Posted on 05/30/2012 6:10:45 AM PDT by circumbendibus
Birtherism -- the belief that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not in the United States -- pretty much died last year when the White House released a copy of the president's long-form birth certificate showing he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. After that, the number of Americans who doubted Obama's place of birth dropped dramatically.
But not to zero. In recent days, there has been a mini-resurgence of birther talk, from Arizona, where the secretary of state questioned Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot, to Iowa, where some Republicans want to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility for office.
The talk has gone beyond Obama, with some buzz on the Internet suggesting Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a leading Republican vice presidential contender, is not a natural-born American citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
I guess it’s really eating at you that Obummer has been declared a Natural Born Son of America!
That's why we have a Republic, not a Democracy, because the PEOPLE knew enough to elect those who did read those things.
-PJ
There, that wasn’t so hard to be nice was it? Good night to you too.
I have. I've already demonstrated that I know a significant amount of relevant US History. None of Trumbull's statements contradict or negate how he summed it up before Congress:
What do we mean by "complete jurisdiction thereof?" Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.Much more on this, here:
And by the way... "After the Revolution, States retained only those portions of common law that were applicable to their local circumstances. In England at the time, every person born, with few exceptions such as children born of mix-parentage (they acquired the condition of their father if he was a freeman, else child acquired their mother’s citizenship) or diplomats within the realm of the King was considered a natural born subject under the maxim every man owes natural allegiance to the King."
Even in England at the time of the American Revolution, children born to foreign fathers were NOT considered natural born subjects. They acquired their father's citizenship.
-PJ
because the PEOPLE knew enough to elect those who did read those things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Funny!!!! Like the idiots that elected Nancy Pelosi? The lady who never read obamacare but said you have to vote for it to understand what is in it.
OMG! We are screwed, aren’t we!
Taunt you? No, I wouldn’t do that, just having some fun now. It’s getting late and nothing’s on TV.
Wheresoever INCLUDES Virginia. A child born IN Virginia to a father (or mother if father is deceased) who was NOT a citizen, was also NOT a citizen. There was NO automatic citizenship at birth for a child of a non-citizen father (or mother if father is deceased).
You ...for failing to understand that wheresoever INCLUDES Virginia.
If birthers could read, they wouldn’t be birthers.
“...all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed”
Your interpretation:
“A child born IN Virginia to a father (or mother if father is deceased) who was NOT a citizen, was also NOT a citizen. There was NO automatic citizenship at birth for a child of a non-citizen father (or mother if father is deceased).”
Please learn to read. Here is the paragraph:
“Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.”
Please try reading that first sentence again:
“that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth”
What part of ALL WHITE PEOPLE do you not understand?
In addition: “and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth”
Thus those infants born to parent citizens while out of Virginia are ALSO citizens. White infants born INSIDE Virginia were already included in ALL WHITE PEOPLE. It did not say all white ADULTS, did it? No, I thought not.
“Even in England at the time of the American Revolution, children born to foreign fathers were NOT considered natural born subjects. They acquired their father’s citizenship. “
False. Children of aliens, born in the UK, were natural born subjects unless the children of ambassadors or an invading foreign army.
The Preamble is a "Thing in the Constitution," and Article VI says that "any Thing" is supreme over all other laws. It's a legitimate argument.
"Thing" is another word that's not defined in the Constitution. Shall we begin another series of endless debates on the original intent of the word "Thing?"
-PJ
Then they understand THIS: According to a law that Parliament enacted in 1604 and which was still in effect when the U.S. Constitution was written, the English-born children of alien parents were "denizens," NOT natural born subjects:
"To place the Children, born within this Realm, of foreign Parents, in Degree for the first Birth or Descent only, as Aliens made Denizens, and not otherwise.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=8318#sec1363
You're wrong. Read post 193.
From where are you getting all your bogus information? Who's feeding it to you, and why do you swallow the falsehoods you're being spoon-fed hook, line, and sinker without even so much as a small glimmer of thought?
False.
“II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.
This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or [p656] explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case, known as Calvin’s Case, or the Case of the Postnati, decided in 1608, after a hearing in the Exchequer Chamber before the Lord Chancellor and all the Judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere on Postnati, 62-64; S.C., 2 Howell’s State Trials, 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.
The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co.Lit. 8a, 128b, Lord Hale, in Hargrave’s Law Tracts, 210, an in 1 Hale P.C. 61, 62; 1 Bl.Com. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl.Com. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 T.R. 300, 308; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, p. 173-177, 741.
In Udny v. Udny, (1869) L.R. 1 H.L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicil of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: “The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicil.” P. 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage relied on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying:
The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions: one, by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.
And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicil, domicilium, the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, and the basis on which
the personal rights of the party, that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy or intestacy, [p657] must depend,
he yet distinctly recognized that a man’s political status, his country, patria, and his “nationality, that is, natural allegiance,” “may depend on different laws in different countries.” Pp. 457, 460. He evidently used the word “citizen” not as equivalent to “subject,” but rather to “inhabitant,” and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:
By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.
Cockburn on Nationality, 7.
Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:
“British subject” means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. “Permanent” allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes “temporary” allegiance to the Crown. “Natural-born British subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.” “Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.
The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:
1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [p658] person’s birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.
2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person’s birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.
And he adds:
The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person’s birth, it in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man’s birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of, the Crown.
Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
I just posted ACTUAL English law that directly contradicts the lame “opinion” you just posted.
Post 193 is wrong, not in content but in your interpretation. And I’m getting this “bogus information” from the US Supreme Court.
I suspect you are confusing natural born subject status with passing that status on to multiple generations born outside of the UK.
Read WKA, section 4, starting with:
“Both in England and in the United States, indeed, statutes have been passed at various times enacting that certain issue born abroad of English subjects or of American citizens, respectively, should inherit, to some extent at least, the rights of their parents. But those statutes applied only to cases coming within their purport, and they have never been considered in either country as affecting the citizenship of persons born within its dominion.
The earliest statute was passed in the reign of Edward III. In the Rolls of Parliament of 17 Edw. III (1343), it is stated that...”
Not sure why you believe erroneously-held opinions when the ACTUAL English law clearly states otherwise.
Probably because you are taking it completely out of context. You don’t seem to understand the difference between someone born in a country, and those born to citizens or subjects outside of the country. Thus you take one sentence and end up facing the wrong direction.
The WKA court discussed the matter at length, citing sources. In context. Context being something birthers aren’t very good at...
You're just pissy because you're learning the hard way that virtually every bit of information you've been spoon-fed by someone who obviously has an agenda... is WRONG.
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.