Replies

jamese777 said:

And of course there are the words of one of the Framers himself, Mr. James Madison: “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the choice is between the views of a Swiss law professor and an American Founding Father and framer of the Constitution, I chose Madison, every time.

This is an excellent citation. Unfortunately it is incomplete, so you and anyone else citing it this way are not placing Madison's quotation into the proper legal context. Let me cite Madison correctly:

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.

-- James Madison, House of Representatives, 22 May 1789, Papers 12:179--82

What Madison is saying here is Mr. Smith's father, grandfather, and great grandfather, his entire family, were all born in the colony he was then attempting to represent as a Congressman. This is the very heart of the discussion with regards to allegiance. Without it, this passage means absolutely nothing.

Purposeful omissions such as these completely contradict the very reason it is being quoted. This is not only sloppy, it is unethical and it diminishes ones reputation.

This is an excellent citation. Unfortunately it is incomplete, so you and anyone else citing it this way are not placing Madison’s quotation into the proper legal context. Let me cite Madison correctly:

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.

— James Madison, House of Representatives, 22 May 1789, Papers 12:179—82
What Madison is saying here is Mr. Smith’s father, grandfather, and great grandfather, his entire family, were all born in the colony he was then attempting to represent as a Congressman. This is the very heart of the discussion with regards to allegiance. Without it, this passage means absolutely nothing.

Purposeful omissions such as these completely contradict the very reason it is being quoted. This is not only sloppy, it is unethical and it diminishes ones reputation.

Gee, the last time I looked, “settling” was in a PLACE. “Blood” doesn’t settle. Thanks for making my point even stronger.
The current Supreme Court has already rejected hearing any of 12 Obama eligibility appeals that have reached them for conference. I suspect that Hollister v Soetoro Part II will be a “baker’s dozen” of denials.

Justice Scalia: [natural born citizenship]...requires jus soli, doesn’t it?”

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’

The Wong court also said:
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’
and the Supreme Court’s majority in Wong Kim Ark also stated that: “…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.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html