Those laws allowed children born within nine months of a predeceased parent to inherit. That did not give them any substantive rights, however, until such time as they were born! (That is ignoring, of course, any nasty rule-against-perpetuity problems!)
Furthermore, by your logic and interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, non-naturalized aliens would not be persons either, because they were not born in the United States.
Under the Fourteenth Amdendments, they are not. Under other laws (generally treaties with their home countries), they are entitled to basic due process protections.
Good post, though. It contained more than bumper sticker witticisms or "You're a liberal!" accusations.
This is just incorrect. Perhaps you don't regard property as a substantive right, but besides that, what do you think the common law term, life in being actually means? Clusty en ventre sa mere.
...Two cases decided in the late eighteenth century are representative of English common law. Doe v. Clarke held that an unborn child is one of the "children living" at the time of a testator's demise, and Thellusson s'. Woodford enumerated fetal rights as including recovery, execution, devise and injunction. American courts were not hesitant to pick up the English common law, as evidenced by Hall v. Hancock in 1834 when it was held that a grandson born almost nine months after the testator's death was a beneficiary under a bequest to such grandchildren "as may be living at my death."In America, Crisfotd v. Starr established the rule that an infant en ventre sa mere is deemed in esse for the purpose of taking an estate in remainder the same as if born.
The Rule Against Perpetuities is perhaps the best instance of the en ventre sa mere doctrine coming into play. It is well established that a child en ventre sa mere is a life in being at the death of the testator. This effectuates an extension of the period recovered by the Rule to 21 years and period of gestation.
In the area of trusts, the en ventre sa mere doctrine is just as firmly noted: upon the father's death, a child may be an income recipient of the father's trust before it is born.
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar28.htmz,
Under the Fourteenth Amdendments, they [non-naturalized aliens] are not.
Nobody argues that foreigners become persons become "persons" by becoming naturalized citizens.
Person In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed.Immigrants certainly do not lack the legal capacity to sue as 'persons' in civil courts of U.S. jurisdiction before they are naturalized. If I were to commit a tort against an illegal alien, and then assert the defense in a civil court that "non-persons" can't sue me I would be laughed out of court.
In the grammar of the Fourteenth Amendment the subject "persons" is described as having been subject to the actions of being born or naturalized. It means "All persons [who were] born or naturalized in the United States." It is as grammatically stupid to interpret this clause as, "All persons [who became persons by being] born or naturalized in the United States", as it is to assert that foreigners become persons by becoming naturalized citizens.
Cordially,