Replies

If you agree the 14th amendment follows common law, then you agree that born on the soil means natural born, as the common law says.

The so-called common law only defines conditions for natural born subjects. There is no common law for natural-born citizenship except for the law of nations definition given in Minor and quoted in WKA.

Saying it more often doesn't make it true. Justice Gray quoted several sources, some conflicting.

There are no sources that conflict with the Minor definition. As has been noted several times, when Gray gives the Minor definition of natural-born citizen, it is the last time he uses this term in the decision.

He quoted many sources that said the US follows common law, that "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" were analogous, etc.

Sorry, but this is simply not true. There is NOWHERE in the decision that Gray says NBS is analoug with NBC. All you have is BS.

At birth yes, but when Kenya became independent in 1963, that British citizenship was gone.

Where does it say this??

So as an adult, there was no question of British citizenship.

The issue wasn't about what citizenship Obama claims as an adult. The discussion is about the natural citizenship he would have obtained AT BIRTH.

He would have had to formally renounce, in writing, at a US consulate or embassy.

Wrong. There's no legal evidence Obama was ever a U.S. citizen, so it's not certain he would have had anything to renounce, except maybe the Indonesian citizenship he had.

Gee, funny, I don't see them affirming that they agree with the author's opinion. I see them saying it is the duty of the courts to decide the proper application of the law.

It doesn't say "proper application of the law" but instead "proper application of those PRINCIPLES ..." as in "They can only lay down the general PRINCIPLES of law ..." This is a straightforward statement that the court is following principles from law of nations ... AS conveyed by writers such as Vattel, who is fequently cited by name.

Your own citation shows you are wrong. That law does is not about "grades" of citizens, it deals with those born in outlying possessions, who are called "nationals" and their children.

Nonsense. The term of national is defined the same way a citizen is defined, but it is separated with lesser privileges. Notice in the definitions from Title 8, Chapter 12 that citizens and nationals are equated with only Minor differences, such as right to vote.

(3) The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.

(21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state. (22) The term “national of the United States” means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

Nationals who are not citizens cannot vote or hold elected office. However, they may reside and work in the United States without restrictions and apply for citizenship under the same rules as other resident aliens.

Trying to be clever, but you're failing. You keep claiming Minor defined NBC, but Minor specifically said it would not resolve the doubt.

Sorry, but YOU'RE the one trying to be clever but failing. Minor said there was NO DOUBT about NBCs. The only doubts were about the citizenship of persons who ARE NOT NBCs.

Scalia was clear that much US law is interpreted by going back to common law, particularly where the language echoed phrases from English common law. "Natural born" is clear in common law, and Rogers v Bellei and Ankeny are clear that we follow the common law.

Scalia wasn't speaking specifically about "natural born." There is legal precedent from both Minor and WKA that disputes your misinterpretation of common law. Neither Rogers and especially NOT Ankeny override the legal precedent from Minor. The only way Ankeny could try to do it was by contradicting itself several times and by avoiding any specific declaration that Obama was an NBC. Notice they did NOT ever say this.

As nice a piece of attempted obfuscation as I have seen in a while!

You say "so-called common law" - are you denying there is such a thing as common law? If you are, you have a lot of judges and legal scholars to argue with including Justices Scalia and Thomas.
You appear to be conflating Vattel's Law of Nations with the common law. You have any back up for that legal theory?
Minor did not define "natural born," he said there was doubt, and That the case would not resolve that doubt. You do understand what "doubt" means, don't you?
WKA quoted many people on common law, including those who equated "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen". Ignore it as much as you like, you won't make it disappear.

There is no "Minor definition" just "Minor doubt." And there are several sources quoted in WKA, which I have cited repeatedly, which conflict with Vattel's definition. See my post #373. Also note from Gray's quote two distinct groupings: natives or natural-born citizens as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. So, two sets of synonyms. Since he adjudged WKA not an alien/foreigner, it is quite obvious he is in the first set of synonyms: native/natural born. Or do you disagree that alien = foreigner?

Breaking up my answer into a few posts. As I mentioned to DL, I will be off line the next several days.

At birth yes, but when Kenya became independent in 1963, that British citizenship was gone.

Where does it say this??

The Kenyan Independence Act of 1963. One relevant section:

(2) Save as provided by section 3 of this Act, any person who immediately before the appointed day is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Coloniesshall on that day cease to be such a citizen if on that day he becomes a citizen of Kenya.

Then go look at the 1963 Constitution of Kenya, which specifies in Section VI that

Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.

Which means when Sr. became a Kenyan citizen, so did 0bama, and both lost British citizenship.

There's no legal evidence Obama was ever a U.S. citizen, so it's not certain he would have had anything to renounce, except maybe the Indonesian citizenship he had.

Ah, so you're one of those "it doesn't matter what certificates are shown, it doesn't matter what Hawaii says, he wasn't born here" types. The evidence is very strong that he was, indeed, born in Hawaii. And there has been no credible evidence that he was born elsewhere.

This is a straightforward statement that the court is following principles from law of nations ... AS conveyed by writers such as Vattel, who is fequently cited by name.

Yes, in regards to domicile as applied to whether the merchant may have his ship seized. The owners of the ships had been British, were naturalized US citizens, who returned to Britain and were resident there when war broke out. You want to equate them with "natural born"? Another funny thing for your contention, the Justice also cites common law - did you notice?

Good try. Look at the original portion you cited which says

INA: ACT 308 - NATIONALS BUT NOT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH

Nationals are not citizens. Your own citation says so.

In deciding whether a person has obtained the right of an acquired domicile, it is not to be expected that much if any assistance should be derived from mere elementary writers on the law of nations. They can only lay down the general principles of law...

As to your continued insistence that Minor defined NBC, the case didn't and said it wouldn't. It gave one instance of someone who clearly was an NBC, but didn't exclude others. Your insistence is an example of a composition fallacy.

Scalia wasn't speaking specifically about "natural born."

No, but he sure did speak to much of the Constitution being based on common law, and that phrases well known in common law (natural born subject) were often directly used or modified into the Constitution.

There is legal precedent from both Minor and WKA that disputes your misinterpretation of common law. Neither Rogers and especially NOT Ankeny override the legal precedent from Minor. The only way Ankeny could try to do it was by contradicting itself several times and by avoiding any specific declaration that Obama was an NBC. Notice they did NOT ever say this.

There was no "legal precedent from Minor" to override, since Minor specifically said it was not going to address the doubt. (Do you understand what legal precedent is?)Rogers v Bellei affirmed

Our law in this area follows the English concept of jus soli

which is pretty clear cut. Ankeny said

he Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Ankeny did not have a reason to specifically state 0bama was an NBC - that wasn't the question before them. The question was whether to overrule the lower court ruling. Did you read the case? For those who need things spelled out, they also cite Diaz v INS,

noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”

They have cited a whole category - children who are natural born though their fathers were not citizens. Is that clear enough for you?

And that's it for me for the next 4-5 days. May they bring you more wisdom and better reading comprehension.