Posted on 12/06/2008 4:18:27 PM PST by Deepest End
What would this mean for Bobby Jindal?
Bobby Jindal was born in Baton Rouge LA in 1971 - I think that qualifies him for a “natural born citizen.”
If either of them were not US citizens, then he would not be eligible.
bttt
Since Congress defined what is meant by a ‘natural born citizen’ in the Naturalization Act of 1790, and President George Washington signed it, then it seems that those who participated in the writing and adoption of the Constitution realized that clarification was needed, and believed that Congress had the authority to do so.
Thanks. However, I will wait for the opinion of the Four Constrict Constructionist members of the SCOTUS.
Ah you say, 'where's the proof Obama has done that?' Good question, and since the issue of natural-born citizenship regarding a POTUS candidate is all about divided loyalties, why is it that the affirmative action democrat candidate has not been required to show his records for college entry, college funding, and travel particulars at age 20? There is a credible question as to his dual citizenship which he admitted to.
How do We The People weigh his loyalties if the lying little bastard won't allow his history to be seen? And if you want that creep to be your president without answering those crucial questions, congratulations, you are no longer a sovereign American because you no longer hold the Constitution to be your soveriegn contract with elected representatives, and you are one of the 'democratic sheeple'.
BTW, is this the next on the obamanoid / Axelrod talking points misdirection page? You’re not smart enough—judging by your posts previously—to have come up with Bobby Jindal ...
Use the 1795 re-issued version.
Incorrect. See US v. Wong Kim Ark. The US operated under the law of Jus Soli.
But if you accept the authority of Congress to define what is a natural-born citizen, then it is an issue of statute law and not natural law or Constitutional law. Congress can pass a bill tomorrow saying anyone with at least on US-citizen parent is a citizen.
And when it is revealed that the Four Strict Constructionist Conservatives on the SCOTUS do not take this case, what will you say about them?
What will you say about Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Aliito?
I thought you were asking the question in the context of Donofrio's position. That is what he claims. We'll see.
See US v. Wong Kim Ark. The US operated under the law of Jus Soli.
Yes, that is correct.
Not incorrect, your opinion.
See US v. Wong Kim Ark. The US operated under the law of Jus Soli.
OK, let's see:
Why U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Can Never Be Considered Settled Birthright Law
By P.A. Madison on December 10, 2006
Updated 12/1/08
There is a misconception floating around that suggests the ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark is the definite guiding rule of interpretation over the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause. Worst, some even go as far to suggest Wong Kim Ark is settled law. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Reading the majorities opinion in Kim Ark, one can’t help but wonder why so much emphasis is being placed on such obscure and irrelevant historical overviews as colonial and foreign law. With two previous established court decisions that substantially covered the same ground regarding the meaning and application of the words found under the fourteenth amendments citizenship clause, leaves one to wonder what is going on here?
Deeper into the decision, justice Horace Gray (writing for the majority) reveals exactly what the majority is up to: They are attempting to avoid discussion over the construction of the clause by the two Senators whom are most responsible for its language found in the Constitution, Jacob M. Howard and Lyman Trumbull.
It is clear the Wong Kim Ark majority recognized the only viable approach to the conclusion they sought was to somehow distant themselves from the recorded history left behind by the citizenship clause framers. Justice Gray made no attempt to hide this fact when he wrote: “Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.”
Justice John Paul Stevens would take issue with this inept attempt by the majority to rewrite the Constitution: “A refusal to consider reliable evidence of original intent in the Constitution is no more excusable than a judge’s refusal to consider legislative intent.”
The Wong Kim Ark court was refusing to look at both the original meaning behind the words because they knew it would be fatal to their predetermined intent of reversing what Congress had inserted into the US Constitution. So they set out to avoid Howard and Trumbull like the plague.
Reviewing what both Sen. Howard and Sen. Trumbull, who were responsible for the drafting of the citizenship clause, clearly declared the intended effect of the clause; leavening little doubt to why justice Gray desired to avoid the legislative history and previous court rulings on the effect of this language.
Howard presents a major hurdle for the majority when he specifically declared the clause to be “virtue of natural law and national law,” never once making any reference to the common law doctrine. Perhaps this is why Gray wasted much of his commentary along common law themes. National law posed too large of a hurdle to dismiss outright - as national law only recognized citizenship by birth to those who were not subject to some other foreign power.
John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant.
Lyman Trumbull presents an insurmountable barrier of his own by declaring: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
Sen. Howard follows up by stating that: “the word ‘jurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
Howard then goes on to declare, “Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction.”
As mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court had already tackled the meaning of the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause prior to Wong Kim Ark, and unlike the Kim Ark court, did consider the intent and meaning of the words by those who introduced the language of the clause. In the Slaughterhouse cases the court noted “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
Even the dissenting minority affirmed that the result of the citizenship clause was designed to ensure that all persons born within the United States were both citizens of the United States and the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.
The court in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) correctly determined that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States required “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Both Jacob Howard and Lyman Trumbull affirm this.
The issue before the court was really whether existing citizenship could be denied. Wong Kim Ark was claiming he was a citizen and the Government was denying his citizenship. Consequently, the court had to first determine how Wong Kim Ark could be a citizen to begin with. The invented solution evidently was found in Wong Kim Ark’s parents apparent “permanent domicile” that could have somehow made his parents fully subjects of United States jurisdiction.
When all was said and done, the majority in Wong Kim Ark reveals their true nonsensical position: “To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”
Well now, there was no issue involved that said citizenship was being withheld on account of the 14th Amendment to American citizens, and had the court bothered to consider the history of the amendment, they would have easily discovered it was all about granting citizenship as established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child. The idea of withholding citizenship upon birth to subjects of other countries within the limits of this country was, well, the desired result of declaring who is, and who isn’t, a citizen of the United States.
The court in Minor vs. Happersett (1874) acknowledged that some, not all, but some authorities go as far to “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 [born to American citizens].”
It was these kind of doubts Howard desired to settle through constitutional amendment. Sen. Howard said of the amendment: “It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.”
To add additional insult, the court says: “Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.” Yet, the court refused to recognize the fact the United States had done just that through its revised statutes and Constitution.
The most significant truth to come out of the entire Wong Kim Ark ruling comes from Chief Justice Fuller himself, when he said, “the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words ‘and not subject to any foreign power.’” He was absolutely correct.
Only reason the language of the Fourteenth differs from the civil rights bill of 1866, which used the language “and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed” to restrict citizenship, is because Sen. Howard feared a State could begin taxing Indians, thereby making them eligible for citizenship. Because Indians, and other classes of foreigners whom Congress and the States desired to withhold citizenship from, owed allegiance to a foreign power (Indian tribes were considered independent nations), the Fourteenth would become just as restrictive against Indians by demanding full jurisdiction on part of the United States as with any other class of foreigners.
It was the U.S. government who argued Wong Kim Ark was not born subject to the jurisdiction to the United States. Obviously then, the Federal Government had no difficulty in understanding the words of its own revised statutes or constitutional amendment.
For the majority to have been correct with their conclusion they would have to demonstrate how it was possible the States and Federal Government retained England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine. This “natural allegiance” was something most everyone despised and hated. Fuller argued this “rule making locality of birth the criterion of citizenship because creating a permanent tie of allegiance, no more survived the American Revolution than the same rule survived the French Revolution.”
Without the existence of this “natural allegiance,” the common law doctrine of citizenship by birth can not exist. Virginia rejected the English doctrine outright by requiring by law for the father to be a citizen of the commonwealth at birth for the child to be a citizen (natural law).
The most damning indictment against the majority’s conclusion came in the year 1874 with a joint Congressional report that declared the “United States have not recognized a double allegiance.” This makes it impossible to argue the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was merely to reassert the common law doctrine of demanding unconditional allegiance through birth. The common law doctrine by operation creates double allegiances by making children of other nation’s citizens born locally forever subjects of the crown whether they consent or not.
There is also a disturbing ethical aspect of Wong Kim Ark in terms of the majorities’ apparent willingness to place themselves unethically above both facts and the supreme law of the land. The United States by treaty with China was prevented from admitting Chinese subjects to citizenship. This treaty was ratified by the same senators who had adopted both Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Furthermore, the court was also prohibited under 22 Stat. § 14 to admit subjects of China to U.S. citizenship: “that hereafter no state court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship, and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.”
The power to admit foreign citizens to U.S. citizenship resides exclusively with Congress and not with the Supreme Court. In essence, the court usurped the lawful will of the legislative branch.
The Fuller court was no stranger to criticism or controversy when it came to interpreting law or the Constitution. For example, Justice Brewer for the court laid down a bizarre doctrine that said it was “immaterial” how one obtains property: “He may have made his fortune by dealing in slaves, as a lobbyist, or in any other way obnoxious to public condemnation; but, if he has acquired the legal title to his property, he is protected in its possession, and cannot be disturbed until the receipt of the actual cash value.”
Only the mafia (or a railroad magnate) could appreciate this kind of logic.
In the cases of Brooks vs. Codman, and Foote v. Women’s Board of Missions where the court stepped in to revise an act of Congress that was standing in the way of making Justice Horace Gray a wealthy man. Codman was the administrator of Justice Gray’s grandfather’s (William) estate and under a 1891 law payments from the estate could only go to “creditors, legatees, assignees or strangers to the blood.”
What did the court do? They did just as they have done before, and what they had done in Wong Kim Ark, they simply said Congress did not mean what it said, and instead, meant “next of kin.” Who was William Gray’s “next of kin”? None other than Justice Gray himself.
Conclusion
Taken into account the legislative history behind the citizenship clause - and the courts own stated objective in reaching the conclusion they did while also taking into account two prior Supreme Court holdings - leaves the Wong Kim Ark ruling as worthless as a three-dollar bill. The Court will never be able to sugarcoat over history or deny the acts of Congress in attempt to maintain England’s old feudal common law doctrine in this country at the expense of rendering unethical and legally unsound rulings.
I don’t get this. What do people mean, “He won’t allow it.” How come the country and its citizens aren’t entitled to see all his college records? It’s pretty obvious that he has a lot to hide. He can’t be proud of his grades or he would have released them. Just like Michelle’s illiterate so they say thesis. If any of these records are digitalized, someone will get ahold of them sooner or later.
Ah, yes, from the "completely made up" part of the U.S. Constitution.
Nice article. All opinion and scholarly research. Right or wrong, Wong Kim Ark is controlling precedent, and thus is the law.
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.