Your opinion, founded on very little.
If by "very little" you mean the obvious fact that they passed a law proclaiming them to be "natural born citizens" without worrying about what soil they were born on, then you are correct. :)
By those standards, there would be no "natural born" citizens from before the naturalization act, which is obviously not true.
Come again? That sounds like a non-sequitur. The first occurrence of born "natural citizens" occurred on July 4, 1776, and has continued indefinitely ever since then.
If you look at the debates in the Congressional Globe, Feb 4th 1790, p 1160, In the midst of discussing terms of naturalization for aliens:
The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents in the 12th year of William III.
Yes, I cite that very part of the debates of the Act myself. I'm not sure what aspect of your argument it is you are attempting to support by citing it, but it seems strongly supportive of my contention that "natural citizen" status is not determined by the soil upon which someone is born, and it even cites precedent in English law. :)
So are you saying if not specifically adopted by statute, it doesn't exist in American law?
No. I'm saying that if it IS specifically adopted by statute, then you can accept it as genuine American law, even though it was previously British. It is those aspects that are NOT specifically adopted by statute that need to be looked at before being accepted as part of American law.
(A surprise to Justice Scalia and other Justices!) That having mentioned "natural born citizen" in the Constitution, they did not have a clue what it meant until February of 1790? That's absurd.
Yes it is. Why would you suggest such an absurd thing? The Delegates and the members of each ratifying state legislature very likely knew exactly what "natural born citizen meant" and the Naturalization act of 1790 reflects that knowledge, it does not attempt to alter it.
While we are on this subject, I wanted to let you know I've found several references to Vattel and the Law of Nations in several of the Debates on Ratifying the Federal constitution among several of the state legislatures. Blackstone is mentioned (in the Pennsylvania debates) in the context of how the proposed Federal constitution is DIFFERENT from the British form of government. :)
The Naturalization Act did not apply to those born on American soil. They did not have to "naturalize" or clarify the situation of those born on American soil because they were already natural born.
As virtually all of those born on the soil from 1776 onward were born of citizens of the states, except for slaves and Indians, which curiously weren't regarded as citizens, despite meeting YOUR definition, the overlap is so nearly complete as to be nearly impossible to distinguish the one from the other. Were it not for the ubiquitosity of Vattel and his widely accepted definition, the naive would think that Monarchical law created to grab servants, might hold sway. :)
Of course they get things wrong, they're human and failable. But even when wrong, it is still considered current law. You don't erase the law by claiming it is wrong.
Au Contraire, Mon Frère. That is the first step! You denounce it constantly as has been done with Roe v Wade and Kelo. By the way, speaking of which... how much respect should we have for this decision? This one judge would have flipped the entire outcome if he had only been a little more perceptive.
Sorry, but you haven't. All you have demonstrated is that you disagree with the decisions, and think they should be different.
I believe I have proved it. Perhaps you've missed some of what I have posted regarding it? The Gray court defied the legislature in their interpretation of the law. Interestingly enough, Justice Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur who might prefer to have a judge interpret the law in such a way as to make him legitimate. Even so, the decision was NOT unanimous, a tell tale sign in my opinion that something is amiss with someone's understanding.
WKA accords with our heritage of common law. Change it by changing the Constitution, not by denying it out of existence.
Again, in order to fix a problem, you first must make people aware that it IS a problem.
See the quote above. England passed a statute for this, in 1697 because this wasn't covered by common law. If it had been, no statute would have been necessary.
Well, to be picky, this guy claims it is based on an English Law from 1350, but what's a few centuries among friends? :)
The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli; this makes it co-extensive with the term “native born.” Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are “natural born” and not “naturalized” citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis is applied. England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929).
There is also the curious fact that England NEVER USES "jus soli" for their Leadership positions. They ALWAYS use "jus sanguinus." Does this not make you want to question your claim that we follow the English laws on eligibility for Governance?
Bizarre idea, and not consistent with English history of the time. Many wanted the rights of English subjects, which were mostly superior to other countries (prior to the American Revolution). A transient alien could always leave, with his children, and return to his place of origin. This is a strange argument, with no history to back it up.
Not sure what you are talking about. As bad as the English were, the French were much worse. (to the peasants, that is.) English law still required "perpetual allegiance" so unless you were planing on settling in English held territory, It wouldn't seem likely that the crown would tolerate it's subjects avoiding it's beck and call, or worse, failing to pay taxes to it. Look at how well they treated the Colonies, and those WERE English held territories. :)
Go back and reread the Naturalization Act – it specifies born beyond the sea or out of the limits of the United States. Which obviously means it doesn’t apply to those born in the United States.
Yes, I cite that very part of the debates of the Act myself. I'm not sure what aspect of your argument it is you are attempting to support by citing it, but it seems strongly supportive of my contention that "natural citizen" status is not determined by the soil upon which someone is born, and it even cites precedent in English law. :)
English common law has been clear that “born in the ligeance of the King” is natural born.
that all those that were born under one natural obedience while the realms were united under one sovereign, should remain natural born subjects, and no aliens; for that naturalization due and vested by birthright,The mention in the debates was that like England, the US should provide that those not born on American soil, but born of US citizens abroad, should also be proclaimed “natural born”.
The Delegates and the members of each ratifying state legislature very likely knew exactly what "natural born citizen meant
They did, because like many phrases in the Constitution from common law, “natural born” comes from common law.
and the Naturalization act of 1790 reflects that knowledge, it does not attempt to alter it.
The Naturalization Act extends “natural born” beyond the long time common law definition to include those born abroad. It does not replace the original meaning.
While we are on this subject, I wanted to let you know I've found several references to Vattel and the Law of Nations in several of the Debates on Ratifying the Federal constitution among several of the state legislatures. Blackstone is mentioned (in the Pennsylvania debates) in the context of how the proposed Federal constitution is DIFFERENT from the British form of government. :)
I have no doubt Vattel is mentioned at places, he was an important writer on international law. However, as Justice Scalia mentions, much of our Constitution is founded on common law. Or do you think Scalia doesn’t know what he is talking about?
As virtually all of those born on the soil from 1776 onward were born of citizens of the states, except for slaves and Indians, which curiously weren't regarded as citizens, despite meeting YOUR definition,
Which we have discussed before. Slaves were omitted because they were property. Indians were omitted because they were considered sovereign nations inside the US. You’ve been shown them before, do I have to again find the quotes showing that?
Were it not for the ubiquitosity of Vattel and his widely accepted definition, the naive would think that Monarchical law created to grab servants, might hold sway. :)
And that’s truly nuts. For the most part, the rights guaranteed Englishman were enviable compared to other pre-United States countries. The colonists did not revolt because they had the rights of British subjects, they revolted because the common law rights were denied to them.
“Of course they get things wrong, they're human and failable. But even when wrong, it is still considered current law. You don't erase the law by claiming it is wrong.
“Au Contraire, Mon Frère. That is the first step! You denounce it constantly as has been done with Roe v Wade and Kelo. By the way, speaking of which... how much respect should we have for this decision? This one judge would have flipped the entire outcome if he had only been a little more perceptive. .
Denounce all you want, but don’t claim it isn’t current law. It exists, it’s current law. You can’t wish or denounce it out of existence.
I believe I have proved it. .
Nope. You’ve shown you don’t like the decision. Not that it isn’t currently accepted law.
. Even so, the decision was NOT unanimous, a tell tale sign in my opinion that something is amiss with someone's understanding.
Shall I now give you the long list of decisions that weren’t unanimous, but which are currently accepted law?
Well, to be picky, this guy claims it is based on an English Law from 1350, but what's a few centuries among friends? :)
I think you or he is misunderstanding the difference between the laws. The 1350 law gave the rights of inheritance, but did not proclaim those born beyond the sea as natural born – you can read some excerpts in the WKA decision. Later statutes were more specific: 1708, 1731, and 1773. This makes me suspect anything this guy has written, besides the fact that he appears to contradict himself. But what’s a few centuries between friends? :)
There is also the curious fact that England NEVER USES "jus soli" for their Leadership positions. They ALWAYS use "jus sanguinus." Does this not make you want to question your claim that we follow the English laws on eligibility for Governance?
”Leadership” is very nonspecific when it comes to a monarchy. Are you referring to the monarchs, or to other positions? Links or cites, please. Also, that’s a strawman, since I never said we follow English laws on eligibility for governance, I said (as do the courts, various Attorneys General, and early American legal scholars) that we follow English common law on “natural born.”
As bad as the English were, the French were much worse. (to the peasants, that is.)
Completely agree.
English law still required "perpetual allegiance" so unless you were planing on settling in English held territory, It wouldn't seem likely that the crown would tolerate it's subjects avoiding it's beck and call, or worse, failing to pay taxes to it. Look at how well they treated the Colonies, and those WERE English held territories. :)
And once again, out ancestors did not revolt because they disliked the right of common law, they revolted because they were denied those rights.