Revisiting Minor v. Happersett

The *natural law principles* that are outlined in the book are what our concept of citizenship is based on.

You are full of crap.

Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 654

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in foore v. United States, 91 U. S. 270, 274.

Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 655

In Minor v. Hapyersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 161.

Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 655

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.

Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 658

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.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 660

"Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth." 3 Pet. 164.

3 Pet. equals 28 U.S.

It was of such a case, that Mr. Justice Story, delivering the opinion of the court, said: "The incapacities of femes covert, provided by the common law, apply to their civil rights, and are for their protection and interest. But they do not reach their political rights, nor prevent their acquiring or losing a national character. Those political rights do not stand upon the mere doctrines of municipal law, applicable to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations." 3 Pet. 248. This last sentence was relied on by the counsel for the United States, as showing that the question whether a person is a citizen of a particular country is to be determined, not by the law of that country, but by the principles of international law. But Mr. Justice Story certainly did not mean to suggest that, independently of treaty, there was any principle of international law which could defeat the operation of the established rule of citizenship by birth within the United States; for he referred (p. 245) to the contemporaneous opinions in Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor above cited, in which this rule had been distinctly recognized, and in which he had said (p. 162) that "each government had a right to decide for itself who should be admitted or deemed citizens ;" and in his Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, published in 1834, he said that, in respect to residence in different countries or sovereignties, "there are certain principles which have been generally recognized, by tribunals administering public law, [adding, in later editions, "or the law of nations,"] as of unquestionable authority," and stated, as the first of those principles, "Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed citizens and subjects of that country." Story Conflict of Laws, § 48.

An argument that International Law applied was made and the U.S. Supreme Court rejected it.

169 U.S. at 662

Again, in Levy v. McCartee, (1832) 6 Pet. 102, 112, 113, 115, which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the State of New York, where the statute of 11 & 12 Will. III had been repealed, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law; and treated it as unquestionable that by that law a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject; quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co. Lit. 8a, that "if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these, two sons are indigenae subjects born, because they are born within the realm;" and saying that such a child "was a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law, stated by this court in McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354."

169 U.S. at 662

In United States v. Rhodes, (1866) Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England."

You are normally good quoting in the context of a message to which you are responding.

I provided the only context you gave.

To: woodpusher
I saw that one about the Constitutional Convention at #77. I had never heard that one before. I was wondering if you would give him credit for originality.
You have never heard of a preference for first hand witness testimony as opposed to hearsay? I was under the impression that you were somewhat familiar with the American legal process.
115 posted on 7/24/2023, 12:29:11 PM by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

My post was obviously not to you. My #139 replicated your complete text. I here replicated your complete post. Perhaps you can identify the part that I left out regarding context.

I will assume you just lost the context of the discussion and were not trying to mislead us deliberately.

I will assume as my post was not to you, and you provided no context, you are just once again unhinged.

I assume from your insane comments throughtout on the thread that your have lost reality.

The 14th Amendment was certified by the appropriate official as having been ratified. There is no avenue for a judicial appeal of that decision. It has been the law of the land for more than a century and a half. I am unaware of any great debate making a provision of the Constitution null and void, or even changing a single word of such a provision.

I am not engaging in an insane diversion.

The Courts have established for centuries that United States adopted the English common law as its own for the law of citizenship

I am not interested in your family pictures.

The insanity continues:

George Will and Ann Coulter vs.

Aldridge v. Williams, 44 U.S. 9, 24 (1845)

In expounding this law, the judgment of the Court cannot in any degree be influenced by the construction placed upon it by individual members of Congress in the debate which took place on its passage nor by the motives or reasons assigned by them for supporting or opposing amendments that were offered. The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself, and we must gather their intention from the language there used, comparing it, when any ambiguity exists, with the laws upon the same subject and looking, if necessary, to the public history of the times in which it was passed.

United States v Union Pacific Railroad Company, 91 U.S. 72 (1875)

In construing an act of Congress, we are not at liberty to recur to the views of individual members in debate nor to consider the motives which influenced them to vote for or against its passage. The act itself speaks the will of Congress, and this is to be ascertained from the language used. But courts, in construing a statute, may with propriety recur to the history of the times when it was passed, and this is frequently necessary in order to ascertain the reason as well as the meaning of particular provisions in it. Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 24; Preston v. Browder, 1 Wheat. 115, 120 [argument of counsel -- omitted].

Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 254 (1901)

In expounding this law, the judgment of the Court cannot in any degree be influenced by the construction placed upon it by individual members of Congress in the debate which took place on its passage nor by the motives or reasons assigned by them for supporting or opposing amendments that were offered. The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself, and we must gather their intention from the language there used, comparing it, when any ambiguity exists, with the laws upon the same subject and looking, if necessary, to the public history of the times in which it was passed.

Vichy governments do not represent consent of the governed.

I'm with whatever Bogart said about the Vichy government.

You are insane.

Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 654

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in foore v. United States, 91 U. S. 270, 274.

Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 655

In Minor v. Hapyersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 161.

Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 655

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.

Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 658

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.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 660

"Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth." 3 Pet. 164.

3 Pet. equals 28 U.S.

It was of such a case, that Mr. Justice Story, delivering the opinion of the court, said: "The incapacities of femes covert, provided by the common law, apply to their civil rights, and are for their protection and interest. But they do not reach their political rights, nor prevent their acquiring or losing a national character. Those political rights do not stand upon the mere doctrines of municipal law, applicable to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations." 3 Pet. 248. This last sentence was relied on by the counsel for the United States, as showing that the question whether a person is a citizen of a particular country is to be determined, not by the law of that country, but by the principles of international law. But Mr. Justice Story certainly did not mean to suggest that, independently of treaty, there was any principle of international law which could defeat the operation of the established rule of citizenship by birth within the United States; for he referred (p. 245) to the contemporaneous opinions in Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor above cited, in which this rule had been distinctly recognized, and in which he had said (p. 162) that "each government had a right to decide for itself who should be admitted or deemed citizens ;" and in his Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, published in 1834, he said that, in respect to residence in different countries or sovereignties, "there are certain principles which have been generally recognized, by tribunals administering public law, [adding, in later editions, "or the law of nations,"] as of unquestionable authority," and stated, as the first of those principles, "Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed citizens and subjects of that country." Story Conflict of Laws, § 48.

An argument that International Law applied was made and the U.S. Supreme Court rejected it.

169 U.S. at 662

Again, in Levy v. McCartee, (1832) 6 Pet. 102, 112, 113, 115, which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the State of New York, where the statute of 11 & 12 Will. III had been repealed, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law; and treated it as unquestionable that by that law a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject; quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co. Lit. 8a, that "if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these, two sons are indigenae subjects born, because they are born within the realm;" and saying that such a child "was a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law, stated by this court in McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354."

169 U.S. at 662

In United States v. Rhodes, (1866) Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England."

My BFF Squeeky Fromm, saw this post of yours and said that you are a BIG FAT LIAR!

First, here is a link to the ACTUAL 1808 “The Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania” (She noted that you did NOT give a link, so that you could better get away with being a BIG FAT LIAR!)

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Report_of_the_Judges_of_the_Supreme/DyI2AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=report+of+the+judges+of+the+supreme+court+of+pennsylvania+1808&printsec=frontcover

Your page 26 Aliens page is NOWHERE TO BE FOUND in that document! She said to ask you, what are you trying to be - the new Mike Wallace of Free Republic??? What she did find in that document was, on page 36:

An act to enable his Majesty’s natural born subjects to inherit the estates of their ancestors either lineal or collateral, notwithstanding their father or mother were aliens.

The recommendation was that the English act be incorporated into the laws of Pennsylvania.

Then, she decided to try to find where your BIG FAT LIAR page 26 Aliens came from. Well, guess what - she found it!

A Digest of Select British Statutes by Samuel Roberts, and here is a link so that everybody can see what a BIG FAT LIAR you are!!!

https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Digest_of_select_British_Statutes_comp/AKdXAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%2212.+In+this+particular+our+laws+differ+from+the+English+laws%22&pg=PA26&printsec=frontcover

While this book contains “The Report of the Judges of 1808” -this book was not published until 1817, and the opinions therein are those of Samuel Roberts, not “The Judges of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania” as you FALSELY stated!!!

And on page 19 of that book, 7 pages before Page 26, we find:

“The natives, or indigenes, says Vattel, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” These become citizens, it is believed in every community, merely by their tacit consent.”

By the laws of England, however, not only the children of citizens, but of aliens born within the British dominions, become citizens by birth, provided at the time of their birth their parents were under actual obediance to the king.”

In other words, the same stuff you find in Wong Kim Ark.

But you, being a BIG FAT LIAR, hid page 19 from people here so that you could lie to everybody!!!

Page 26, in the meantime, is simply Robert’s opinion about a narrow subject matter, and about the same as the dissent in Wong Kim Ark, and deals more fathers born outside the country and their children born inside the country. The dissent and Roberts, think that International Law should control in these situations, not common law. Robert’s opinion is NOT law, and your attempt to pass it off as the opinion of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was a BIG FAT LIE!!!

You should be ashamed of yourself!!!

That is what Squeeky said to you.

As far as me, I think that you are a mentally ill person, who has gone so far down the rabbit hole of delusion, that you will simply say anything to keep from having to admit that you and other two-citizen parent Birthers have wasted 16 years of your life on a bunch of idiocy.

In a way, I feel sorry for you, and I encourage you to seek professional help from a qualified therapist.

Here is the relevant page of their report.

Actually, the most important part is the title page you showed. It is from a different book than the page 26 you showed.

You provide the title page of:

The report of the judges of the Supreme court of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, made in pursuance of a resolution of the Legislature of the said commonwealth, passed in the session 1807-8, reported to the Senate and House of representatives on the 19th and 20th of December, 1808 and, by them ordered to be printed.

Page 26 of this book is a list of British statutes, from VII Henry 6th, ch. 29 to 3rd Henry VII, chap. 1. Those are statutes having nothing to do with common law or the page 26 you mismatched with an unrelated title page.

The other book that you produced a page from is on British Statutes (not common law) and your Page 26 is specifically under the heading on page 22 of "7 Anne Chap. 5. A.D. 1708 An Act for naturalizing foreign Protestants."

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.

Tilghman, Yeates, Smith and Brackenridge only list Acts from 3 and 4 Anne as being effective in the State of Pennsylvania. See pages 36 and 37 of their book.

At page 22 of the other uncited book, we find:

7 ANNE CHAP. 5. A.D. 1708
An Act for naturalizing foreign Protestants.
§ III. AND be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid :—That the children of all natural born subjects, born out of the legiance of her majesty, her heirs and successors, shall be deemed and judged and taken to be natural born subjects of the kingdom, to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever.
Prior to the American revolution, the stat. 13 Geo. II. c. 7, prescribed the general rule for naturalizing such foreign Protestants, and others therein mentioned, as were settled, or should settle in the colonies. An act of assembly was passed in 1742-3, extending, under certain formalities, the rights of naturalization to persons who, though not of the Society called Quakers, conscientiously refused to take an oath.
On the establishment of the revolution, these provisions were superseded by a constitutional declaration in the old frame of government, by which every foreigner, of good character, coming to settle in Pennsylvania, having first taken the oath of allegiance, was enabled to purchase and hold real estates; and after one year's residence was invested with all the rights of a natural born citizen, except that he was not capable of being elected a member of the legislature, till after a residence of two years. During the continuance of the test laws, the same oath of allegiance was prescribed to aliens who wished to acquire, and to natives who wished to exercise the rights of citizenship; but when the test laws were abolished as to the inhabitants in general by the act of 15th March 1789, a new test was therein prescribed to emigrants, referring to the constitutional provision on this subject."

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.

In footnote 13, your author cites Laws, U.S., act of 29th July, 1813, c. 35.

The is only one law of 29 July 1813 in c. 35. It is, "CHAP. XXXV.—An Act laying a duty on imported salt; granting a bounty on pickled fish exported, and allowances to certain vessels employed in the fisheries. (a)"

What he was trying to reference is found in chapter 36, and is the Act of 30th July 1813.

3 Stat. 53

CHAP. XXXVI—An Act supplementary to the acts heretofore passed on the subject of an uniform rule of naturalization. (a)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That persons resident within the United States, or the territories thereof, on the eighteenth day of June, in the year one thousand eight hundred and twelve, who had before that day made a declaration according to law, of their intentions to become citizens of the United States, or who by the existing laws of the United States, were on that day entitled to become citizens, without making such declaration, may be admitted to become citizens thereof, notwithstanding they shall be alien enemies at the times and in the manner prescribed by the laws heretofore passed on that subject: Provided; That nothing herein contained shall be taken or construed to interfere with or prevent the apprehension and removal, agreeably to law, of any alien enemy at any time previous to the actual naturalization of such alien.
APPROVED, July 30, 1813.
___________________________________
(a) Notes of the naturalization acts, vol. i. 103.

You deliver your messes by the truckload, but my question is, how may pantsloads to the truckload?

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.

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=01&div=0&chpt=15&sctn=3&subsctn=0

§ 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.

If Mr and Mrs Smith are adopting baby boy Johnnie and in the final court order the judges writes,

“Baby boy Johnnie shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be the son of Mr and Mrs Smith, and entitled to all the rights and duties of the parent-child relationship.”

Is baby boy Johnnie now the real son of Mr and Mrs Smith or just a pretend son?

I'll save us both the time it would require to go into the long understood definition of the word "son" and just say *YES!*

He is a pretend son. He is a pretend offspring, and he is not a real offspring.

*I* am adopted. I have always known that my adoptive father was not my real father, and though he treated me as his son, I was not his real son.

What I find fascinating about the Birthers, is what is it they gain from this? Where does their satisfaction come from?

From realizing they are not willing to be swayed by the opinions of other people simply because those opinions are in the majority. From realizing they can think for themselves and do their own research and do not have to merely accept the opinions of "authorities", especially when such authorities *DO NOT KNOW* what the F*** they are talking about.

and then laughing when those poor dopes get clobbered by the law.

Here is a poor dope who got clobbered by "the law."

Now was *HE* right, or was "the law" right?

The rest of your rant is not worthy of further consideration.

Being a mentally-ill nincompoop who spews out Imaginary Law, and lies and deceives people, is hardly heroic.

You find anything heroic in one of your kindred-spirit SovCits getting hauled away by the cops, here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLhT90HRu_U&t=31s

or here, at his competency hearing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUDuHFsr8IM

You see, that dude is YOU! Watch those two videos. It is a mirror of how screwed up and creepy you are.

You have gone totally unhinged. Please do link, cite and quote your FICTIONAL ACCOUNT OF THE HOUSE DEBATES where John Bingham said anything whatever in the House debate on the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.

Not the one I was looking for, but it will do.

And he also said this in 1862.

"All from other lands, who by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman [sic] can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians."

You are full of crap.

Yeah, I get that a lot.

Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 654

Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 655

...

And now you are going to quote court cases at me. None from people who were actually part of the constitutional convention or ratifying conventions.

I was noticing that when I was perusing the debates on the 14th amendment, they were citing William Rawle. (And Vattel)

Rawle was deliberately LYING. Everything linked to him is the fruit of a poisoned tree.

And *THIS* is why I don't take your later court cases seriously. They've all been poisoned by Rawle.

The 14th Amendment was certified by the appropriate official as having been ratified.

So, Vichy government is A-OK with you. I'm beginning to see why we are clashing on this issue. You appear to believe in whatever the powers that be tell you, while I believe in objective truth.

There is no avenue for a judicial appeal of that decision.

The existing power structure deems every illegal thing they did "legal." Yes, I know that, but I don't consider that the same thing as "truth."

What *IS* the truth, and what the people with guns who will shoot you, *CLAIM* is the truth, are not necessarily the same thing.

It has been the law of the land for more than a century and a half.

Stare decisis. Yeah, I know. It means "don't bother me with facts, we powerful people have spoken!"

I am unaware of any great debate making a provision of the Constitution null and void, or even changing a single word of such a provision.

Well I guess that would indicate you don't hang out in Professor Reynolds academic circles.

I am not engaging in an insane diversion.

I wouldn't defend your position either. I consider it repugnant to think we should demand people conform to the law when the powers who impose it do not conform to it.

DiogL said, “And *THIS* is why I don’t take your later court cases seriously. They’ve all been poisoned by Rawle.”

BWAHAHAHHAHAHA!

You don’t take them seriously because they say the opposite of what you want to believe. Only people who are delusionally creepy and crazy think that they pick and choose what court cases they want to take seriously.

People like this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6Qh8ct4yoM&t=3s

The Courts have established for centuries that United States adopted the English common law as its own for the law of citizenship

The "courts" are one of the remnants we have left over from monarchy. They wear robes. Sit on a throne. Wave a Scepter, and supplicants have to come before them and "plead."

Not a very good methodology for a republic, but just exactly what a monarchy would prefer.

And on the issue of "natural born citizen, "the courts", most of them anyway, are *WRONG*. Rawle polluted them with false knowledge.

Let me clarify my position again. I have contempt for both the competency and the knowledge of modern courts. They are @$$holes who have power, and without wisdom or integrity.

The legal system in the United States needs to be revamped. It's a dysfunctional mess.

More court cases.

Closest one is 1845, and it isn't even dealing with the Citizenship issue.

DiogL said:

“Let me clarify my position again. I have contempt for both the competency and the knowledge of modern courts. They are @$$holes who have power, and without wisdom or integrity.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

So, the answer is for DiogL to go live in how own widdle world of Imaginary Law, and I guess suck his thumb in a fetal position.

That is fine! Do that! But be honest, and preface any discussion with a caveat like “My name is DiogenesLamp, and I don’t like what modern courts say, so I have made up own Imaginary World with my own Imaginary Laws!”

That way, most people will avoid you like the plague because it will be obvious that you are a nutjob. But other people, who have their own mental problems, will flock to you, and you can all have a blast! You can spout silly pseudo-legal babble and pretend to be a lawyer, and some of them (the men) can put on dresses and panties and pretend to be women, and others can put on animal suits and pretend to be skunks or beavers or whatever, and you will probably even get some sovereign citizens to join in and babble on about not needing driver’s licenses or bona fide vehicle tags! You will all have a merry time!

Or, you could just go get professional mental counseling. Some therapists even specialize in restoring competency!

First, here is a link to the ACTUAL 1808 “The Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania” (She noted that you did NOT give a link, so that you could better get away with being a BIG FAT LIAR!)

Oh my God! You found a link! You are a freaking GENIUS!!! Was it the clues I gave you, like *TELLING YOU THE NAME OF THE BOOK* that helped you find it?

While this book contains “The Report of the Judges of 1808” -this book was not published until 1817, and the opinions therein are those of Samuel Roberts, not “The Judges of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania” as you FALSELY stated!!!

Well, as Samuel Roberts would have falsely stated if you were correct that it is *HIS* opinion, and you could be right because he was a Judge, and so therefore possibly a liar and an idiot. So your argument is that a prominent Pennsylvania Judge was a *LIAR*?

But given that all the rest of the Pennsylvania legal system accepted the book, and given that William Tilghman,

who was still alive and presiding as Chief Justice over the Pennsylvania Supreme Court from 1806 to 1827, didn't raise a fuss, and the book got reprinted again in 1847, I'm kinda thinking the book is exactly what it says it is.

And for what it's worth, ALL of these judges had a connection to the Constitutional convention and/or ratification.

William Tilghman. Died April 29, 1827. Delegate to the Maryland state ratifying convention.

Jasper Yeates Died March 14, 1817. (Book was submitted in January of 1817) After the Revolution, Yeates was a delegate to the Pennsylvania convention that ratified the United States Constitution in 1787.

Thomas Smith Died March 31, 1809. Delegate from Pennsylvania to the Constitutional convention.

Hugh Henry Brackenridge Died June 25, 1816. Member Pennsylvania state assembly which ratified the constitution.

And for what it's worth, Samuel Roberts was the apprentice of William Lewis. (One of William Rawle's co-counsel in Negress Flora v Joseph Grainsberry) Lewis was a member of the Pennsylvania state legislature in 1787. (The Constitutional convention was in the Philadelphia state house, or legislative house.)

He was also a Federal Judge in the 1790s.

You have been blindsided by being shown the existence of this book, and now you are whistling past the graveyard with your efforts to ignore the significance of this very prominent and widely used legal book that came right out of the Philadelphia legal community.