Posted on 07/03/2011 7:26:19 PM PDT by sourcery
Seriously? So when the court wrote, "women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states," they were saying that men were never considered citizens? And when they wrote, "It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens," that means that no one else is even a citizen, much less a natural born one?
Looks like I once again overestimated someone's willingness to understand plain English.
Ref. your Post #130: Good question.
No, the 14th does not define NBC. I never said it did.
In your quote, you left off the next sentence:
“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. “
Hmmm...so the Supreme Court says the meaning of NBC is found in common law. Not Vattel.
They then take many paragraphs to discuss the meaning of NBS. Why?
“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 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, 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.”
What? NBS prevails under the Constitution? Yes, since NBS = NBC. As they say after further review of NBS:
“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 [p663] 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.”
Hmmm....”all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”
That follows, if NBS = NBC.
Let me repeat it, since birthers have problems reading:
“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.”
Let me post it in fuller detail:
“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 [**18] as of England. There are two exceptions,
and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in
theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal
contemplation, are property, and not persons. 2 Kent, Comm. 1; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke,
1; 1 Bl. Comm. 366; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583.”
It goes further, and specifically REJECTS one of the OP’s ridiculous assertions:
“To make one of domestic birth a citizen is not naturalization, and
cannot be brought within the exercise of that power. There is a universal agreement of
opinion upon this subject. [**26] Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. [60 U.S.] 578; 2 Story,
Const. 44.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20825887/United-States-v-Rhodes-27-f-Cas-785-1866
“His argument was not sufficient to declare Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen and Gray knew it.”
If WKA was not a NBC, there was no reason whatsoever to discuss it for half the decision. They did because it was relevant, and the dicta has held without exception since due to the power of its argument.
If anyone's understaing of English is in question, it's yours.
Okay. Please explain how
it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens alsois more of a "definition of a legal term" than
all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.If you're going to claim that anything not specifically stated is excluded--your "closed world assumption"--then that second sentence eliminates the possibility of naturalized citizens. You can't take two parallel constructions and say one is exclusive and the other isn't.
You need to read it again. It doesn't say the meaning of NBC is "found in common law." It says the "common law" was used as an "aid" in the construction of "this provision." The "provision" is in reference to the 14th amendment, not to natural born citizenship. READ CLOSELY: "In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment ..." NBC is NOT in the 14th amendment. NBC is NOT a "provision" in the 14th amendment.
As for Minor's definition of NBC ... it was according to Waite, "at common-law" known in the "nomenclature of the founders" as all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. This is a verbatim lift from Vattel. The WKA decision DOES NOT say that the NBC definition is from English common law, ONLY that English common law was used as an "AID" in the Construction of the citizenship provision of the 14th amendment. IOW, Gray is acknowledging in yet another way that NBC and 14th amendment citizenship by birth are two DISTINCT and SEPARATE concepts. Otherwise, Gray had no need to continue further past the Minor citation. This is not what he did at all. After affirming Minor's definition, Gray justified a residence and domicil requirement for declaring birth citizenship via the 14th amendment. This citizenship, as Gray says, is defined BY THE CONSTITUTION. NBC, as Gray acknowledges, is NOT defined by the Constitution.
““The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. “
NBC. Not the 14th Amendment.
And then WKA spends half the decision discussing the common law roots of natural born citizen, and how it applies.
“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.”
This is an outright falsehood. It spends the rest of the decision discussing what it calls a "fundamental" rule of "citizenship by birth." Again, the court notes that common law was used to aid in the construction of the 14th amendment, NOT aid in the construction of NBC. The citation from U.S. v. Rhodes undermines YOUR argument because it shows that the rule of citizenship by birth is treated differently whether you had allegiance to the King or allegiance to the United States since it's talking about people born in the United States being one or the other.
bluecat6 wrote: “All the rest of what they pontificated and spewed out was (bad) justification [...]”
So I take the answer to my question is: no, you do not have any citations to courts or legal scholars supporting what what you claimed, and yes it was just what you came up with playing make-believe constitutional scholar.
bluecat6 wrote: “The geniuses at the White House obviously faxed this Hoosier judge his words.”
Do you have any actual evidence of that one? Or are you just smearing people because that’s the kind of person you are?
“Firstly, when controlling Supreme Court precedent agrees, it’s quite irrelevant how many other courts or legal authorities say whatever else. That applies to Ankeny vs. Daniels, by the way.”
Yeah, but make-believe scholars and lawyers who get trounced every single time are not such good sources on controlling precedent.
Defintions are not transitive: define(a, b) does not entail define(b, a)
I'm not sure what that means, but it confirms my suspicion that good old English is not your best language. I think what you're trying to say is, "It's a definition when I say it's a definition, and it's not when I say it's not."
NBC Reference Bump ... ;-)
Again, you don’t seem to understand this citation. “All persons born in the allegiance of the King” in this instance is a reference to people born in the United States.
This is in response to your post #109; Obama is not now the president, he has not been president and never will be president. Future histories will talk of the years without a president.
“Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and he was elected president. The precedent has been set.”
No the precedent has not been set. There have been those in this nation who have gotten away with murder, that fact has not made murder legal.
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.