Posted on 09/07/2011 4:33:52 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Edited on 09/07/2011 4:35:41 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
PALM BEACH, Fla.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court.Break it down:
The rest, later.
I don't expect to convince them of anything. But I lurked in these threads for a long time before I said anything, and I learned a lot of history and law from people who don't bother to participate any more. I figure there may be new lurkers around now who are hearing these arguments for the first time, and those other people aren't around. Birther arguments can sound convincing when you first hear them, and somebody has to show how empty they really are. Others are doing a good job on the law side; that's not my area of expertise, but reading and understanding plain English is.
Strawman argument. I never said her citizen parents weren't relevant. I said he was describing her particular circumstances, not claiming that only those circumstances were valid for natural born.
Remember that we already have a previous paragraph saying children born to citizen parents were excluded from the citizen clause
Only in your bizarre reversal of what the quote actually says. Here's an example for you, can you tell the difference between:
an NBC definition that consists of children born in the country to citizen parents.
Oh? where did Gray say that was a requirement for NBC?
This is on one hand fascinating and on the other hand hilarious to see your mind at work here. You accuse me of being a so-called “quote butcher,” yet here you go “breaking down” the quote into parts in order to try to justify your convoluted misinterpretation. The reality is that the court voted UNANIMOUSLY in the Minor decision to reject the 14th amendment as the source of Virginia Minor’s citizenship on the basis that she was an NBC. The same justices that listed so-called standard exceptions in a split decision two years earlier were NOT SPLIT on the Minor decision. Do you understand that?? Thus, the court was INDEED committed to the view that children born in the country of citizen parents (i.e, NBCs) were EXCLUDED from the citizen clause of the 14th amendment. That neither Miller nor the other justices from the slaughterhouse case decision understood this two years prior, it doesn’t make the commitment of the UNANIMOUS decision any less unanimous. The fact that it WAS UNANIMOUS explains why Gray said the court was committed to this view. The context supports this.
Sorry, but you're still dodging the argument and you've invented your own strawman. No one suggested that you personally said Minor's citizen parents weren't relevant. I was asking you why Gray would mention Minor having citizen parents. The Obot interpretations of the WKA decision are generally that the parents aren't relevant and/or that English common law somehow controls the NBC definition and requires only jus soli. By mentioning the parents, Gray is AFFIRMING a jus sanguinis criteria for her citizenship. Why would he do this?? What is his point for saying this when the Minor decision doesn't specifally say Minor was born of citizen parents. Address that if you can.
where did Gray say that was a requirement for NBC?
In the definition cited from the Minor decision:
... in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
You aren't reading what I posted very closely. Domicil (which is legally defined as a "permanent legal residence") was a specific criteria of the subject clause. Read this closely, "Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." Change domiciled to "having a permanent legal residence." This isn't just describing the situation of an appellant.
Consistent with this principle, Gray includes "permanent residence and domicil in the conclusion of the decision:
...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.
That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court.Clearly, you are the quote butcher who removed the "neither - nor" to reverse the meaning.
The reality is that the court voted UNANIMOUSLY in the Minor decision to reject the 14th amendment as the source of Virginia Minor’s citizenship on the basis that she was an NBC.
In case you didn't really understand what the Minor case was about,
Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.They voted unanimously that neither the Constitution prior to the 14th amendment, nor the 14th amendment itself, guaranteed suffrage.
Gray explained it very well in the Wong Kim Ark decision. Viriginia Minor's citizenship was a part of the Minor decision. Read it. Learn it. Understand it.
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.
And in case you want to fall back on your errant "this is just a description of the case argument," this is from the Minor syllabus. Citizenship was one of the legal elements of the case.
1. The word "citizen" is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.
2. In that sense, women, of born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since.
3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had.
4. At the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the States; nor was it at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
5. Neither the Constitution nor the fourteenth amendment made all citizens voters.
6. A provision in a State constitution which confines the right of voting to "male citizens of the United States," is no violation of the Federal Constitution. In such a State women have no right to vote.
Re-read No. 2 above. In spite of a brand-new shiny amendment that declares all person to be citizens with no mention of the citizenship of the parents, the court here emphasizes that birth OF CITIZEN PARENTS is just as important AFTER the passage of the 14th amendment as it was before. The reason this is important because the court said the Constitution refernced a class of citizens as natural born and that the definition of this class of citizens is NOT affected nor conferred by the 14th amendment. Read it. Learn it. Understand it. While you're busy diagramming one sentence over an irrelevant "neither-nor" construction, I've cited multiple paragraphs from two separate decisions that completely support my argument in specific words and context. Read it. Learn it. Understand it.
Because that was her situation. The same way WKA mentioned that WKA's parents were subjects of China. The fact that it was China as opposed to Italy or Nigeria or Greenland doesn't change the case, but he states the facts.
The Obot interpretations of the WKA decision are generally that the parents aren't relevant and/or that English common law somehow controls the NBC definition and requires only jus soli.
Ah, calling names, and in a Rubio thread. The Supreme Court also seems to think that the US follow English common law for NBC. From WKA
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.and WKA quotes Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews
There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."and then goes on to say
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.
"Where did Gray say that was a requirement for NBC?"
In the definition cited from the Minor decision:
Funny, you left out the what followed, which is kind of important if he was really setting a requirement:
As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.Odd way to state a requirement, by saying there are doubts, and that the case would not address the issue. I may have to rethink whether it is a reading comprehension issue, or intellectual dishonesty.
You're getting there. Her situation contributed to her fitting the definition of a natural born citizen, while WKA's did not. You do understand that she presented an argument that she was a 14th amendment citizen, yet the court said the 14th amendment did NOT confer citizenship on her. Her citizenship was due to being born to citizen parents. Gray recognized this and had to include that in his summation.
The Supreme Court also seems to think that the US follow English common law for NBC. From WKA:
Your quote doesn't say that NBC must be follow common law, only that it must be interpreted "in light of" the common law, which means under consideration of. Regardless of an interpretation in the light of common law, the court must still follow legal precedent, which it does from Minor v. Happersett. But that aside, the part you quoted is followed immediately by a reference to the Minor v. Happersett decision.
Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law.
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.
The common law that aided Waite in defining NBC was from Vattel's Law of Nations and not English common law. Compare the definitions of both.
Waite: ... all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens ... These were the natives, or natural-born citizens ...
Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Compare the underlined phrases which match in the two definitions.
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.
Well, duh. The same rule WAS in force because as mentioned in the Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor decision, you could be born in the U.S and still be a British subject based on the allegiance of the parents. This citation doesn't help your argument.
Funny, you left out the what followed, which is kind of important if he was really setting a requirement:
These sentences reinforce my point. The first class has no doubts BECAUSE they are natural born citizens. The second class has doubts about their citizenship because they are NOT born to citizen parents and DO NOT MEET the definition of natural born citizen. Are you intentionally shooting your own argument in the foot???
The place where a person has fixed his ordinary dwelling, without a present intention of removal.and from US government rules
Domicile is a complex issue and must be determined on a case-by-case basis...and
must have a principal residence in the U.S. and intend to maintain that residence for the foreseeable future.So it's "complex" and gray. To be intellectually honest, I will grant you that some definitions do use the word "permanent."
However, you are still misreading, because Gray doesn't give it as a requirement, he is stating the situation of the appellant. You can tell that from the beginning of what you quoted:
.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 StatesMeaning the single question is about this particular individual with his particular situation. And the quotes I included in my last post show that the Court interpreted the Constitution in light of English common law, which says "
That means it continued to prevail under the Constitution. Unless it's been changed by the Constitution, it prevails today.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.
I give you my example again:
Birth certificate and/or naturalization papers please. LOL!
Now that's really stretching far beyond sanity. Vattel is not "common law". I've given you several quotes from WKA, and could find many from other cases which cite English Common law. Can you find any calling Vattel "common law"?
These sentences reinforce my point. The first class has no doubts BECAUSE they are natural born citizens. The second class has doubts about their citizenship because they are NOT born to citizen parents and DO NOT MEET the definition of natural born citizen. Are you intentionally shooting your own argument in the foot???
He never said they do not meet the definition. Read it again - he said there were doubts, and those doubts would not be addressed in Minor v. Happersett. Doubt = "not sure" = no definitive definition. How many definitive judicial pronouncements are framed as "there are doubts and we're not going to resolve the issue in this case?"
Sorry for the red font, a complete accident.
I already pointed out it was at the beginning of the decision ... and at the end ... AND that domicil as a criteria of the subject clause of the 14th amendment was mentioned on multiple occasions in the decision. It's not just a situational mention because the concept of domicil in relation to the subject clause is cited from other cases. Second, at least one of the citations jibes with the definition of domicil you offered about intending to maintain the residence for the foreseeable future.
In Lem Moon Sing v. United States, the same principles were reaffirmed, and were applied to a Chinese person, born in China, who had acquired a commercial domicil in the United States and who, having voluntarily left the country on a temporary visit to China, and with the intention of returning to and continuing his residence in this country, claimed the right under a statute or treaty to reenter it ...
Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.
And look at how many times Gray talks about domicil and residence in the opening paragraph. This isn't just a situational mention. And all this comes before he addresses the question before the court, once more including the mention about residence and domicil. Wouldn't the one mention cover it??
His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to-wit, in California, within the United States, and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence, and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him [p653] therefrom. In 1890 (when he must have been about seventeen years of age), he departed for China on a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto by sea in the same year, and was permitted by the collector of customs to enter the United States upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States.
Rubio rejects Arizona law....sangre primero, pais segundo
No thanks
Never under estimate how prone many freepers are to loudly proclaim the”right” answer from the position of ignorant comfort
Too many post here for a sense of belonging and applause
I bet few here know his border position
He does not say that permanent domicile is a requirement. Mentioning it does make it a requirement. And again - Marco Rubio’s parents were permanently domiciled in the US.
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.