Are you still going to keep repeating your lie that NO AUTHORITY SUPPORTS THIS NOTION!!!!!!
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.
Why should we accept Rawle’s view as the standard for what the Framers believed about what a “natural born Citizen” was? What evidence does Rawle cite to support his conclusion on what is a natural born Citizen? Rawle was an abolitionist. He became a member of the Maryland Society promoting abolition in 1792 and then its president in 1818. He also argued against the constitutionality of slavery before the state supreme court in 1805. We have to consider whether his postition on slavery colored his view of who was a “natural born Citizen.
Are you still going to keep repeating your lie that NO AUTHORITY SUPPORTS THIS NOTION!!!!!!
The vast majority of people now, like the vast majority of people at the time of our founding, have never heard of Vattel or what a relatively few people sincerely believe would have been Vattel's thoughts on the "natural born citizen" standard if he had ever thought about the matter.
A commitment to popular elections rests in part upon a belief that sound and sensible decisions will emerge from a democratic electoral process, i.e., that the consensus of 130 million voters is superior to the consensus of 9 elitist judges or 1 elitist politician. A few voters may attempt to channel an 18th century Swiss philosopher and a few may even turn to a ouija board. Fortunately, most will do neither.
A democratic republic may sound like a crazy idea, but it is the American idea. And, our Constitution is worth defending.
Now then, on to your post.
First, let's list the points in favor of Samuel Roberts.
You proceed to critique the man rather than the subject matter. No matter.
You failed to observe a key phrase in the title, "According to the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court". So you see, it is not Roberts' opinion, but that of the Judges of the Supreme Court.
Roberts does include "Some Others" (also a phrase from the title) and these are clearly marked in the Table of Statutes.
Listed in the Table of Statutes are two British Statutes concerning Aliens, one from the Report of the Judges (25 Edward III. Stat. 2), the other (7 Anne Chap. 5.) from Roberts. The pertinent part of the latter is largely a restatement of the former and seems to be included by Roberts for thoroughness.
Roberts then goes on to note,
"Prior to the American revolution, the stat. 13 Geo. II. c 7, prescribed the general rule for naturalizing such foreign Protestants, and others therein mentioned, as were settled, or should settle in the colonies.""On the establishment of the revolution, these provisions were superseded by a constitutional declaration in the old frame of government, by which every foreigner, of good character, coming to settle in Pennsylvania, having first taken the oath of allegiance, was enabled to purchase and hold real estates ; and after one year's residence was invested with all the rights of a natural born citizen, except that he was not capable of being elected a member of the legislature, till after a residence of two years."
"By the constitution of the United States however, the power of naturalizing foreigners is vested exclusively, in the legislature of the United States."
Roberts is quite right.
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.
It is plainly obvious that United States law is different from England.
There is in the Constitution no Article, Section, Clause, or anything whatsoever which incorporates the common law of England into the Federal government of the United States.
There are reception statutes in the colonies, now states. Whatever species of the common law of England extant in the several states at the time of the Adoption, are by U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2 prohibited from incorporation into the Federal government.
The constitution declares, that "this constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."
United States law is different from England.
And since it was the common law of every State in the Union, it became the common law of the country.
As mentioned, there are reception statutes in the colonies now states. So which state's common law should become the "common law of the country"? Should it be Pennsylvania? Virginia?
Is the common law of England in every state the same?
The acts of the British parliament are in force in the different states up to different periods; in some to the reign of one king, in others to that of a different king.
Thus the common law of England would be different in these two states.
Not only is the common law of England different among the states, each state legislature has altered it in different ways; thus the common law of the various states is in no way uniform.
The common law being materially different in all the sates, how can there be any common law in the United States?
How shall it be determined which of the states shall be considered as the standard, so far as to make their common law, the common law of the United States? Shall it be a majority of the states; or shall it be those states which contain a majority of the people of the United States? &c &c
Incorporation of the common law into the Federal govt is impracticable.
(Some of the above is paraphrased from "Observations of Judge Addisons Charge to the Grand Jury On the Liberty-of-the-Press" found in the Appendix to "Correspondence between George Nicholas Esq. of Kentucky, and the Hon. Robert G. Harper of South Carolina, on the subject of the Alien and Sedition Laws, 1798" The original document, as well as a transcript of the relevant pages is available.)
The jurisdiction of federal courts is defined by the U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. That written law does not grant to the federal judiciary the authority to incorporate other systems of laws of its own choosing, does not incorporate the common law of England, nor the law or constitution of the several states.
Therefore, in no way can the Federal govt. be said to be based on, or to have incorporated, the common law of England.
The children of aliens, born within the U. S. are aliens; they do not acquire citizenship by birth; 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.
Our laws differ from the English laws but are more consistent with reason and the laws of nature.
Ever hear of the Supremacy Clause?
State law is not incorporated into United States law.
Well... guess what was always a part of the common law?
The rule for citizenship.
Immaterial.
State laws are not incorporated into United States law. (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.)
English common law is not in force in the United States government.
Connecticut did not adopt English common law. Connecticut made their own laws:
The Fundamental Orders, Cl. 10 (1638) "In which said General Courts shall consist the supreme power of the Commonwealth, and they only shall have power to make laws or repeal them"
St. George Tucker (Blackstone, Note E) tells of a man brought to trial in Hartford for castrating his master's son. The court could find no law to punish him. The lawyers quoted the English statute against maiming; the court were of opinion that statute did not reach the colony because it had not been passed in the general assembly. Castration was mayhem at the common law. The court neither considered the common law nor the statute of Mayhem in force in Connecticut.
Connecticut did not adopt English common law.
Still have doubts? See Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 1-1 "since Connecticut never adopted the common law"
www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap001.htm