You are dense, aren't you? TO EACH OTHER is NOT inheriting from their parents who were aliens at the time of their birth. It is inheriting TO EACH OTHER.
I can see why you are SO wrong on this topic. You simply CANNOT understand anything you read.
Posted on 05/30/2012 6:10:45 AM PDT by circumbendibus
Birtherism -- the belief that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not in the United States -- pretty much died last year when the White House released a copy of the president's long-form birth certificate showing he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. After that, the number of Americans who doubted Obama's place of birth dropped dramatically.
But not to zero. In recent days, there has been a mini-resurgence of birther talk, from Arizona, where the secretary of state questioned Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot, to Iowa, where some Republicans want to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility for office.
The talk has gone beyond Obama, with some buzz on the Internet suggesting Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a leading Republican vice presidential contender, is not a natural-born American citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
Here is how Blackstone explains it as it involves aliens - and aliens are a more accurate item of discussion for our purposes:
“SIR Edward Coke50 also holds, that if an alien comes into England, and there has issue two sons, who are thereby natural born subjects; and one of them purchases land, and dies; yet neither of these brethren can be heir to the other. For the commune vinculum , or common stock of their consanguinity, is the father; and, as he had no inheritable blood in him, he could communicate none to his sons; and, when the sons can by no possibility be heirs to the father, the one of them shall not be heir to the other. And this opinion of his seems founded upon solid principles of the ancient law; not only from the rule before cited,51 that cestuy, que doit inheriter al pere, doit inheriter al fits [he who is heir to the father is heir to the son]; but also because we have seen that the only feudal foundation upon which newly purchased land can possibly descend to a brother, is the supposition and fiction of law, that it descended from some one of his ancestors: but in this case as the immediate ancestor was an alien, from whom it could by no possibility descend, this should destroy the supposition, and impede the descent, and the land should be inherited ut feudum stricte novum [as a fee strictly new]; that is, by none but the lineal descendants of the purchasing brother; and, on failure of them, should escheat to the lord of the fee. But this opinion has been since overruled:52 and it is now held for law, that the sons of an alien, born here, may inherit to each other. And reasonably enough upon the whole: for, as (in common purchases) the whole of the supposed descent from indefinite ancestors is but fictitious, the law may as well suppose the requisite ancestor as suppose the requisite descent.
IT is also enacted, by the statute II & 12 W III. c. 6. that all persons, being natural-born subjects of the king, may inherit and make their titles by descent from any of their ancestors lineal or collateral; although their father, or mother, or other ancestor, by, from, through, or under whom they derive their pedigrees, were born out of the king’s allegiance. But inconveniences were afterwards apprehended, in case persons should thereby gain a future capacity to inherit, who did not exist at the death of the person last seized. As, if Francis the elder brother of John Stiles be an alien, and Oliver the younger be a natural-born subject, upon John’s death without issue his lands will descend to Oliver the younger brother: now, if afterwards Francis has a child, it was feared that, under the statute of king William, this newborn child might defeat the estate of his uncle Oliver. Wherefore it is provided, by the statute 25 Geo. II. c. 39. that no right of inheritance shall accrue by virtue of the former statute to any persons whatsoever, unless they are in being and capable to take as heirs at the death of the person last seized: — with an exception however to the case, where lands shall descend to the daughter of an alien; which daughter shall resign such inheritance to her after-born brother, or divide it with her after-born sisters, according to the usual rule53 of descents by the common law.”
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/blackstone/william/comment/book2.15.html
To repeat for emphasis:
“IT is also enacted, by the statute II & 12 W III. c. 6. that all persons, being natural-born subjects of the king, may inherit and make their titles by descent from any of their ancestors lineal or collateral; although their father, or mother, or other ancestor, by, from, through, or under whom they derive their pedigrees, were born out of the king’s allegiance.”
To make matters more complex, aliens were not allowed to hold property:
“As aliens cannot inherit, so far they are on a level with bastards; but, as they are also disabled to hold by purchase,47 they are under still greater disabilities. And, as they can neither hold by purchase, nor by inheritance, it is almost superfluous to say that they can have no heirs, since they can have nothing for an heir to inherit: but so it is expressly held,48 because they have not in them any inheritable blood.”
However, an alien could have property in a foreign country - for example, in the US.
The Venus is a painful case to read, but it gives an idea of the complexity that could be involved:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12/253/case.html
No. SCOTUS specifically said it was not going to decide if the US-born children of aliens or foreigners were even citizens at all. In Minor, SCOTUS specifically defined Constitutional natural born citizens as those born in the US to US citizen parents.
Aliens are those who have not yet become denizens.
There should be no confusion on your part. The English-born children of aliens DO NOT have the same privileges as English-born children of English subjects. That's why Blackstone deliberately used the disclaimer, "generally speaking."
If they were the same, there would be no need for the disclaimer Blackstone used.
Blackstone IS very clear:
“But this opinion has been since overruled:52 and it is now held for law, that the sons of an alien, born here, may inherit to each other. ...IT is also enacted, by the statute II & 12 W III. c. 6. that all persons, being natural-born subjects of the king, may inherit and make their titles by descent from any of their ancestors lineal or collateral; although their father, or mother, or other ancestor, by, from, through, or under whom they derive their pedigrees, were born out of the king’s allegiance.”
If a denizen died, the property he had would go to a son born after the denization. If a son had been born in the UK prior to denization, that son was a NBS and could inherit from anyone. But a son who was not a NBS, and who was born before denization, was not eligible.
You cannot take a sentence fragment out of context and then proclaim yourself an expert in British law. You actually have to read whole sentences, and maybe even paragraphs. To fully appreciate it, you would have to study for years.
Blackstone wasn’t a blowhard. He was an expert. But even with Blackstone, you can’t take a sentence fragment and declare victory.
An expert who KNEW he needed to use a disclaimer. So he deliberately used one.
Had such NOT been the case, Blackstone would have simply stated his opinion as fact. He did not. He specifically framed his opinion as "generally speaking."
And the exceptions have been explained to you.
The children of aliens, born in the realm, were natural born subjects. They could inherit from anyone. They were full up natural born subjects.
Exceptions to that rule were for ambassadors and invading armies. There was also some variation based on who controlled what land during war.
Obama Jr wasn’t the son of an ambassador. His father wasn’t part of an invading army. If Obama was born in Hawaii, then control of the territory was not open to dispute. If born in Hawaii, he falls under the Founder’s understanding of natural born citizen, because he met the rules for a natural born subject.
FALSE.
Blackstone: "...upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue of a denizen, born before denization, cannot inherit to him; but his issue born after, may."
English-born children of aliens CANNOT inherit from their parents, even AFTER their parents become denizens. What about that do you not understand?
What I understand is that you are incapable of reading even a single sentence without getting it backwards. Blackstone, and other authorities I’ve cited, DO make it clear. But there is no cure for stupid. And there isn’t much doubt about why you are a birther.
Blackstone is telling you right then and there that there are SIGNIFICANT differences between the privileges of ACTUAL natural born subjects and the "generally speaking natural born subjects" on which he opined.
You're calling me stupid when YOU can't understand what Blackstone actually wrote? When you can't tell the difference between fact and an opinion qualified by a disclaimer? Look in the mirror when you say that, man.
So looking further than your snippet, the court instanced one category (to which Virginia Minor belonged) of which there was no doubt. The court then mentioned a category of which there have been doubts, and declared it was not going to address that doubt for the purposes of the case at hand. Note that the court gives only two classes of citzens: born and naturalized.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 [Footnote 6] 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, [Footnote 7]" 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.
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. 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.
Note also that later cases, such as WKA did address the issue, and that SCOTUS in Rogers v. Bellei declared
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.
Blackstone included a disclaimer because not all children of aliens born in the UK were NBS.
And you cannot understand law by reading sentence fragments. Sometimes you need to read paragraphs, or even pages. But in your case, we may need to provide animation...or really large crayons.
The relevant passage from Minor v. Happersett:
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 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. 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.Not sure how you could possibly misconstrue that, but you have. The doubts are as to whether those born to non-citizen parents are even citizens at all. And SCOTUS was correct in expressing those doubts. Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, very clearly stated, "What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
The children of aliens or foreign parents quite clearly may owe allegiance to a foreign nation/sovereign at birth, as did Obama. The DNC's 'Fight the Smears' website openly admitted such.
That's part of it. The other part is that Blackstone states shortly thereafter that English-born children of aliens CANNOT inherit from their parents. They DO NOT have that privilege. Blackstone had to qualify his statement with a disclaimer because the English-born children of aliens DID NOT have the same privileges as English-born children of English subjects.
That won't change no matter how many times you try to argue against it. It was a firm matter of English law.
Did you at any point read Trumbull’s quote in context? It seems like you didn’t (although repeatedly urged to do so) because he explained what he meant more fully. The key was those under “complete jurisdiction” was “subject to our laws” as opposed to the “sort of allegiance” owed by even foreign diplomats residing in the US.
Somehow, you never do address the rest of Senator Trumbull’s speech, just the one snippet you took out of context. And then you keep repeating it as if that would cover your ignorance of the context.
“The other part is that Blackstone states shortly thereafter that English-born children of aliens CANNOT inherit from their parents.”
What Blackstone ACTUALLY wrote:
“But this opinion has been since overruled: and it is now held for law, that the sons of an alien, born here, may inherit to each other. ...IT is also enacted, by the statute II & 12 W III. c. 6. that all persons, being natural-born subjects of the king, may inherit and make their titles by descent from any of their ancestors lineal or collateral; although their father, or mother, or other ancestor, by, from, through, or under whom they derive their pedigrees, were born out of the king’s allegiance.”
At this point, continuing to claim that Blackstone says “English-born children of aliens CANNOT inherit from their parents” is a LIE. He very specifically states that they can, “from any of their ancestors lineal or collateral”.
Alien or not doesn’t matter: “although their father, or mother, or other ancestor...were born out of the king’s allegiance”.
Your sentence fragment doesn’t mean what you think it means, any more than Minor means what birthers claim.
“it is now held for law, that the sons of an alien, born here, may inherit to each other.” Collateral inheritance.
I’m sorry to hear your sentence fragment confuses you. Sentence fragments often do. That is why the law is not written in sentence fragments.
It is OK for you to be in error. It is not OK to lie about what someone wrote. Blackstone was very clear.
“And then you keep repeating it as if that would cover your ignorance of the context.”
And that is why I am done with this thread. It is like trying to have an honest discussion with a 2 year old.
You are dense, aren't you? TO EACH OTHER is NOT inheriting from their parents who were aliens at the time of their birth. It is inheriting TO EACH OTHER.
I can see why you are SO wrong on this topic. You simply CANNOT understand anything you read.
There is NO instance in which Trumbull EVER said that only children of diplomats owe allegiance to anybody else. You are ascribing meaning which simply ISN’T THERE there merely because you wish it to be. That’s why the opinions of people like you are so easy for those with an agenda to manipulate.
No. You're WRONG ...AGAIN.
Read the entire passage from which you quoted. It's number 6, here:
books.google.com/books?id=T72cphlJhR4C&pg=PA186&lpg=PA185
The law was the same in the US. Children of aliens, even though they themselves were citizens, COULD NOT inherit from their parents. Plenty of citations, here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=qj48AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA257#v=onepage&q&f=false
It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws that we think of making citizens;and said
The senator from Missouri and myself desire to arrive at the same point precisely, and that is to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States. We cannot make a citizen of the child of a foreign minister who is temporarily residing here. There is a difficulty in framing the amendment so as to make citizens of all the people born in the United States, and who owe allegiance to it. I thought that might, perhaps, be the best form in which to put the amendment at one time, 'that all persons born in the United States, and owing allegiance thereto, are hereby declared to be citizens;' but, upon investigation, it was found that a sort of allegiance was due to the country from persons temporarily residing in it whom we would have no right to make citizens,”And now, like Mr. Rogers, I weary of trying to help you understand the actual record when you are fixated on finding snippets that support the position you want to hold. Self delusion does not help get 0bama out of office.
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.