Revisiting Minor v. Happersett

The Post & Email Newspaper ^ | 17 Jul 2023 | Joseph DeMaio

[CDR Kerchner]

(Jul. 17, 2023) — Well, faithful P&E readers, here we go again. As another “exploratory” candidate for president appears on the scene – Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai –, it may be prudent to once again revisit the Supreme Court’s 1875 decision in Minor v. Happersett.

While the major holding of the case (i.e., that Missouri’s denial of suffrage to women did not violate the 14th Amendment) was abrogated 45 years later in 1920 by the 19th Amendment, the question remains as to whether the decision’s other “observations” and “comments” remain viable and relevant to the “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) presidential eligibility question.

The answer to that question, in turn, may impact not only Ayyadurai’s candidacy – competently explored here – but may in addition cast useful light on the questionable presidential candidacies and bona-fides of many others, including Vivek Ramaswamy; Nikki Haley; Kamala Harris; and, of course, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. A subsequent offering will address Dr. Ayyadurai’s eligibility arguments.

Turning specifically therefore to the decision in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S.162 (1875) – and totally apart from the now-abrogated women’s suffrage issue addressed by the Court in ruling against Virginia Minor – the relevance of the surviving, non-suffrage and non-abrogated portions of the opinion to the nbC issue remains. Those portions relate to the Court’s following observations, found at 88 U.S. 162, 167-168: ... continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2023/07/17/revisiting-minor-v-happersett/

[DiogenesLamp]

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

Well yes it was, but probably not for the reason you think. I had a copy of that title page saved on a particular thread which I can remember without looking it up. I had the devil's own time getting that page 26 out of the book because my browser decided to go cripple on me when I was trying to read it. (Old version of Firefox with Windows XP operating system)

Here is the link to the book.

After the struggle I had getting to page 26, I was *NOT* going to try to post an image of any other page, so I used the one that I knew where it was already saved.

Those are statutes having nothing to do with common law or the page 26 you mismatched with an unrelated title page.

I have noticed you have a tendency to focus on trivial aspects of something rather than the major component of it. I have always regarded this attitude as "penny wise and dollar foolish."

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.

I did not say that. For one so focused on getting things precisely correct without the slightest error in them, I noticed you don't seem to follow your own standard.

What I said was at the constitutional convention *OR* one of the state ratifying conventions. (where we would presume the US constitution would have been explained to them and debated by them.)

And yes, all four of the Judges were at one or the other.

The youngest delegate to the Constitutional Convention was Jonathan Dayton, age 26. Your author would have been, at best, 24.

I cover that in the previous message left to that obnoxious b***. Samuel Roberts was apprenticed by William Lewis, who was a member of the Pennsylvania State legislature in 1787. He was also co-counsel with William Rawle on a lot of cases.

Apprenticeship was the common method at that time for training new Lawyers. William Rawle was taught in England.

Roberts wouldn't have gotten the idea on his own. It had to come down from his mentors.

An Act for naturalizing foreign Protestants.

I'm not sure what relevance a naturalization act has here.

CHAP. XXXVI—An Act supplementary to the acts heretofore passed on the subject of an uniform rule of naturalization. (a)

Again with the naturalization acts?

With all that being said, anything issued prior to the 14th Amendment, and inconsistent with it, would be struck down by the 14th Amendment.

The 14th amendment did not re-write the eligibility requirements for the Presidency. That was not it's intention and it therefore did not do that.

It made citizens of slaves, but not Indians, which is an inconsistency to which you ought to object. I await with interest your effort to split that hair.

The common law and such of the statutes of England as were in force...which were properly adapted to the circumstances of the inhabitants of this Commonwealth...

Speaks for itself, doesn't it? English Subject law was clearly not among those common laws which were adapted/adopted.

I see you quote other versions that have the same hole in them. English *SUBJECT* law was *NOT* adapted/adopted. It was left out in Pennsylvania, and we have a prominent Pennsylvania law book which says so.

[DiogenesLamp]

Your methodology of debate is weak. I assume you are likely a property lawyer or contract lawyer or something, because I don't see a Jury liking you.

I don't think you are crazy, I think you are just stuck in a world of "Emperor's New Clothes" where you believe what all your peers believes because you would lose social status if you did not. The Asch conformity experiments indicate 80% of the people will behave like this. You are a victim of herd mentality.

I have been pondering how to break through people's self created bubbles. My instinct is to try reason, but that clearly has no effect on people heavily invested in believing what they want to believe.

Emotional arguments probably work best, but I don't like that methodology. It is also not that easy to apply to issues that don't provoke any strong emotional reaction.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are still arguing like a grade school kid. I guess you've been successful enough that you don't feel the need to argue rationally anymore.

I'm not going to look at your videos. Firstly, they won't work on my browser because I am still using an old browser (no longer supported) and an old operating system. (Windows XP)

I've had this machine a long time, and it works well for me, and I use it for a lot more than just internet crap.

Secondly, i'm not going to indulge non-arguments intended only as mockery of some sort.

So just know, you are posting videos for others, because I both can't and won't see them.

[DiogenesLamp]

That way, most people will avoid you like the plague because it will be obvious that you are a nutjob.

So *AVOID* me then. I will enjoy a respite from the noise.

Oddly enough you seemingly feel compelled to keep exchanging messages with this "nutjob."

Meh.

[Penelope Dreadful]

Dude, I interact with you because you are Four Plus Nuts! I like watching SovCit videos on youtube, and you are like them. You live in your own widdle world wif its own widdle Imaginary Laws, and I find it fascinating to see you spin around and do all kinds of crazy stuff.

As a lawyer, a lot of clients are nuts. Some do bad things, some are just creepy and put cameras in toilets, and some are just nuts, like you. For example, one client has an IQ of maybe 75. She has trouble plugging in a three-prong electrical plug. And, she is a thief. She steals, not for gain, but to make her feel smarter, like she is putting something over on people. Thievery is the “scratch” for her, and inferiority is the “itch.”

So, I am trying to figure out your “itch”. Spewing Imaginary Law is your “scratch.” But what is the “itch”? Is it to make you feel smart or special? Is it to get attention, even if it is negative attention? Are you just someone who likes to screw up other people and watch them come to believe stupid stuff? The Bible says that there are people like that. So, what is your itch???

If I could have these conversations with a SovCit, I think it would be very time-consuming because their Imaginary Laws cross a lot of areas, from flags to the UCC to income taxes, to driving without licenses.

But Birferism is very simple. There is one SCOTUS case that says it all, and frankly, a reasonably intelligent third-grader could grasp the concept. But here Birfers are dredging up poor old dead Vatttel, and irrelevant cases pre-dating WKA, like Happersett. So, that keeps the conversation from spreading too far afield. And, I mean, your absolute insanity is fascinating!

So, that is why I talk to you when I am not busy. But, I also encourage you to seek psychiatric help, so I do not feel like I am taking advantage of the feeble-minded or anything. Your statement that you are adopted could be relevant. Perhaps you are trying to give yourself “roots” with all the NBC stuff???

Anyway, my sincere hope is that you stop the nonsense and do something productive for fun, and quit inter-coursing with craziness, but I doubt that will happen.

[Penelope Dreadful]

Well, you need to go and get you a computer that can access youtube, or go to a public library. Heck, a cheap chromebook can access youtube, and you can get a new one at WalMart for about $150. If you are poor, use Affirm to get notes on one. HP has decent laptops for sub-$400. WalMart has refurbished computers for sub $200, some with monitors and the whole works. Klarna is also available, and will bust your bill into 1 pmt every two weeks, with no interest.

Whatever, you need to watch these type of videos, and see these SovCit nutjobs spewing off about how they ain’t driving, they’re traveling, and they don’t need no license for that. Watch them try to spring Black’s Law Dictionary on hapless cops. Watch them getting maced and tased and screaming like little girls.

Because those people are YOU! They are crazy in the same way that you are crazy, and you need to see what it looks like to the outside world. You have spent 16 years involved in this madness, and you need to wake the f—k up!

[DiogenesLamp]

Didn't see a rebuttal in there anywhere.

Meh.

[DiogenesLamp]

I can buy as many computers as I want. I just have no interest in any Windows operating system after Windows 7. I do have a windows 7 machine and it will play videos, but most of the time I use my old XP machine.

Among other things I do, I write software, and this one has all my code on it. It does the job.

But that is the "can't" part of my reasons for not watching your videos. For the "won't", I don't see them as having any information that is useful to me.

You speak of "Sovereign American Citizens." I have plenty of first hand knowledge of those. I was a political activist in the 1990s and I have met a lot of people that believe in that stuff.

All you can do is smile and change the subject.

I knew some of them who were doctors, lawyers, engineers, and so forth. I remember a certain Doctor that went on and on about "shark DNA" being used in the vaccines they gave the soldiers going into the gulf war, and this was what was causing "gulf war syndrome."

I've heard the "gold fringed flag" spiel, i've heard about the Bilderberg and the Rothschildzs, the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", the "New World Order", "adrenochrome", The JFK assassination, the "council on foreign relations", the moon landing was faked, and on and on and on.

Never took any of it seriously. Still don't.

But the idea that the courts would get something absolutely wrong, and then double down on it over and over again?

I find that idea quite plausible because I've seen them making ridiculous decisions all throughout history.

Plessy v Ferguson comes to mind.

[Penelope Dreadful]

If the court “gets it wrong”, then it is still good law until reversed. You do not argue for reversal. You argue that it isn’t even the law at all.

That is because you are mentally ill, and coherent thought is just not one of your things.

[DiogenesLamp]

You do not argue for reversal. You argue that it isn’t even the law at all.

I do not dispute it is "the law." What I deny is that it is factually correct.

[woodpusher]

Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 654

Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 655

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.

What are you — a natural born jackass?

All of those are by the U.S. Supreme Court, approvingly citing holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in prior cases. They all explicitly state the applicability of the common law.

That the justices were not at the Constitutional Convention is worth of a Fizbin Medal at an idiot's convention.

Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 655

In Minor v. Happersett, 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.

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.

This is why nobody can take you seriously. You are probably just tryuing to impress O'rly. Can't tell if you've been slammin' your face with powdered donuts or you just visited the White House.

[woodpusher]

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."

The objective truth is that the 14th Amendment has been the law of the land since 1868 and there's not a damn thing that any of your truther, birther crap can do about it. All your bleatoing does not change a thing, and it is not possible to challenge in Court.

Nobody gives a good damn about your truther or birther nonsense, bt the 14th Amendment is enforceable as law.

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.

Nobody hangs out in some non-existent academic circle which believes their debate changes the Constitution. It sounds like a circle jerk funded by The Hunter Biden Endowment for the Court of the Imagination.

[woodpusher]

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."

Your other crap, including your tag line, have nothing to do with the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Still not one word by Bingham abouit the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. This pile of crap is under the heading of EMANCIPATION IN THE DISTRICT. In 1862, the Radical Republican Bingham claimed that the slaves who were born in the United States were natural born citizens of the United States. He also claimed to follow the words of Chancellor Kent. It is easy to see what you and Bingham have in common.

[1637]

EMANCIPATION IN THE DISTRICT

[1638]

[Mr. BINGHAM]: ...

Gentlemen are aware of that fact, and the question today before this House is, whether the Representative of the people, under their oaths and in compliance with the clear reqirement of the Federal Constitution, here within the limits of the

[1639]

District of Columbia, will faithfully execute their great trust, and declare by law that hereafter, in all the coming future, no American citizen nor human being shall, within the limits of this District, " be deprived of life or liberty or property without due process of law." That, sir, is the question, the great question of this day and hour.

I have said that these persons who are the subject-matter of this legislation were natural-born citizens of the Republic. Shall we hesitate, can we hesitate, within the admitted limits of our power, to do justice to our own citizens by the enactment of this law? I regret, although I do not propose to make any change in the text of the bill, that it was so carefully worded as to say that, "all persons held to service or labor within the District of Columbia by reason of African descent." I would have preferred if the bill had declared that "all American citizens held to service or labor within the District of Columbia by reason of African descent are hereby discharged and forever freed from such servitude."

We are not to be cheated by the tests of citizenship that are sometimes set up touching the elective franchise and eligibility to office. It is too late in the day for any American statesman. to undertake to demonstrate that none are citizens of the United States save those entitled to the elective franchise or to the exercise of the functions of office. I stand here. to assert the proposition that, by thedecision of every State and Federal court in the country, more than one half the white population of the United States who are excluded from the exercise of the elective franchise, and from all civil offices, arc citizens of the United States. I undertake to say, by the decision of your Federal tribunals, that womenthat all the women of this Republic born upon the soil—are citizens of the United States, though neither entitled to vote nor to hold civil office. All the native-born women and children of the land, though not entitled to vote nor eligible to civil office arc citizens of the United States within the judiciary act of 1789, and within the Constitution of the United States, and as such entitled to sue and be sued in your Federal courts, and to plead and be pleaded therein.

The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon property, without due process of law. The words "natural born citizen of the United States" occur in it, and the other provision also occurs in it that "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural-born citizens. There is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. 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. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement I touching natural-born citizens except what is said I in the Constitution in relation to Indians. The reason why that exception was made in the Constitution is apparent to everybody. The several I Indian tribes were recognized nt the organization of this Government as independent sovereignties. They were treated with as such; and they have been dealt with by the Government ever since as separate sovereignties. Therefore, they were excluded from the general rule.

I adopt the words of that man whose clear intellect, through a long and laborious life, contributed much that will endure to the jurisprudence of his country—like the lamented Chancellor Kent, of New York—who declared that every person of African descent, born in this land, is a citizen of the United States, and although born in a condition of slavery under the laws if any State in whichhe might be held in service or labor, still he was a citizen of the United States under disabilities.

The Federal government either regulates or confers under any circumstances the enjoyment of the elective franchise among the States, and therefore the question so flippantly asked, when we propose the liberation of slaves, are ou going to give them the right to vote, may as well be omitted here. We have just nothing to do in our legislation with that question; we have-no power whatever over it. The right to vote does not involve the right to citizenship. Neither are the rights of men or citizens to protection under the law dependent upon the right of suffrage in them. Are not children natural-born citizens of the United States? Are not they entitled to protection as citizens everywhere in all the States of the Union? Does not the Constitution provide that the citizens of each State, being ipso facto citizens of the United States, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and does not that apply to the minor citizens of the United States as well as to the major citizens of the United States? It is not the privilege to vote that is thus guarantied to all citizens of the United States. The Constitution does not read, as I have heard it quoted upon this floor, that the citizens of each State should be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. No, sir, the word used in the Constitution in this clause is not of; but in, the several States. "All privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States in the several States," is what is guarantied by the Constitution. There is an ellipsis in the Constitution, as gentlemen doubtless know, which must be supplied to express clearly its meaning. The great privilege and immunity of an American citizen to be respected everywhere in this land, and especially in this District, is that they shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Mr. WICKLIFFE. But what civil political right does the State of Ohio give to the black man? Does it allow him to vote? Does it allow him to intermarry with the whites?

Mr. BINGHAM. The gentleman would get a full and satisfactory answer to his question if he would read the statutes of Ohio.

Mr. WICKLIFFE. I have read them.

[...]

[woodpusher]

I adopt the words of that man whose clear intellect, through a long and laborious life, contributed much that will endure to the jurisprudence of his country—like the lamented Chancellor Kent, of New York— who declared that every person of African descent, born in this land, is a citizen of the United States, and although born in a condition of slavery under the laws if any State in whichhe might be held in service or labor, still he was a citizen of the United States under disabilities.

Whatever did Chancellor Kent actually say? Much may be found in Lynch v. Clarke, 3 Owen 236 (5 Nov 1844). As Chancellor, James Kent held the highest judicial position in the State of New York. Lewis H. Sandford was the Assistant Vice-Chancellor of the First Circuit.

At 3 Owen 250:

Our policy, in this respect, and its happy results, were forcibly vindicated in the con­vention of 1787, by Dr. Franklin, Mr. Madison, Gen. Hamilton and Judge Wil­son. (3 Madison papers, 1273, 1299 ; I Wilson's Works, 163; 2 ibid, 446 to 450. And see the Message of President Jefferson to Congress, Dec. 8th, 1801.)

With these various and conclusive illus­trations of the uniform, wise and beneficial policy of the United States, for nearly two centuries past ; a policy which embraced every legitimate means for increasing the number, not merely of its inhabitants, but of its citizens; it is impossible to hold that there has been any relaxation from the common law rule of citizenship by means of birth within our territory.

6. Upon principle, therefore, I can en­tertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question. None was found by the counsel who argued this cause, and so far as I have been able to as­certain, it never has been expressly decided in any of the courts of the respective states, or of the United States. This circum­stance itself, in regard to a point which must have occurred so often in the admin­istration of justice, furnishes a strong infer­ence that there has never been any doubt but that the common law rule was the law of the land. This inference is confirmed, and the position made morally certain, by such legislative, judicial and legal exposi­tions as bear upon the question. Before re­ferring to those, I am bound to say that the general understanding of the legal profes­sion, and the universal impression of the pub­lic mind, so far as I have had the opportunity of knowing it, is that birth in this country does of itself constitute citizenship. Thus when at an election, the inquiry is made whether a person offering to vote is a citi­zen or an alien, if he answers that he is a native of this country, it is received as con­clusive that he is a citizen. No one in­quires farther. No one asks whether his parents were citizens or were foreigners. It is enough that he was born here, whatever were the status of his parents. I know that common consent is sometimes only a common error, and that public opinion is not any authority on a point of law. But this is a question which is more important and more deeply felt in reference to politi­cal rights, than to rights of property. The universality of the public sentiment in this instance, is a part of the historical evidence of the state and progress of the law on the subject. It indicates the strength and depth of the common law principle, and confirms the position that the adoption of the Fed­eral Constitution wrought no change in that principle.

The legislative expositions speak but one language on this question. Thus the various acts on the subject of naturalization which have been passed by Congress pre­suppose that all who are to be benefited by their provisions were born abroad. They abound in expressions of this sort, viz.: the country "from which he came ;" all "persons who may arrive in the United States;" the country whence they migrated is to be stated, and the like. This lan­guage is inappropriate to a person who was born here, and wholly inapplicable to one who has always resided in the country. If Julia Lynch had remained here till she was of age, the argument in regard to her citizenship would be no different, because during the intervening time she would have been incapable of election. In this state, the constitution adopted by the peo­ple in 1822, provides that no person except a native citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the office of governor. Native citizen is used as contradistinguished from citizens of foreign birth, and as a term per­fectly intelligible and definite. It is based upon the assumption that there was a known rule of law, ascertaining who were native citizens of the United States; and as has already been shown that there was no such rule known, except that of the common law. In various statutes which have been enacted from time to time for more than fifty years past, to authorize aliens to take, purchase, hold and convey real estate, the expression used by the legislature in declaring the extent of the rights granted, is that they are to be as full as those of "any natural born citizen," or of "natural born citizens." (See Laws of 1806, ch. 164, § 1, 3; of 1807, ch. 123; of 1808, ch. 175; of 1812, ch. 240; of 1825, ch. 310; 1 Rev. Stat., 720; and many others, both general and particular in their application.)

3 Owen 252

Chancellor Kent follows Blackstone in his division of the inhabitants of our coun­try into aliens and natives. And he says: "Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States ;" and "an alien is a person born out of the juris­diction of the United States." The excep­tions which he makes, do not affect the present question. (2 Kent's Comm., 39, 49, 2d ed.)

Judge Wilson, in his law lectures, de­livered soon after our national government was organized, says that an alien, accord­ing to the notion commonly received as law, is one borne in a strange country, and in a foreign society, to which he is presumed to have a natural and a necessary allegiance.

3 Owen 254

The Chief Justice further says "It was therefore then considered the law of the land, that all persons born within the territories of the government and people, although before the declaration of independence, were born within the allegiance of the same government and people, as the successor of the former sovereign, who had abdicated his throne." "And as the inhab­itants of England, born in the reign of the second James, were considered as born within the allegiance of his successor, Wil­liam the Third; because born in the terri­tory of which he was the sovereign, he hav­ing succeeded by parliamentary designation; so all persons born within the territories of the Province of Massachusetts Bay during the reign of the late King, are considered as born within the allegiance of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, as his lawful suc­cessor,"

The Chief Justice further says; "From the preceding observations, it is very clear, that the common law, which was in force, had superseded the necessity of defining by statute, alienage or allegiance. And from the definitions of alienage and allegiance, the nature and effect of naturalization and of expatriation are manifest.

Regarding Vattel and his like, the Opinion covers Vattel, Pufendorf, Schhmier, Domat, and Burlamaqui.

3 Owen 256

Vattel says, the natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. That in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen, for if he is born there of a stranger, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. (Vattel's Law of Nations, B. 1, ch, 16, § 212.) He further says, in reference to the inquiry whether children born of citizens in a for­eign country, are citizens, that the laws have decided the question in several coun­tries, and it is necessary to follow their reg­ulations. That in England, being born in the country, naturalizes the children of a foreigner. That by the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights. But he puts forth that opinion, on the supposition, that the father has not entirely quitted his coun­try in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant, and his chil­dren are so too. (lbid § 214, 215. And see § 216.) Thus the rule of Vattel, is con­trolled by the intention with which the father takes up his abode in the foreign coun­try.

Pufendorf, who is also cited in support of the civil law rule, says that all those who are born of a citizen, are deemed by that circumstance alone, to submit themselves to the sovereign power on which their parents depend. He however, does not speak of children born of citizens in foreign countries; and from, the context, as well as the residue of the section referred to, it is prob­able that his observations were intended to be limited to the children born in the state, who were the descendants of those who in theory first formed the civil government. (2 Pufendorf by Barbeyrac, 303, Liv. 7, ch. 2, § 20.)

3 Owen 257

These references show that the rule which the complainant derives from the writers on public law is not even in theory, clearly defined or uniformly held. That the most approved authorities, do not deviate from the rule of the common law, any far­ther than Judge Story has suggested that it is reasonable to deviate; and to establish such a departure, would involve the whole subject, as it respects the children of foreign­ers, in the obscurity ever attendant upon evidence of intention, the animus manendi, upon a change of residence; an obscurity the greater in these cases, because the question generally arises after the lapse of many years. The advantages to result from a resort to such an uncertain and fluc­tuating rule, are more ideal than substan­tial; and are completely over borne by its inconveniences, when contrasted with the simple and plain rule of the common law. The qualifications mentioned by Judge Sto­ry, and which are not universally established in the public law, are certainly unknown to the common law in England, and as estab­lished in the United States. There is no authority, and unless Mr. Dane's Abridgement be an exception, not a single work on American law, that asserts the existence of either of those qualifications.

[Penelope Dreadful]

Ok, so now you agree that Obama was eligible to be President! Congratulations! You have taken the first step to a new life of sanity! You are no longer a tw0-citizen parent Birther!

From this point forward, just let everyone know that you agree that WKA has defined NBC and said that the 14th Amendment put that concept into the Constitution, although you believe they made a mistake in doing so!

Nothing insane about that! Many court decisions that I disagree with, too.

In all sincerity, I am very happy for you! I think you will be a happier person for it.

[4Zoltan]

DL - “He is a pretend son.”

So when the adopted son was deemed, adjudged and taken to be the son of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, he did not become a real son.

But

When an alien was deemed, adjudged and taken to be a free Citizen of the Commonwealth, he became a real citizen.

Do you see a difference?

Do you see why I said a discussion about adoption was irrelevant to the Massachusetts naturalization acts?

When the alien became naturalized, he became entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens/subjects of Massachusetts.

[DiogenesLamp]

What are you — a natural born jackass?

I like to think so.

All of those are by the U.S. Supreme Court, approvingly citing holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in prior cases. They all explicitly state the applicability of the common law.

So? That they hold august positions and that other people respect them does not make them correct.

That the justices were not at the Constitutional Convention is worth of a Fizbin Medal at an idiot's convention.

Their opinions are hearsay. People who were present are first hand witnesses.

[DiogenesLamp]

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

No appeal for the Nazi ran, I mean Vichy governments either. Doesn't make it factually correct or morally proper.

The objective truth is that the 14th Amendment has been the law of the land since 1868 and there's not a damn thing that any of your truther, birther crap can do about it.

The law used to allow slavery. The law is an @$$. The law means what those in power want it to mean.

All your bleatoing does not change a thing, and it is not possible to challenge in Court.

So? Doesn't make the court correct, it just makes them powerful enough to get what they want.

Nobody hangs out in some non-existent academic circle which believes their debate changes the Constitution.

Well now, you see here? You are changing what I said into something I didn't say.

I think the question as to whether or not the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were lawfully ratified is a valid topic for debate in academic circles.

My position is that it violates the hell out of "consent of the governed" and is therefore illegal under constitutional law, but as I said, the law means whatever those in power want it to mean.

Fake governments that they created to do what they instructed them to do, doesn't meet constitutional muster in my opinion, but you do you.

[DiogenesLamp]

Your other crap, including your tag line, have nothing to do with the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

I disagree. His position informed the others, and they took his meaning when they considered the Citizenship clause.

In 1862, the Radical Republican Bingham claimed that the slaves who were born in the United States were natural born citizens of the United States.

That's exactly what Rawle said. The freedom cases had worked so well in Massachusetts, they decided to try doing them in other states. It didn't work in Pennsylvania, and Rawle (co Counsel William Lewis) got spanked by the Pennsylvania supreme court with a Unanimous decision that Rawle's argument was wrong.

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. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement I touching natural-born citizens except what is said I in the Constitution in relation to Indians.

I don't see how quoting this bit helps your argument. Also, the 14th amendment is naturalization.

[DiogenesLamp]

Whatever did Chancellor Kent actually say?

Who cares? He was *NOT* a member of the Constitutional convention, nor a Delegate to any State ratifying convention, so he has no first hand knowledge of what they meant by "citizen."

It is based upon the assumption that there was a known rule of law, ascertaining who were native citizens of the United States; and as has already been shown that there was no such rule known, except that of the common law.

He should have read that Pennsylvania law book. It would have made him aware of the rule.

Defaulting to the common law out of ignorance is not a good result. Perhaps had he attended one of the conventions, he would have been better informed as to what they meant when they said "natural born citizen."