it, but he certainly respected it. Too bad you Ms Rogers can't say the same thing for our founding laws which were very clear, even before the British conquest of the original Dutch & Swedish colonies in the mid 1600's. Ms Rogers wants us to believe that those once free citizens fought a bloddy war to keep & confer subjectship from birth to every breathing soul born on American soil. Atleast we know different.
A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens of This Commonwealth
May 1779
...and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth...all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
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.