Replies

I see you excel at nonsequitturs, too.

Since they seem to be the rule in your methodology, I figured "When in Rome..."

Actually it's an old logical game, and i'm not surprised you don't recognize it.

"Natural born Subject" is to "Natural Born Citizen" what "King" is to "President." Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

You dodged my point entirely. Massachusetts DID use the terms NBC and NBS interchangeably. And the Vermont Constitution DID term the residents "natural born subjects." Though neither state spoke of the resisents having a "king."

And there is a point to this? They did have a King, and then they didn't. Subsequent referral to "subject" was custom and habit. Thomas Jefferson himself, while writing the Declaration of Independence, wrote the word "Subject", then rubbed it out and wrote the word "Citizen" over the top of it. Once again, you have some sort of point?

You confuse two terms being used analogously and instead force an identicality that no one then ascribed to them. Thus, your lame attempt at reductio ad absurdum fails.

I merely demonstrated that the terms are analogous, not equivalent. Apparently the lesson got through for a change. The philosophical basis (and practice) of "Natural Born Subject" is VERY DIFFERENT than the philosophical basis of "Natural Born Citizen." Anyone with intellectual honesty would recognize that the founders would vehemenently reject the philosophical basis for being a "Subject" as opposed to being a citizen. How about you let Sir Michael Foster put you some fkn' knowledge?

Sir Michael Foster:

Sect. 1. With regard to Natural-born Subjects there can be no Doubt. They owe Allegiance to the Crown at all Times and in all Places. This is what We call Natural Allegiance, in Contradistinction to that which is Local. The Duty of Allegiance, whether Natural or Local, is founded in the Relation the Person standeth in to the Crown, and in the Privileges He deriveth from that Relation. Local Allegiance is founded in the Protection a Foreigner enjoyeth for his Person, his Family or Effects during his Residence here; and it Ceaseth whenever He withdraweth with his Family and Effects. Natural Allegiance is founded in the Relation every Man standeth in to the Crown considered as the Head of that Society whereof He is born a Member; and on the peculiar Privileges He deriveth from that Relation, which are with great Propriety called his Birthright. This Birthright nothing but his own Demerit can deprive Him of; it is Indefeasible and perpetual. And consequently the Duty of Allegiance which ariseth out of it, and is inseperably Connected with it, is in Consideration of Law likewise Unalienable and Perpetual.

The Analogy between Subject and Citizen and King and President is a lot closer than feels comfortable to you. This principle of English Law is obviously NOT the "Natural Law" to which the Founders Refer. If they followed THAT version of "Natural Law", they could never be independent.

Given you ducked my points on Blackstone, and given your alternative quotes don't negate his point that "the chidrens of aliens born in England are, generally speaking, natural born subjects,"

I earlier wanted to speak on Blackstone, but didn't feel it was worth the time or space. I'll address it now. That Blackstone uses the qualifier "generally speaking" fits quite nicely with the quotes of English Law from Mathew Bacon and Giles Jacob.

Your little group of deludees will simply argue that Blackstone's "generally speaking" qualifier obviously refers to the children of Ambassadors and such, but looking elsewhere in English law, it becomes quite apparent that Blackstone's comment refers to Denizens, who are in a halfway state between full Citizen and Alien.

It further ignores the point that the stratified English Society might have REFERRED to Native born Alien Children as "Natural Born Subjects" (Meaning The King has a claim on their servitude) but in practice they treated them quite differently from those born to English Parents, and they most certainly DID NOT allow them to rule England.

I'll take that wager. Blackstone was on most everyone's desk who had anything to do with law in America.

For Civil and Criminal law. For International law? (The only body of law which actually deals with citizenship.) Not so much. As Civil and Criminal law takes up the vast bulk of any legal system, it is understandable that he would be an oft cited and useful reference. But to what Law Authority did John Marshall turn when the issue was International Law?

A Strange Likeness : Becoming Red and White in Eighteenth-Century North America

From Ziegler's "International law of John Marshall"

And his statement is crystal clear.

Perhaps not so much as you seem to think.

"NBC" and "NBS" were often used interchangeably in the pre-Framing period, and the terms on their face speak to a status via/at birth. Contrary to your STUPID insistence, it does not follow that they thereby had to insist on equivalency between "citizen" and "English subject" in every respect.

Au contraire, it is my insistence that they DID NOT insist on equivalency in every respect, or indeed, in any respect. The terms were analogous, but definitely not equivalent. They were two very different forms of Government, based on two very different principles of "natural law." The English version of it is incompatible with America's Independence, so it is axiomatic that THAT version was rejected by the founders.

Analgous. NOT identical in all respects. If you stop stumbling on that point of confusion, your argument may start to appear less inept than it does at present. Or you can continue to barricade yourself in Wonderland and keep regurgitatng arguments that make sense to few others but you.

One of us is certainly stumbling in wonderland, but I have no concern that it is I.

Done for the night. I have more important things to do in the morning.

"Natural born Subject" is to "Natural Born Citizen" what "King" is to "President." Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

I pointed out that 1) in the early U.S. the terms "NBS" and "NBC" were in many cases used interchangeably, and, therefore, it's proper to understand the meaning of the latter in light of the understood meaning of the former, especially as to the means and scope of obtaining that status (i.e., birth circumstances) and 2) the early Americans used these terms interchangeably (e.g., Vermont Constitution of 1777) without thereby engaging in your silly notion that they must thereby have understood when they referred to their fellows as "natural born subjects" that they thought there was some "king of Vermont" having jurisdiction.

So your reply is simply to double-down on the silly and offer that same argument of a necessary "president - king."

You dodged my point entirely. Massachusetts DID use the terms NBC and NBS interchangeably. And the Vermont Constitution DID term the residents "natural born subjects." Though neither state spoke of the resisents having a "king."

The point is that "natural born subject," insofar as who at birth attained to that status had a well-understood meaning. And that meaning, as to any concern regarding alien parents, was summarized by Blackstone, the undisputed foremost commentator on the Common Law ("The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. ")

And so (point as to "first principles" continuing) it defies logic to suppose a) that the Framers used the term "natural born citizen" to convey a previously-unused notion of "requiring two citizen parents," b) that they did so contrary to the previously accepted, interchangeable use of "natural born" by reference to "subject" and "citizen," and c) that they ascribed this "new" meaning to the English "natural born" while making absolutely no mention in the Constitutional debates or contemporaneous correspondence that is what they were doing.

So my point is that you are proposing an historically indefensible idea (certainly one that needs give way to the overwhelming counter evidence) and that the "argument from authority" you deride (excepting the far fewer authorities you favor) is easily explained and defended from the historical/legal record.

Anyone with intellectual honesty would recognize that the founders would vehemenently reject the philosophical basis for being a "Subject" as opposed to being a citizen.

And yet they used the term "natural born subject" as to themselves without the supposed "philosophical objection" you (in your manifestly last-principle, result-driven approach) project back to deny the fact I keep whalloping you across the the side of your denialist head.

Sir Michael Foster:

Nothing in what you quote from Foster negates in the least what I quoted from Blackstone, to wit: ".The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. "

So, again, you offer NOTHING to indicate that when in 1787 the Framers chose the term "natural born citizen" they understood "natural born" to require some different birth circumstance than "natural born" meant when modifying "subject." Zero. Zippo. Nada. The proof exists only in your head.

Your little group of deludees will simply argue that Blackstone's "generally speaking" qualifier obviously refers to the children of Ambassadors and such,

With good reason. Blackstone references "Calvin's Case," which set forth that rule with those exceptions. And the SCOTUS in WKA -- looking at multiple English authorities -- concluded the same.

And in yet another chapter of "Consistency is Not DL's Strong-suit" you will in the next breath dismiss Rawles by asserting he was "too British trained." Amazing that Rawles was corrupted by too much English training yet got to the same jus soli rule for "natural born citizen" without any notion of some hierarchical, middle state.

It's a game of a Whack-a-Mole with you.

For Civil and Criminal law. For International law? (The only body of law which actually deals with citizenship.)

Here's where you flaunt your ineptitude on legal matters and broadcast it with trumpet fanfare.

Citizenship is a matter municipal (domestic) law! . ("municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired" See, e.g., Perkins v Elg.) I am aware of no exception stated by anyone at any time to the rule that every nation by its domestic law determines its citizenship. C.J. Marshall is citing to Vattel because he is an authority on international law. But citizenship is a matter not of international law, but of municipal law.

So see if you can grasp this:

1. Citizenship is a matter of domestic law.
2. Blackstone was the foremost authority on domestic common law.
3. Therefore, on the domestic law matter of the meaning of "natural born citizen," who does logic dictate is the authority? Blackstone? Or Vattel?

Here's a further help for you: Alexander Hamilton tells us "look to the law from where our Constitutional terms originate. That's England.

"NBC" and "NBS" were often used interchangeably in the pre-Framing period, and the terms on their face speak to a status via/at birth. Contrary to your STUPID insistence, it does not follow that they thereby had to insist on equivalency between "citizen" and "English subject" in every respect.

Au contraire, it is my insistence that they DID NOT insist on equivalency in every respect

Then you should give up the silly talk about "kings." The "birth status" rule was the same as between NBS and NBC, without the Americans having to import the full complement of ideas pertaining to "subjects."

But why did they use "natural born subject" if they understood NO lingusitic/legal connection to the English understanding of NBS? What else could they possibly have meant if not the same birth status rule? Again, this is another hole in your position that you attempt to toss up a bunch of flak to hide.

Stick to engineering.