Posted on 10/07/2011 9:05:25 AM PDT by edge919
It has been claimed by Obama apologists that in relatively recent cases, circuit courts have given their opinion on the term "natural-born citizen" as meaning nothing more than being born in the country. Supposably this would presume that Obama, if it can be legally proven that he was born in the United States, as he claims, is a natural-born citizen in spite of being born of a foreign national father and NOT being born to citizen parents, as the Supreme Court defined NBC in Minor v. Happersett, etc.
One example of such a recent decision is Diaz-Salazar v. the INS (1982), in which it says:
The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
But, there's a problem. Following the guidance in this case, the children, despite the claim of being NBCs, would have been deported with their father.
In the case at hand, no special circumstances are presented sufficient to bring petitioner's situation within the extreme hardship standard. His children are still of pre-school age and thus less susceptible to the disruption of education and change of language involved in moving to Mexico. There are no unique reasons why petitioner, in comparison with the many other Mexicans in his situation now resident in the United States, will be unable to find employment upon returning to Mexico or why he or any member of his immediate family requires health care available only here. Thus, although we recognize the unhappy prospects which the petitioner faces, we cannot hold that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the petitioner's motion to reopen deportation proceedings.
(Excerpt) Read more at openjurist.org ...
SCOTUS ruled that way even knowing that both of WKA’s parents were non-citizens. The dissent in WKA even recognizes that the majority opinion in WKA makes WKA a nbc and eligible to be president. All courts since WKA have taken the same legal position, that if a person is born in the US sovereign territory, you are a nbc, no matter the citizenship of the parents. Again, since WKA, you cannot show one case that uses the bogus Vattel theory to define nbc.
This is how come you will not ever “get it.” You are reading the words but you have no idea what they are talking about. You are NOT able to learn what they are talking about because you have a pre-conceived idea that is based on who knows what, but not what the judges say.
That whole discussion you are pulling stuff from is about whether the 14th Amendment is just about slaves, or is also about children of citizen parents and children of foreigners who are born here.
“neither . . .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. :
If they are NOT excluded, then they are in. Plus, the judges here are not saying their own words, but quoting Minor, which did not deal with kids of foreigners. Up above the Wong Kim Wong judges, USING JUST THEIR OWN WORDS, said:
“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.
PLUS, and here is something I just found, that I have NOT seen any people talking about is that the Supreme Court came right out and said that citizenship is NOT based on parentage for people born INSIDE the United States:
“Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.
So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.
Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.
Sooo, quit giving people bad legal advice about this stuff, and how people like Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal can’t run for president. I have been learning a whole lot of stuff in the last few weeks just by reading these cases, and if you put aside your pre-conceived stupid idea that the 14th Amendment is different from the natural born stuff in the big Constitution, maybe you could learn stuff, too.
In addition, dicta canNOT be used as precedent in a subsequent case as a basis of the court's ruling and holding. Minor has not been used as precedent for any case in defining or ruling that a person is a nbc since WKA, Yet WKA has so been employed in thousands of cases, from immigration court to SCOTUS regarding whether an individual is a nbc. Are you too dense to understand why WKA is cited for the definition of nbc and Minor is as you put in a previous post “ignored.” And you couldn't figure out why Minor is ignored? I don't know how many examples or times I need to repeat it, all of Minor's language regarding citizenship is dicta and has not nor ever will be used as legal precedent to show a person to be or not to be a nbc.
From the Constitution, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.and Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their AuthorityThe Supreme Court is given authority to decide cases by the Constitution. You think the Founders meant a particular thing by "natural born". The Supreme Court has not agreed with you. however much you think them wrong, they have the Constitutional authority.
Too many people equate Wong Kim Ark as defining "natural born citizen" when it really doesn't.
Your opinion. Not shared by many, including the Supreme Court in Rogers v. Bellei.
This is not what pro-life people believe. They believe that rights are inherent in the existence of an unborn child.
The right to life is inherent in the existence of an unborn child. However, many who agree on the right to life also know the right to citizenship is legislated by each country.
Something we can both agree on.:)
Sorry, but the word you are looking for is "necessary" not relevant, as defined here:
A remark, statement or observation of a judge that is not a necessary part of the legal reasoning needed to reach the decision in a case.
link
Further, the Supreme Court itself says that dicta can be used if it is seen as persuasive.
Putting aside dicta, which may be followed if sufficiently persuasive but which are not controlling, ...Minor has not been used as precedent for any case in defining or ruling that a person is a nbc since WKA, Yet WKA has so been employed in thousands of cases, from immigration court to SCOTUS regarding whether an individual is a nbc.
link
Sorry, but these cases are NOT about NBC. They may be about "native-born" citizenship or Gray's "citizenship by birth," but they are NOT about "natural-born citizenship" which Wong specifically defined (in following Minor) as "all children born inthe country to parents who were its citizens."
Sorry, but this only applies to your own mindset. I've given a multitude of direct citations. You've done nothing to show how anything I've posted is wrong or incorrectly summarized.
That whole discussion you are pulling stuff from is about whether the 14th Amendment is just about slaves, or is also about children of citizen parents and children of foreigners who are born here.
The quote says very clearly that the court was committed to the view of excluding children of citizen parents and children of foreign subjects. This makes sense in context because it cites Minor for the former and Elk for the latter. That's exactly what both decisions said.
If they are NOT excluded, then they are in.
They ARE excluded. this doesn't say anyone is NOT excluded. It only says that Miller didn't understand this commitment at the time the Slaughterhouse Cases were written.
Up above the Wong Kim Wong judges, USING JUST THEIR OWN WORDS, said:
Wong kim WONG????? Sorry, but two Wongs don't make you right. Not even close. The common law argument is what ydoucare refers to as obiter dicta. Gray was resorting to common law to try to give more teeth to the 14th amendment. There had already been three cases that rejected how far it extended: Slaughterhouse, Minor and Elk. Under the principle of stare decisis, courts are expected not to overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so, soooo Gray worked very deliberately to find a way to declare Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen without overturning the court's own precedents. He did that by applying a domicil and residence criteria to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment. It's all there. Take the time to read it and educate yourself.
I have been learning a whole lot of stuff in the last few weeks just by reading these cases, and if you put aside your pre-conceived stupid idea that the 14th Amendment is different from the natural born stuff in the big Constitution, maybe you could learn stuff, too.
Sorry, but this isn't a preconceived idea. Originally, I thought Gray was equating native-born with natural-born, but the more I read the decision, I started to see how he deliberately made a distinction. Again, this was so he could respect earlier decisions and not overturn them. I'm not the one who made the distinction between natural-born and citizenship by birth via the 14th amendment. He did. Here are HIS words once again. Read it. Learn it. Comprehend it.
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."
Think about this for a minute. Gray says Waite construed the birth provision of the 14th amendment and said that the Constitution does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. IOW, Gray is telling us specifically by citing this passage that the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship.
Contrast this to the later part of the decision when Gray defines what he calls "citizenship by birth." Note that he does NOT have to look elsewhere for a defintition. The definition for this term is found specifically in the Constitution — via the 14th amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.
This entire section is in direct refence to the 14th amendment. He says that IT contemplates two SOURCES of citizenship (note that it is not two TYPES, but two SOURCES). One source is naturalization, which is NOT defined in the 14th amendment, but defined by "under the authority and in the forms of law." This means naturalization is controlled by Congress. In contrast, what he calls "citizenship by birth" (note: he does NOT uses the terms "native-born citizen" nor "natural-born citizen") is defined, not by Congress, but by the 14th amendment itself: "under the circumstances defined in the Constitution." The ONLY circumstances that define any citizenship at birth in the Constitution are from the 14th amendment, which is dependent on the subject clause.
So there you have it. These are two distinct terms for citizenship and two distinct definitions. NBC is defined OUTSIDE the law and OUTSIDE the Constitution. Citizenship by birth is defined BY the Constitution through the 14th amendment.
Read the Ankeny v. Daniels case from 2008. The appellants argued that Obama was not eligible to be president and sole issue on appeal was whether the fact that Obama’s father was not a citizen of the US at time of his birth made him ineligible to be president. Sounds like the the Minor dicta you love to quote would be right on point. Only the court did not find it all persuasive, just like every other court in the past 100 years, and did not use Minor as the precedent in ruling on this issue. Instead the Indiana court used WKA and the language in WKA as the binding legal precedent in it's ruling and holding. The Ankeny case is a prefect illustration of what I have telling you throughout this thread. Minor has not, is not, and never will be considered any type of precedent for the definition of natural born citizenship.
A native born citizen, a citizen by birth and a citizen at birth are all natural born citizens. It sounds like you are claiming Marco Rubio is not a nbc. How do you plan on preventing him from running for V.P. if the Republican Party nominates him. Using Minor as your precedent to keep him off the ballot? ROTFLOL
WRONG. NBC is defined in common LAW, and the common law on this issue was incorporated into the Constitution by the 14th Amendment. Remember what I have told you before:
Ex Parte Chin King in 1888: By the common law, a child born within the allegiance—the jurisdiction—of the United States, is born a subject or citizen thereof, without reference to the political status or condition of its parents. McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawy., 118 ; In re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawy., 353 ; 21 Fed. Rep., 905; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch., 583. In the latter case it was held that Julia Lynch, who was born in New York in 1849, of alien parents during a temporary sojourn by them in that city; and returned with them the same year to their native country, where she resided until her death, was an American citizen.
The vice-chancellor, after an exhaustive examination of the law, declared that every citizen born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States was a citizen thereof, without reference to the situation of his parents.
This, of course, does not include the children born in the United States of parents engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, whose residence, in contemplation of public law, is a part of their own country.
THE RULE OF COMMON LAW ON THIS SUBJECT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE LAND.
The fourteenth amendment declares : persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside.’
===================
Plus, it says it again in Wong Kim Ark. Remember when I showed you this???:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.
You are just working overtime to NOT understand this so you can keep being a Vattle Birther. Which, I don't understand why you work sooo hard to misconstrue something which is really pretty simple.
According to whom?? It's certainly not the case at Duhaime, Nolo, FindLaw, or law.com's online legal dictionaries. None of these use the term relevant to define dictum. Of course, since you didn't bother to substantiate this claim, it fails.
Read the Ankeny v. Daniels case from 2008.
I've read it. It's an embarrassment on several levels. These guys contradicted themselves in giving the plaintiff's argument. They contradicted themselves by acknowledging that Wong Kim Ark was never declared to be a natural born citizen. How does one divine guidance on the meaning of a term that the cited decision NEVER uses in the way this appeals court thinks it was defined?? They even misquote which section of the Constitution uses the term NBC.
As far as their citation of Minor, they invented a bizarre interpretion of the court's definition of natural-born citizen, saying that, "... the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen." Had they followed the guidance provided in Wong Kim Ark, they would know this is incorrect. The definition is self-limiting ... born to citizen parents are NBC as DISTINGUISHED from aliens or foreigners. That's pretty clear. If you're not born to citizen parents, you are legally considered an alien or a foreigner who must be naturalized. Wong Kim Ark also noted that the children born of foreign subjects were excluded from the citizen clause in the 14th amendment.
The part of Wong that Ankeny cited as authoritative, they misunderstood completely.
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.
The above citation is originally from Shanks v. Dupont, in an acknowledgment that some persons born IN THE UNITED STATES were considered to be natural-born SUBJECTS and not citizens. To be born in the allegiance of the United States meant that your parents had to adhere to the United States after the revolution and AFTER the Treaty of 1783. It's what made parents citizens so their descendants could be U.S. citizens as well. Unless Wong Kim Ark's parents lived in the United States prior to the Treaty of 1783, they do not fit this criteria.
BTW, technically, Minor was cited in what you like to call a "winning" argument (don't you hate putting your foot in your mouth over and over), except that these judges were simply too stupid to understand what they were citing. That they willfully mischaracterized the plaintiff's arguments speaks volumes about this court's lack of integrity and competency. Second, nowhere in this decision did it declare Obama to be a natural-born citizen, so in effect, it was a toothless decision.
Then one has to decide whether it's funny or simply pathetic when this court characterizes the original intent of the authors of the 14th amendment as "various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate." Vattel and the Law of Nations, which are widely and repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court, is downplayed as just "an eighteenth century treatise."
This court said "The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief ..." I'm here to correct the error of the plaintiffs and the Indiana Appeals Court. The definition that Ankeny said was left open, was immediately shut when Justice Gray acknowledged the Minor decision declared the definition of natural-born citizen was NOT defined by the 14th amendment. It's also not defined by English common law, which I've shown.
A native born citizen, a citizen by birth and a citizen at birth are all natural born citizens.
This is plain and simply wrong. You've been shown direct citations from the highest court in the land that prove this is false.
It sounds like you are claiming Marco Rubio is not a nbc. How do you plan on preventing him from running for V.P. if the Republican Party nominates him. Using Minor as your precedent to keep him off the ballot?
Dude, are you not paying attention?? The precedent is NOT just in Minor but also in Wong Kim Ark: all children born in the coutnry to parents who were its citizens. It's not my concern whether Rubio is prevented from running for VP or not. The definition is clear. If he does NOT fit the definition, then he does not fit it. Whether he wants to pull an Obama and ignore the Constitution is everyone's problem, not just mine.
By the common law, a child born within the allegiance—the jurisdiction—of the United States, is born a subject or citizen ...
We are not born "subjects" in the United States. The so-called common law is an acknolwedgment that someone can be born on U.S. soil as a subject of Britain. Second, some states, such as New York (where the Lynch v. Clarke case took place) had specific laws declaring citizens of the state regardless of the parents citizenship. The NBC definition in Minor is referring to U.S. citizenship, not state citizenship. NBC is universal because NOT all states declared just anyone born on their soil to be citizens.
Something that is missed too, is a quote from Lynch v. Clarke (which was notably avoided in Wong Kim Ark) where the judge muses that he thinks that anyone born on the soil, regardless of alien parents, would be eligible for president. His opinion was NOT shared by the Supreme Court, which I've shown several times.
Nonsense. I gave a direct citation from Wong Kim Ark that backs up the point. When construing the 14th amendment, the court in Minor said nowhere in the Constitution are these words (natural-born citizen) defined. Statutory law does NOT override that. Sorry.
You said:”Something that is missed too, is a quote from Lynch v. Clarke (which was notably avoided in Wong Kim Ark) where the judge muses that he thinks that anyone born on the soil, regardless of alien parents, would be eligible for president. His opinion was NOT shared by the Supreme Court, which I’ve shown several times.”
My Bff Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer,told me that courts quote other cases for the stuff that applies to the case they are doing. She said they don’t just quote ALL of the other case because most cases have lots of different issues.
Sooo, while you are trying to read Wong Kim Ark for what is NOT said, you should be reading it for what IS said:
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.
WOW, that is sure hard to understand. NOT!!! And they also define BORN IN THE ALLEGIANCE and it is NOT what Vattel says, or anything about two citizen parents. OH NO!!! It is simply:
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, and 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.13
What is all of that, like just THREE SHORT PARAGRAPHS, and you say that I am stupid and dumb??? OH, you should be looking in the mirror if you can’t even get three short paragraphs right.
So There!!!
Nobody said anything about quoting "ALL of the other case." The quote from Lynch v. Clarke could have easily been seen as relevant as was this little bit of "obiter dictum" cited in Wong Kim Ark.
But all suggestions to that effect seem to have been derived, immediately or ultimately, from one or the other of these two sources: the one, the Year Book of 1 Ric. III, (1483) fol. 4, pl. 7, reporting a saying of Hussey, C.J.,that he who is born beyond sea, and his father and mother are English, their issue inherit by the common law, but the statute makes clear, &c.,-- which, at best, was but obiter dictum, for the Chief Justice appears to have finally rested his opinion on the statute.
Wong Kim Ark wasn't born "beyond the sea" to an English mother and father, so your friend is basically saying the court shouldn't be using quotes like this. I won't argue otherwise. I was only pointing out that Lynch v. Clarke has a quote that would probably be very satisfying to faithers, Obots and apologists, but that Justice Gray made a point NOT to cite it.
Sooo, while you are trying to read Wong Kim Ark for what is NOT said, you should be reading it for what IS said:
You're not paying attention. I've already quoted the citation from U.S. v Rhodes as was cited in Ankeny v. Daniels. That citation is actually talking about the Shanks v. Dupont case from the preceding paragraph, which you can see below:
In Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. [28 U.S.] 247, the supreme court of the United States said: “During the war each party claimed the allegiance of the natives of the colonies as due exclusively to itself. The Americans insisted upon the allegiance of all born within the states, respectively; and Great Britain asserted an equally exclusive claim. The treaty of 1783 acted upon the state of things as it existed at that period. [**17] It took the actual state of things as its basis. All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states, were virtually absolved from their allegiance to the British crown, and those who then adhered to the British crown, were deemed and held subjects of that crown. The treaty of peace was a treaty operating between the states on each side, and the inhabitants thereof; in the language of the seventh article, it was a ‘firm and perpetual peace between his Britannic majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of one and the citizens of the other.’ Who then were subjects or citizens was to be decided by the state of facts. If they were originally subjects of Great Britain and then adhered to her and were claimed by her as subject, the treaty deemed them such; if they were originally British subjects, but then adhering to the states, the treaty deemed them citizens.”
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.
link
Context matters. Notice the part underlined that says "natives or otherwise." This is referring to both those who were born in the United States and those who weren't. Depending on the allegiance of the parents, so tooooo was the allegiance of the child. Thus, you could be born IN the United States and NOT be a citizen of the U.S., but instead a natural-born Subject of England. Notice it doesn't say ALL born in the U.S. were U.S. citizens ... only those who "adhered" to the U.S. as opposed to those who adhered to the crown. Birth on the soil was NOT sufficient by itself to determine citizenship.
"Allegiance" here is determined by which country the parents "adhered" to ... IOW, what their citizenship was.
Natural-born citizenship inherently follows this bit of "common law" because allegiance to the country is established through the citizenship of the parents. This was missing from the 14th amendment, so to make up for that, the amendment includes the "subject" clause, which Gray interpreted to mean having permanent residence and domicil. He does NOT however EVER refer to the latter as natural born citizenship ... because it's NOT by the definition he used from Minor.
You don’t get to go back to the cases that are quoted and add stuff to the case they are quoted in. Because that is the court’s job. They bring into the case, the stuff that they think applies. If courts did stuff the way you do, every case would be 9,000 pages long or more.
The court quotes what it thinks is applicable. Period. The Wong Kim Ark judges must not have figured that talking about people caught in the middle of the American Revolution, between England and America, were really applicable beyond those times.
The quote above was in Section III of the Wong Kim Ark case, which started out explaining how American law so far had followed the English common law. Remember these two paragraphs???:
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.
NOW here, in this No. III section the judges start listing the American law cases that PROVED the “same rule” was in effect here, and one of them was:
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.
If you want to be a lawyer when you grow up, and then try to be a judge, then it will be YOUR job to quote stuff that you think is applicable.
This is one way HOW you Vattle Birthers just mangle law stuff all over the place. You keep wanting to cram stuff into a case that isn’t there. Like Vattel, like natural law, like people’s library cards, like a letter to George Washington, etc. etc., even one person I read somewhere who was quoting Deuteronomy or something. I forget who it was.
My BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., a lawyer, says this is what PRETEND lawyers do because they don’t know any better. This is one reason why people laugh at Vattle Birthers,and say, like Mark Levin, that the Vattle stuff is Birther crap, and there is no debate, and Vattle birthers are not rational.
Sooo, quit trying to put stuff into a case that isn’t there, and maybe you might be able to follow what is going on for a change.
You don't understand. Gray wasn't using this citation to declare anyone to be a natural-born citizen. He was only using it to give teeth to the 14th amendment. For you to quote it and think it has broader application to the definition of natural-born citizen is wrong, which is why I gave the context of the quote. Obviously Gray knew that context because he avoided declaring Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen.
The quote above was in Section III of the Wong Kim Ark case, which started out explaining how American law so far had followed the English common law.
It doesn't matter. Gray says NBC is outside the Constitution and the definition he finally settles on is from the Minor decision. He doesn't dispute it and he acknowledges that Virginia Minor's citizenship was based in part on having citizen parents. English common law won't change that, but Gray felt he could still use it to bolster the 14th amendment. To do so, he resorted to different terminology: "citizenship by birth."
If section III was sufficient, there would have been no section IV or V in the decision. Surely, even YOU are smart enough to understand that and honest enough to admit it.
You said: “English common law won’t change that, but Gray felt he could still use it to bolster the 14th amendment. To do so, he resorted to different terminology: “citizenship by birth.”
NO!!! Look at what you base your theory on: “he resorted to different terminology” That is where you keep screwing up because that is just your CONCLUSION, and the case itself does not say that. Some of the terms were used interchangeably, and you are reading this stuff like some sort of obsessed religious person who makes up their own religion by mangling the Bible.
Section IV dealt with the other losing side’s arguments.
Section V dealt with saying how the 14th Amendment, what it said and concluded with: “The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens. . .
Section VI dealt with how all this worked with Chinese people.
Sooo, no. Once again you are just making up conclusions about the case. Why don’t you just try reading it in the daylight, without all the preconceived nonsense??? It really isn’t all that hard.
I have a idea. Why don’t you try debating the case one day with this rule: You don’t get to bring anything to the case that isn’t in it. No Vattel. No language from another case that isn’t already in the case. No pre-conceived conclusions. Just what the case says.
This isn't a theory. Read the decision. Gray cites "natural-born citizen" only a few times, but does so limited to where it is in Art II, Sec I, and where it is defined in the Minor decision. In contrast, Gray cites "citizenship by birth" several times, but in direct relationship to the 14th amendment, common law, and to the defendant.
... all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America ...
But Mr. Justice Story certainly did not mean to suggest that, independently of treaty, there was any principle of international law which could defeat the operation of the established rule of citizenship by birth within the United States ...
The general principle of citizenship by birth within French territory prevailed until after the French Revolution ....
There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there as any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.
Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.
So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.
In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.
The effect of the enactments conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of American parents has been defined, and the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion of the United States, notwithstanding alienage of parents, has been affirmed, in well considered opinions of the executive departments of the Government since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
These opinions go to show that, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the executive branch of the Government, the one charged with the duty of protecting American citizens abroad against unjust treatment by other nations, has taken the same view of the act of Congress of 1855, declaring children born abroad of American citizens to be themselves citizens, which, as mentioned in a former part of this opinion, the British Foreign Office has taken of similar acts of Parliament -- holding that such statutes cannot, consistently with our own established rule of citizenship by birth in this country, operate extraterritorially so far as to relieve any person born and residing in a foreign country and subject to its government, from his allegiance to that country.
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory ...
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration thatall persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.
Notice in the underlined parts how Gray keeps associating his term "citizenship by birth" directly WITH and defined BY the 14th amendment. Contrast this to how he describes natural born citizen.
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."
It's a NEGATIVE association. The Constitution (of which the 14th amendment is a part) does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. Now why on Earth would Gray not simply say "natural born citizen" for all his other references to the 14th amendment instead of "citizenship by birth"??? Because the definition he used was from Minor and it was DEPENDENT on citizen parents. Gray made a clear and separate distinction and was CONSISTENT with that distinction. NBC defined outside the constitution. CBB defined by the constitution. NBC dependent on citizen parents. CBB dependent on 14th amendment and permanent domicil.
What you are doing is STUPID. It is also a RED FLAG about pseudolaw. Which you can google.
This is not ME assuming stuff. I looked to see what a REAL court, not a pretend Internet lawyer, said:
[14] We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial.
Know what "immaterial" means??? UNIMPORTANT.IRRELEVANT. (Except to you and other Vattle Birthers)
Plus, your very own "Super Case", Minor versus Happersett, uses at least five or six different terms to describe the same thing: native born, native, natural born, citizen, native women, citizen by birth.
Plus, your Super case also contradicts you. Here is what it says:
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
Then, what do the Minor judges call people who are citizens by birth:
"it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens<.em> also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
And this is the case you swear proves everything for you. You are really way off into some major craziness the way you read some stuff, then ignore other stuff, then mis-read something else. You read minor grammar inconsistencies and make them the most important stuff in your goofy theory at the same time you just ignore the stuff that is written in plain English in the case and quoted in the case. Like:
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.
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.