Help With The Conservative Battle
On The Road To 2012
For One Time (Or Better Yet)
Monthly Donations To FR
Click Here!!
Posted on 07/03/2011 7:26:19 PM PDT by sourcery
If your out-of-context quote was actually a holding of the case, the court could have stopped right there. Why? Because as a “holding,” that statement would have been sufficient to find the petitioner was a citizen, without any need to make a “first instance” interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
The fact that it didn’t do any such thing proves your interpretation is wrong.
And the fact that Congress thought it could pass statutes that denied Citizenship based on race or nationality, and that such statutes had been on the books for many decades, proves that it was absolutely FALSE that “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.”
If that was the prevaling, settled law, why was this case even in court?
The reasons found in your essay are false.
“The English common law did not distinguish between a “natural born subject” and a naturalized subject.”
False statement.
“Therefore, giving the “natural born Citizen” clause the same meaning as a “natural born subject” would have allowed a naturalized citizen to be eligible to be President of the United States.”
Another false statement.
See the section in Lynch reviewing colonial law:
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
“But assuming the “natural born Citizen” clause had the same meaning as a “natural born subject,” with the Constitution as written it would not have conveyed in any manner that a naturalized citizen was not eligible to be President.”
Another false statement. A naturalized citizen was not interchangeable with a natural born citizen. The both were citizens, but the details varied with the colony with regard to what privileges were given, but the source of the privilege remained different.
Your essay ignores history and the law.
All those statements are true and correct. As the essay proves beyond any possibility of refutation.
A New York State court decision is irrelevant.
Your quote from Wong Kim Ark does not say what you claim it does. The phrase it uses is "natural born subject." It uses that phrase for the very good reason that it's not ruling (making a precedential holding) about US law, rather is making a dictum about British law (about which it has no authority to rule precedentially.)You seem to have stopped before the second paragraph of the quote. Yes, it started talking about the British rule, but here again is the part you seem to have missed:
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.Got that? The same rule "continued to prevail under the Constitution". That's what the quote said, and that's what I said the quote said.
The actual holding is stated in final paragraph of the opinion:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
The "reasons above stated" are:
All else is either dicta, or else justification for any need to make a "first instance" ruling on the meaning of the first clause of the 14th Amendment.
Worse, the very fact that laws had been on the books for decades, unchallenged, that denied citizenshp based on race flatly contradicts the statement the standard policy in the US was to grant citizenship to everyone born here.
That's not what the Court says:
"Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth. [U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, quoting A.V. Dicey's Digest of the Law of England]Sourcery, I don't know what kind of work you do, but it's clearly not legal scholarship. I'm not a constitutional scholar either, but I know enough to see that your analysis warrants a big red X through it. You are fooling people who want to be fooled, including yourself, but that's it.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. [U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, quoting State v. Manuel]
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. [U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, quoting 2 Kent Com. (6th ed.)]
Chester Arthur was born in the US to a father who was a British subject at the time, and who had not yet become a naturalized US citizen. That fact did not become known until years after he left the Presidency.
It's more than just ironic that Wong Kim Ark was decided by Justice Gray. The SCOTUS may have no choice but to disregard Wong Kim Ark whenever they decide to either affirm or overturn Minor vs. Hapersett, in order to avoid logical contradictions.
If that means what you claim, why didn't the Court stop right there? What was that not sufficient to find the apellee a citizen?You seem to have answered your own question. Yes, the situation in the U.S. was more complex considering the laws and policies addressed by the 14'th Amendment, which pushed the Court to additional considerations.Worse, the very fact that laws had been on the books for decades, unchallenged, that denied citizenshp based on race flatly contradicts the statement the standard policy in the US was to grant citizenship to everyone born here.
That said, I don't really understand why the WKA opinion needed to be as long as it was.
Your quote from Wong Kim Ark does not say what you claim it does. The phrase it uses is “natural born subject.” It uses that phrase for the very good reason that it’s not ruling (making a precedential holding) about US law, rather is making a dictum about British law (about which it has no authority to rule precedentially.)
The government went on to ask:
“Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth? (p. 34).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA
The majority opinion in Wong did go on to say: “’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.’”
Also, it must be noted, that nowhere in Wong Kim Ark does the Court even emit dicta to the effect that a "natural born citizen" is anyone born in the US, who was "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" at birth. In fact, the term "natural born citizen" occurs nowhere in the opinion.
Y'all seem to keep forgetting that the issue isn't whether anyone is a citizen (which was the only issue in Wong Kim Ark), but rather who is or is not a "natural born citizen."
sourcery wrote:
“The validity of each and every Supreme Court decision issued wherein Chief Justice Gray either wrote the majority opinion, or which was a 5/4 decision, depends utterly on the whether or not the President who appointed him (Chester Arthur) was Constitutionally President.”
First, that’s a laughable bit of self-delusion. Second, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was decided 6 to 2.
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution
The Court very correctly continues by never once uttering the phrase "natural born citizen" anywhere in the opinion.
But Justice Gray wrote the majority opinion. Which he could not Constitutionally do, if he was not actually appointed by an actual President.
“Go further connects the second sentence with the first, and explains that some authorities go further in their definition and include those born of non-citizen parents.” Nice try. What the second sentence is saying is, ‘some go further to declare as citizens ...’ It is really so simple you can’t even gnarl it up with your dissembling. ‘As to the definition of Natural Born Citizen, there can be no doubt’ ... even if the almighty obamanoid Rogers continues to strain at the gnats. Bwahahahaha
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.