A Digest of Select British Statutes, Comprising Those Which, According to the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court, Made to the Legislature, Appear to be in Force, in Pennsylvania
Samuel Roberts (1817)
Page 26
The children of aliens, born within the U. S. are aliens; they do not acquire citizenship by birth; 12. but remain in the condition of their parents; however, the naturalization of the father naturalizes all his children, who are in their minority and dwelling within the United States.
12. In this particular our laws differ from the English laws; but are more consistent with reason and the laws of nature. “It is presumed,” says Vattel, “that every citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of their becoming members. The country of the fathers is that of the children; and they become true citizens by their tacit consent."—“ In order to be of the country it is necessary, that a person be born of a Father who is a citizen, for if he is born there of a stranger, it will be the place of his birth, and not his country.” “ By the laws of nature alone children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter in to all their rights; the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him.” Law of Nations, B. 1. c. XIX…
http://archive.org/details/digestofselectbr00robe
h/t thalightguy
Jeff works for little barry bastard boy, aka Barry Soetoro, aka Steven Barnard Dunham, aka Baracky Obamaroid, aka, the whiz, as in a short piss.
Thanks for providing it. You have done a very rare thing, which is to provide some evidence that genuinely IS in favor of the claim that it takes two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
In fact you have produced something which, as far as I know, no one has ever produced before: A REAL source from early America, from an actual legal authority, that supports the claim.
There are some problems with the claim, though. In fact, it illustrates something that has repeatedly been true.
On those rare occasions when someone has actually produced some genuine evidence for the claim, it has ALWAYS quickly been overwhelmed by stronger evidence against it.
And this case is no exception.
First, let's list the points in favor of Samuel Roberts.
He was a Pennsylvania lawyer and judge. In fact, he presided over Pennsylvania's Fifth District Court of Common Pleas.
As a lawyer, he argued cases before the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court and was even admitted to argue cases before the United States Supreme Court.
And he wrote a book, as you pointed out: "A Digest of Select British Statutes, Comprising Those Which, According to the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court, Made to the Legislature, Appear to be in Force, in Pennsylvania."
Now let's look at the minuses.
At the peak of his career, he presided over the Court of Common Pleas for 5 or 6 counties in Pennsylvania. By the end, which was around the time he published this book, his district comprised only 3 counties.
The Court of Common Pleas wasn't even the only kind of court in Pennsylvania:
The judicial power of this commonwealth shall be vested in a supreme court, in courts of oyer and terminer and general jail-delivery, in acourt of common pleas, orphans' court, register's court, and a court of quarter sessions of the peace for each county, in justices of the peace, and in such other courts as the legislature may, from time to time, establish.
The Court of Common Pleas was basically civil court, for several counties.
Not exactly national scope, or a major US Constitutional law portfolio.
Here's a second problem: Roberts says, clearly, that US law is different from that of England. And he even quotes Vattel.
But he fails to state any basis whatsoever on which our law is taken to be different. He fails to show that Vattel was ever applied to the Constitution. He fails to quote any US law at all that establishes that our laws were different in regard to citizenship of those born within the country than the laws of England, or that they had ever been changed from the old English rule that had applied while we were Colonies of England.
So it's simply an assertion, with nothing to back it up, except the fact that he quoted Vattel. Presumably, one assumes that he believed Vattel's ideas of citizenship applied in the United States. although (like the birthers of today) he can't show that anybody ever actually adopted Vattel's rule into our law.
Elsewhere in the book, he says that the English common law is generally in force in the State of Pennsylvania.
Well... guess what was always a part of the common law?
The rule for citizenship.
And guess who else, besides Pennsylvania, adopted the English common law (or continued to simply operate under their original English charters) to the degree that the common law did not conflict with new laws that they made?
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.
In other words, there is good evidence that every single one of the original 13 Colonies promptly adopted the English common law, except to the degree that it conflicted with new laws that they passed.
And no State, as far as I can tell, EVER passed a law redefining the basic rule of citizenship to a Vattelian view.
In 1844, a New York State court judge, Vice Chancellor Sandford, concluded the same thing: All early States adopted the common law, and none of them had ever changed the basic rules of citizenship. Therefore, by American common law which applied throughout the entire United States, the common law rule was the same as had historically always been the case.
And since it was the common law of every State in the Union, it became the common law of the country.
In 1898, the US Supreme Court, in US v. Wong Kim Ark, said essentially the same thing: That the same rule had always applied, first in England, then in the English Colonies, then in the United States after the Revolution, then in the United States after the adoption of the Constitution.
By that rule, all persons born on US soil were natural born citizens.
Finally, whatever authority Roberts might have, it pales to nothing against the authority of someone like William Rawle, who directly contradicts him. Roberts' chief responsibility was judging civil cases for several Pennsylvania counties. Before he even became a lawyer, William Rawle was the United States District Attorney for the entire State of Pennsylvania. Unlike Roberts' state position, Rawle's was a US government position. So while Roberts had a responsibility to know Pennsylvania law, Rawle had a responsibility to know US law.
Roberts wrote a book that for the most part, simply compiled into one source the various English statutes that were understood to still be in force in the State of Pennsylvania.
Rawle wrote one of the most important expositions on the United States Constitution in early America. It was used as a text at Harvard, Dartmouth, West Point and probably other places.
Rawle also had an intimate acquaintance with and knowledge of the Founders and Framers that Roberts simply did not possess. As mentioned above, he is known to have met regularly and discussed politics and law with both George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, and to have been present in Philadelphia during the Constitutional Convention.
Incidentally, Rawle was also offered the posts of federal judge for the entire State of Pennsylvania, and of United States Attorney General, by George Washington, but he turned those particular posts down.
There simply is no comparison between Samuel Roberts and William Rawle.