Posted on 12/26/2023 5:52:00 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Notwithstanding the commentary of Samuel Roberts vis-a-vis Vattel, "it is the right of every nation to determine by what means any one shall become entitled to the quality of a citizen, or to admission into the body of the political society."
Following the 14th Amendment, and subsequent political legislation to that effect: those born within the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens from the moment of their birth, and hence natural born.
Re: 150 - American Indians are a unique situation, as the U.S. Government negotiated treaties with essentially indigenous nations. And some treaties conveyed citizenship such as the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek. And “Indians not taxed” were excluded from citizenship via the Civil Rights Act in the late 1860s. Then there was the Dawes Act which tied citizenship to land alottments. All very interesting.
It's the nice time of year in Texas. Cool days, cooler nights. Perfect for sittin' outside and contemplating the stuff I'll probably never do.
Yeah, folks will believe what they want, or repeat what they've been told something means just out of habit. I hit the NBC and unCivil War threads in the hopes of having someone with an open mind see there's more than one point of view on theses things.
That... and I'm kind of a contrarian, too. 😉
That is absolutely incorrect. The 14th did not change the meaning of "natural born."
If you go look at the debates on the 14th amendment, you quickly learn that congress regarded the entire thing as a blanket naturalization law. They even say so.
The 14th amendment is one big naturalization law for slaves. It's only effect is naturalization because under the concept of "natural law", which was a big thing in the later half of the 17th century, laws must reflect God's design.
You cannot make natural by statute that which is not already natural.
Anyone deriving their citizenship exclusively from the 14th amendment, is *NOT* a "natural born citizen."
And it wasn't Samuel Roberts. His book is based on the entire works of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the several living members of it did not contradict him after his book was published.
Now I ask you, who better than the legal community of Philadelphia would know what was the Framers intent in 1787, where all the legal minds were gathered to discuss the US Constitution? Opinions from Boston or Richmond are less certain than what comes from the very place where the document was debated.
Samuel Roberts was trained by William Lewis, who was part of the Ratifying body in Pennsylvania. Many of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania court of errors and appeals) also had connections to the process.
William Lewis was William Rawle's co-counsel in Negress Flora vs Joseph Grainsberry, where Rawle tried to float his English common law theory, and was shot down unanimously.
Both slaves and Indians were exceptions to the "born here you are a citizen" rule. So were the Chinese until Wong Kim Ark.
The English law rule was created simply to dragoon as many people into the service of the King as was possible. It was only intended for Monarchical power, it was never intended to govern a Republic.
:)
Re: 165 - understood. Just noting there is really no analogue to American Indians.
Re: 164 - this is a good exercise; and there is a body of law that does not agree with the position you discuss.
Can you name a Federal judiciary member since ~1900 that espouses the viewpoint you are discussing? Or has authored an Opinion that discusses in detail the viewpoint you have discussed?
You want to see law? Here ya go!This was the results of work done by the Pennsylvania Supreme court in determining which English statues apply in Pennsylvania. I will remind you that Philadelphia was where the convention was held, and the legal community of Philadelphia (including some of these judges) actually participated in the creation and ratification of the US Constitution.
This is as close as it gets to the horses mouth.
You were busted trying to pass off this same steaming turd on July 26, 2023.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4169134/posts?page=159#159
159 posted on 7/25/2023, 5:40:10 PM by DiogenesLamp
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4169134/posts?page=168#168
168 posted on 7/26/2023, 6:55:28 AM by Penelope Dreadful
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4169134/posts?page=169#169
169 posted on 7/26/2023, 6:17:26 PM by woodpusher
There you presented your crap with an unlinked image of a page from a different source. It was slick but you got caught.
As I stated there:
It is, indeed, thrilling that someone with the Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania expressed an opinion you so cherish that you attributed it to four other people you say were at the Constitutional Convention. The author of your book was born in 1763 and died in 1820. The youngest delegate to the Constitutional Convention was Jonathan Dayton, age 26. Your author would have been, at best, 24.
As noted:
You can get rid of all those judges you cited. They have nothing to do with the page 26 you exhibited. The page you exhibited was written by the President of the Courts of Common Pleas, of the Fifth Judicial District of Pennsylvania who was never a justice of the supreme court of anywhere, and not by anyone else.
Moreover, as I further noted in July:
With all that being said, anything issued prior to the 14th Amendment, and inconsistent with it, would be struck down by the 14th Amendment. It does not matter what was said or who said it.All that trouble of mismatching the title page of a book, and a text page from another book, and attributing the authorship of one to the text of the other, gone to waste when you could have been doing something productive, such as reading some Pennsylvania law.
§ 1503. Applicability of colonial law.(a) English law.--The common law and such of the statutes of England as were in force in the Province of Pennsylvania on May 14, 1776 and which were properly adapted to the circumstances of the inhabitants of this Commonwealth shall be deemed to have been in force in this Commonwealth from and after February 10, 1777.
https://famguardian.org/Publications/PropertyRights/Precept.html
Reception statute of Pennsylvania, 1777:[[section]]1. "Each and every one of the laws or acts of general assembly, that were in force and binding on the inhabitants of the said province on the 14th day of May last, shall be in force and binding on the inhabitants of this state, from and after the 10th day of February next, as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if the said laws, and each of them, had been made or enacted by this general assembly . . . . and the common law and such of the statute laws of England, as have heretofore been in force in the said province, except as hereafter excepted.
[[section]]2. Provided always, that so much of every law or act of general assembly of the province aforesaid, as orders taking or subscribing any oath, affirmation or declaration of allegiance or fidelity to the king of Great Britain, or his successors, or oath of office; and so much of every law or act of general assembly aforesaid, as acknowledges any authority in the heirs or devisees of William Penn, Esq., deceased, the former governor of the said province, or any other person whomsoever as governor; and so much of every law or act of general assembly, as ascertains the number of members of assembly in any county, the time of election and the qualifications of electors; and so much of every law or act of assembly aforesaid, as declares, orders, directs or commands any matter or thing repugnant to, against, or inconsistent with the constitution of this commonwealth, is hereby declared not to be revived, but shall be null and void, and of no coerce or effect; and so much of the statute laws of England aforesaid relating to felonies, as takes notice of or relates to treason or misprision of treason, or directs the style of the process in any case whatsoever, shall be, and is hereby declared, of no force or effect, anything herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding."
Pennsylvania, Act of 1777, An Act to revive and put in force such and so much of the late laws of the province on Pennsylvania, as is judged necessary to be in force in this commonwealth, and to revive and establish the Courts of Justice, and for other purposes therein mentioned.
II. Be it therefore enacted, and it is hereby enacted, That each and every one of the laws or acts of General Assembly, that were in force and binding on the inhabitants of the said be province on the fourteenth day of May last, shall be in force from and binding on the inhabitants of this state from and after the tenth day of February next, as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if the said laws, and each of them, had been made or enacted by this General Assembly; and all and every person and persons whomsoever are hereby enjoined and required to yield obedience to the said laws, as the case may require until the said laws or acts of General Assembly respectively shall be repealed or altered, or until they expire by their own limitation; and the common law and such of the statute laws of England as have heretofore been in force in the said province, except as is hereafter excepted.
And I repeat now what I said then:
With all that being said, anything issued prior to the 14th Amendment, and inconsistent with it, would be struck down by the 14th Amendment. It does not matter what was said or who said it.
You misrepresented the book and the author. You hid the name of the book and the singular author. And it is NOT a report from the judges of the Supreme Court.
The page is from a book by a single judge from the Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania. Judge Samuel Roberts' only connection to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was that he was admitted to practice at said court. He was never a justice of that court.
Roberts was the sole author of the book, A Digest of Select British Statutes. There were no co-authors. Judge Roberts is the sole author of your exhibited page 26. The book is a recitation of British Statute Law by Roberts.
My argument is that the courts are often filled with ignorant people who are unaware of the truth prior to making their rulings, and therefore they bungle the law because they are ignorant.How many of those courts knew of that Pennsylvania Supreme Court book?
You mean the book by Samuel Roberts, a solitary judge from the Court of Common Pleas, which you presented as being from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania? That one? The one you were busted for, July 26, 2023?
A Digest of Select British Statutes. There were no co-authors. Judge Roberts is the sole author of your exhibited page 26. The book is a recitation of British Statute Law by Roberts.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4169134/posts?page=159#159
159 posted on 7/25/2023, 5:40:10 PM by DiogenesLamp
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4169134/posts?page=168#168
168 posted on 7/26/2023, 6:55:28 AM by Penelope Dreadful
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4169134/posts?page=169#169
169 posted on 7/26/2023, 6:17:26 PM by woodpusher
[DiogenesLamp] Thank you sir, may I have another.
Was she a "natural born citizen" by the standards of 1787?
YES, Nikki Haley is a natural born citizen by the standards of 1787. George Washington was not a natural born citizen by the standards of 1787 or any other time.
The standard did not change. 14A put it beyond the power of Congress to limit what native born children were born citizens of the United States.
"What year is it to you? 2023 or 1825?"As a matter of fact, yes. Rawle wrote "A View of the Constitution" in 1825. After the Civil War, the 14th amendment was passed in 1866. Your historical research should have made that clear to you."Did someone pass a constitutional amendment in the intervening time?"
Regardless, what current US citizenship laws and USSC decisions are, supersede any historical laws and opinions of what the law should be. This is a point those bringing up historical arguments on what they think the law is, meaning what they want it to be, keep ignoring.
Re: 168 - “…and there is a body of CASE law…”
Do better!
Yes, often the ignorant are all on the same side.
Can you name a Federal judiciary member since ~1900 that espouses the viewpoint you are discussing? Or has authored an Opinion that discusses in detail the viewpoint you have discussed?
IS MR. CHARLES EVANS HUGHES A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION?
And of course the book got a second edition in the 1840s if I recall correctly.
None of those brilliant legal minds in Pennsylvania thought to call it out?
You're just wrong my dude.
Now that is such an egregious error I can only think that in your haste and emotional excitement, you didn't think about what you wrote.
George Washington was a natural born SUBJECT of Britain. He and others could only serve as President due to the additional sentence of "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution."
The constitution was adopted in 1789, and everyone here had become "citizens" July 4, 1776. So George fits in on the second part, not the first.
The standard did not change. 14A put it beyond the power of Congress to limit what native born children were born citizens of the United States.
You forgot the Indians. There is another mistake you made.
Standards with exceptions aren't really standards, are they?
You are trying to claim that an amendment (one not even legitimately passed) to give citizenship to freed slaves, somehow re-wrote the Presidential eligibility requirements?
What, are you one of those believers in the "living constitution" where it means whatever you want it to mean and you don't have to worry with all that nasty amendment process?
Apart from that, the 14th is a naturalization process. Everyone who is made into a citizen by the 14th, is a naturalized citizen. They are naturalized by this amendment. The people debating the amendment even *SAY* it is a naturalization law.
So no, naturalized citizens don't get to be president. Well, they didn't before Obama came along.
Regardless, what current US citizenship laws and USSC decisions are, supersede any historical laws and opinions of what the law should be.
Yeah, that ole Supreme Court never gets anything wrong. Plessey v Ferguson anyone?
It’s a big lift that judges of all legal stripes are reading the issue wrong. I’m not saying that it’s not possible. But it seems unlikely that they ALL are.
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, Long was not a member of the Federal Judiciary.
There is a body of case law on Roe v Wade and Plessey v Ferguson. I don't believe in infallible courts. In fact, I have a very low opinion of the competency and honesty of courts. My observations are that courts routinely screw up their role of dispensing justice, such as in the case of Derick Chauvin, convicted of murder when he didn't kill anyone.
I could go on a long rant about how many courts have ruled absolutely ridiculous things, like the Colorado Supreme court regarding Trump on the ballot, but i'm sure you don't want to hear it.
I am not impressed with courts ability to come to a valid conclusion. Too often they fail.
Agreed on Roe and Plessey being wrongly decided.
The Supreme Court does not always get it right for sure. And Justices would echo that.
And as in the case of the Colorado Supreme Court, sometimes they get it really wrong. Things usually get worked out - but it can take time. Heck, the 2nd Amendment was not fully incorporated until 2010! :)
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.