Posted on 07/19/2023 6:26:48 PM PDT by 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/
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Yeah. You let some crazy judge tell them something, and they stop thinking for themselves and just accept what the crazy judge told them.
How are you on the topic about men becoming "women"?
Judge says so you know.
:)
Aka SCOTUS who was *NOT* at the constitutional convention or a member of the ratification delegates, then no, I don't care to get second hand opinions on the topic.
That is exactly what I told UltraSonic 007 - that this is not a legal issue for you, but instead a psychiatric disorder or delusion.
Yes, refusing to accept hearsay as being as good as a first hand account, is a psychiatric problem.
Later day Judges do not know what was the meaning, because *THEY* weren't there. They should listen to the people who were.
Sane people do not think like you do. Sane people can read the decision, and see what it means. Insane people will babble and drool all over the place.
Sane people just think whatever the courts tell them to think. If they say abortion is a right, "it's a RIGHT!" If they say homosexuals can marry! "Homosexual marriage is a RIGHT!" If they say "Men can become women." "Men are Women!"
Yeah, i'm the one who isn't sane. Thinking for yourself is a symptom of crazy. People should simply accept what people in robes tell them. Like a good little cult.
You said, “Yeah, I’m the one who isn’t sane.”
Thank you for admitting it, finally!
(Oh, and don’t tell me that I am being deceptive, by cutting and snipping your comments. That is exactly what you Birthers do when you criticize Wong Kim Ark. You try to read one sentence out of context, and ignore the rest of the holding.)
You do this because you are mentally ill, and you can not admit that you are wrong. What did the psychiatrist above say?,
“When these individuals are not granted the rights they desire or are otherwise displeased with the outcome of legal proceedings, they become fixated on attaining justice. THIS FIXATION BEGINS A DOWNWARD SPIRAL THAT EVENTUALLY RESULTS IN A FULL-BLOWN DELUSIONAL DISORDER.”
FULL-BLOWN DELUSIONAL DISORDER! That is what you get when someone thinks Vattel trumps SCOTUS. FULL-BLOWN DELUSIONAL DISORDER.
Please go get therapy for this. You need it, and so do your buddies.
No one is trying to make the claim that Saddam and Bin Laden were citizens, either. It's still a non sequitur.
Well I am glad you understand me. Yes, it is exactly akin to saying "I'm going to ignore all prior jurisprudence and legal commentary on the issue,"
At least you're honest.
Can you not think for yourself, or do you have to wait until a judge gives you your opinion?
My objection is that you're introducing an unnecessary term, because that only results in further confusion.
Not so. Those "citizens at birth", such as from the Cable Act, or the Women's citizenship act of 1934, or the Naturalization act of 1952, are all "naturalized" citizens, with the naturalization to occur "at birth."
The Cable Act restored citizenship to women whose citizenship had been taken away by a prior act of Congress (Expatriation Act of 1907), which in itself was related to a prior act regarding expatriation (namely, the renouncing of one's citizenship). This falls outside the bounds of the 14th Amendment, so it's a non sequitur.
The Women's Citizenship Act of 1934 (as part of the Equal Nationality Act of 1934), from my understanding, extended citizenship to children born outside of America's jurisdiction if their mother happened to be an American citizen (likewise if the child is born of alien parents outside of the United States, if said parents and child meet certain conditions related to naturalization and residency). This likewise falls outside the 14th Amendment, and is thus again a non sequitur.
The act from 1952 you reference restates the 14th Amendment provision in one aspect, then goes on to list as statute a bunch of provisions that fall beyond the boundaries of the 14th Amendment (insofar, for example, it falls within Congress's authority to declare that "a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States" is therefore to be considered a natural-born citizen. Congress provided statutes and guidelines on areas to remove ambiguity (especially in terms of areas that had been fraught with debate previously, such as on the matter of Indian tribes), and to clarify differences between citizens and nationals; none of which run contrary to the plain wording of the 14th Amendment. Naturalization is likewise restricted in the statute, as far as I'm aware, to those who are not already classified as citizens by birth.
I'm not sure exactly why you're bringing it up, to be honest.
Natural citizens do not require laws and do not have to abide by conditions to retain their citizenship.
What are you talking about? Any citizen of a country is capable of losing citizenship of their own volition. The simple condition of not renouncing one's citizenship is incumbent upon everyone, natural-born or naturalized.
Not true. Look up "Citizen" in Blackstone. I believe I found it five times when I did a search. Then look up "Subject." "Citizen" in English law means "dweller in a city." It does not mean someone who owes allegiance to a country. The 1770 understanding of the words are not even analogous.
Non sequitur; many of the functional and civic treatments, rights, and privileges of English subjects translated directly to those of American citizens. That we did not retain the "subject" nomenclature, I argue, is because we do not have a monarchy or a feudal system.
Inherent natural law. Look up what Aristotle (and so many others) had to say on the subject.
You're going to have to be a bit more specific for such a broad subject. What are you claiming about natural law that is fundamentally tied to citizenship of a given country (or, as Aristotle would say, a city-state)?
So yes, you can naturalize people by laws written before they are born.
I suppose this is merely a matter of semantics then, because asserting that an act of Congress can naturalize someone who does not yet exist is patently absurd.
By omitting the usage of the more certain term. Remember, this is the same court that gave us "Separate but Equal." Why is it so hard to believe that they would distinguish one citizen from another, when that is *EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID IN PLESSY V FERGUSON.*
Different cases involving different subjects. Plessy v. Ferguson, as far as I'm aware, wasn't even trying to determine anyone's status as citizens by birth, but was instead assessing a law that differentiating between citizens of different races. Still a non sequitur to the current discussion, as far as I can tell.
You complained about me leaving off the "born", why don't you complain about the Wong court leaving off the "natural-born"?
Because I think that "natural-born citizen" and "citizen by birth" are functionally equivalent. Why would I complain that the court used one term instead of another?
“You do know the difference between pretending and reality?”
Apparently, some of the men who PASSED THE US CONSTITUTION did not - according to YOU!
Yes, the idea that we will punish people for breaking our laws has nothing to do with citizenship. *That* is a non sequitur.
The Cable Act restored citizenship to women whose citizenship had been taken away by a prior act of Congress (Expatriation Act of 1907), which in itself was related to a prior act regarding expatriation (namely, the renouncing of one's citizenship).
My recollection is that it allowed women to convey their citizenship to their children born in foreign countries. It's been awhile since I read it, but I distinctly remember that is the significant point for the purpose of this discussion.
Are such children, created by an act of congress, "natural born citizen"? (Mario Bellei)
This falls outside the bounds of the 14th Amendment, so it's a non sequitur.
It falls within the bounds of citizenship at birth created by law, which makes it relevant.
The Women's Citizenship Act of 1934 (as part of the Equal Nationality Act of 1934), from my understanding, extended citizenship to children born outside of America's jurisdiction if their mother happened to be an American citizen (likewise if the child is born of alien parents outside of the United States, if said parents and child meet certain conditions related to naturalization and residency).
You say there is no distinction between one sort of citizen and another, but one sort has to meet "certain conditions" and the other sort doesn't. Isn't this a defacto difference between the two types? Which of the two do you think is the stronger form of citizenship?
This likewise falls outside the 14th Amendment, and is thus again a non sequitur.
This is still an example of citizenship created by law and and with clear distinctions between it and citizenship not created by man made law.
I'm not sure exactly why you're bringing it up, to be honest.
It is conditional citizenship. You have to meet the conditions described in it to keep your citizenship. I do not have to meet any conditions, and my children do not have to meet any conditions to retain their US Citizenship. This is the distinction between natural citizenship and artificial citizenship through the power of congress to naturalize.
What are you talking about? Any citizen of a country is capable of losing citizenship of their own volition.
By doing nothing? How does a natural born American citizen lose his citizenship by doing nothing? What conditions are required of natural citizens to keep their citizenship? My understanding is that there are none. Not so with all these naturalized at birth citizens. If they don't meet the guidelines laid out in the statute governing their birth, they *LOSE* their citizenship... by doing nothing.
Mario Bellie (Rogers v Bellei) lost his citizenship for failing to meet the requirements of the statute that granted him (gave to him) citizenship at birth.
Non sequitur; many of the functional and civic treatments, rights, and privileges of English subjects translated directly to those of American citizens.
American citizenship is "Analogous" to English Subjectude, but it has it's origins from a very different source than English common law. This is why English common law is almost unfamiliar with the term, because it was never part of English common law. "Citizen" comes from Switzerland, not England. Look it up on an etymology website.
That we did not retain the "subject" nomenclature, I argue, is because we do not have a monarchy or a feudal system.
What sort of system do we have, and were did we get the idea for our system? Here is a hint. All the nations in the world at that time were monarchies except for one specific place which was a Republic. Guess where that was! Only Republic in existence. You can hardly miss it. :)
You're going to have to be a bit more specific for such a broad subject. What are you claiming about natural law that is fundamentally tied to citizenship of a given country (or, as Aristotle would say, a city-state)?
I'm pointing out that this concept of natural law and citizenship is so old that we can go back to Aristotle. I will give you a link to Aristotle's commentary (if you want it) when I get back to my other computer where I can find the links.
I suppose this is merely a matter of semantics then, because asserting that an act of Congress can naturalize someone who does not yet exist is patently absurd.
I'm not sure why you find that so hard to understand. Wong Kim Ark specifically refers to this.
...Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by n abling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts."
Different cases involving different subjects.
One kind of citizen versus another kind of citizen. Sounds like they are making a distinction to me. Both groups are citizens, and they are equal. But separate. But equal.
Like "natural born" and "naturalized." Different, but equal. :)
but was instead assessing a law that differentiating between citizens of different races.
Yes, that's very different from drawing distinctions between one sort of citizen and another.
Because I think that "natural-born citizen" and "citizen by birth" are functionally equivalent.
"Functionally equivalent" is the holding in Plessy too.
So did the Court make a mistake in Plessy, or did they make a mistake in Brown?
Or are they both correct because the Supreme Court cannot possibly make a mistake? Like Alice in Wonderland, are we required to believe two contradictory things before breakfast?
There is a legitimate argument to say "perhaps some of them thought it flowed from English common law, while others believed it to be derived from Vattel."
There is a possibility this is correct, and this may partially explain some of the confusion.
However, many of them wrote what they thought on the matter, and so we can discern from their writings what they believed to be the meaning of natural born citizen.
But just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean they are against me. There is plenty of evidence that they agree with me, especially men like Benjamin Franklin, John Marshall, and James Wilson.
The definition of what NBC meant to the Founders was explored in depth and with accuracy in Wong Kim Ark.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
Birthers don’t like it because they prefer the bad translation of Vattel...but one should interpret the Constitution based on what was put into it, not based on misconstructions hundreds of years later in an attempt to throw Obama out.
This is a good example the use of both natural born citizen and natural born subject in the same naturalization act by Massachusetts from 1791.
An Act for Naturalizing John White and Others.
“Whereas John White, …petitioned the General Court to be naturalized, & thereby become intitled to all the rights and privileges of natural born citizens …shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
“”Shall be deemed” means “We will pretend.””
You forgot the “adjudged and taken to be” part.
Pardon? Someone else on the thread was disputing the common understanding of what it means to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". That is why clarification was provided. Being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States — in isolation — does not convey citizenship. Who here has argued that?
Are such children, created by an act of congress, "natural born citizen"? (Mario Bellei)
Given our inheritance from the whole of English law (as the common law is arguably more influential on our entire constitutional framework than Vattel); given that the England Parliament's own naturalization power conveyed "natural born subjectship" upon certain classes of persons (such as foreign-born children of fathers who were English subjects, which had not been the case at the beginning of the second millennium AFAIK); and given the uniform rule of naturalization granted to Congress; it would seem that the power to define "natural" citizenship (within limits) was conveyed to Congress. In other words, it is a carryover of the English practice of a fundamental common law definition being subject to modifications by statute (with future Constitutional amendments providing hard protections on certain classes of individuals; those who fall outside those protections are still subject to statutory modification).
So yes, I would maintain that such citizens by birth are indeed "natural-born" (because again, naturalization in the strict sense is only available for those who are already born; I do concede, however, that the naturalization powers of Congress has expanded the class of those who can be considered citizens by birth). There is no Constitutional provision that dictates otherwise, as far as I'm aware.
You say there is no distinction between one sort of citizen and another, but one sort has to meet "certain conditions" and the other sort doesn't. Isn't this a defacto difference between the two types? Which of the two do you think is the stronger form of citizenship?
Practically speaking? The one who actually has to meet conditions. Citizenship that is earned is far stronger (in the sense that it carries with it a sense of duty and responsibility) than citizenship attained by the mere accident of birth. But that's just me.
It is conditional citizenship. You have to meet the conditions described in it to keep your citizenship. I do not have to meet any conditions, and my children do not have to meet any conditions to retain their US Citizenship. This is the distinction between natural citizenship and artificial citizenship through the power of congress to naturalize.
Both classes have the same rights, privileges, powers, and immunities. There is nothing "artificial" about it; no more than the fact that our "natural citizenship" is a function of the fact that we were born within the artificial, manmade creation known as the United States of America. That I am apparently supposed to treat one class of citizen differently from another (regardless of their personal behavior, conduct, and character) purely because of the accidents of history known as their "place of birth" and their "parental lineage" is quite frankly repulsive.
American citizenship is "Analogous" to English Subjectude, but it has it's origins from a very different source than English common law. This is why English common law is almost unfamiliar with the term, because it was never part of English common law. "Citizen" comes from Switzerland, not England. Look it up on an etymology website.
The etymology of the word 'citizen' is irrelevant to my point that many of the rights and privileges of American citizens (as understood at the time of the Founders) were carryovers from those enjoyed by English subjects. That they used the term "citizen" instead of "subject" seems only natural, because there was no monarchal sovereign or liege lord to be the "subject" of.
What sort of system do we have, and were did we get the idea for our system? Here is a hint. All the nations in the world at that time were monarchies except for one specific place which was a Republic. Guess where that was! Only Republic in existence. You can hardly miss it. :)
It's interesting that you bring up the republics of ancient Greece (unless you're referring to the Roman Republic...which would be ironic, because Roman citizenship at birth was only granted if born from a married father who was also a Roman citizen), because their concept of "citizen" came with conditions! This can be seen from Aristotle's Politics.
Starting with the city (the polis), those who comprised it are the citizens; who are the citizens? Per Part I of Book III, Aristotle defines a citizen in such a way so as to exclude other denizens of the city that are slaves and resident aliens (and, as Part V of the same book shows, Aristotle likewise excluded laborers and artisans from this class): "the citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices."
Further review of Aristotle's treatment of citizens is that they directly participate in the assemblies (and not through representatives) and partake in the upholding of justice; in Aristotle's conception, citizenship carried with it inherent duties and responsibilities. (This then dovetails in the discussion of what Aristotle considers a "good" citizen, and how it varies if at all from the "good" man; insofar as the "natural law" is considered, Aristotle considers that the polis is "natural" because it springs up from partnerships amongst families that arise due to natural impulses; however, the government of the polis can be of many forms. That Aristotle's conception of what it means to be a good citizen is heavily intertwined with his understanding of the natural law (insofar as virtue is concerned), I concede; however, I distinguish that being a citizen is not intrinsic to human nature, and is accidental based on the circumstances of one's place of birth and parentage; as such, insofar as American jurisprudence is concerned, questions of citizenship are per se separate from the natural law incumbent upon all men in the eyes of God.)
This is a far cry from the idea of a "natural citizen" you seem to have, which is enjoyed without conditions.
It should go without saying that in America, we do not discriminate against citizens who decline to share in political power, or who do not directly serve in assemblies, or who are laborers of low class, or who decline from voting altogether out of protest of lousy candidates.
(Aristotle likely wouldn't be cited for many other reasons nowadays, such as this bit from Part V of Book I: "But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature? There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule." And I say this as someone who actually agrees with the underlying sentiment to an extent: not all people are granted the graces needed to rule, and rule well at that.)
Or are they both correct because the Supreme Court cannot possibly make a mistake? Like Alice in Wonderland, are we required to believe two contradictory things before breakfast?
It should go without saying that historical developments between the time of Plessy and Brown showed that the notion of "separate but equal" facilities (as a reminder: in Plessy, the SCOTUS decision was rather deferential to the power of the state compared to the federal government, insofar as the Constitution was apparently silent on racial distinctions being made in an absolute sense) were hardly so; that such facilities were separate is conceded. But equal? No one pretends otherwise. There is no contradiction per se: Plessy's decision was conditioned on "separate but equal" being a legitimate possibility. By the time the matter came back up in Brown, history and human experience sufficed to show that "separate but equal" had not just become a legal fiction, but rather a means of actual exploitation on the part of those who wanted to reduce the power of racial minorities in their state. Had there been truly "separate but equal" facilities (equivalent schools, equivalent public services, equivalent privileges, etc), Brown might have gone differently.
Recall that laws are not static things; they are reasonable ordnances promulgated for the common good of the community by one with the authority to do so. At a time of great racial tension, one can reasonably see that the SCOTUS in Plessy was of the majority opinion that using federal power to enforce racial admixtures over the legislation of the state would have been contrary to the common good, especially if it were indeed possible for the races to enjoy equal rights and privileges in separate facilities. However, by the time of Brown, such equality had been effectively denied for decades in places where "separate but equal" had taken hold; as such, it is reasonable to see that for the common good, with "separate but equal" no longer being possible, the only available Constitutional possibility was integration. (And yet I find it quite ironic that, decades after integration was enforced, we seem to find various movements by racial minorities to segregate voluntarily. Funny how that works, isn't it?)
With all this being said: I do find your apparent insistence on making a distinction regarding a "natural citizen" to be fascinating, because there are many "natural-born citizens" serving in the halls of power right now (in Washington D.C. and elsewhere) who I wouldn't trust to protect my house over one of the local migrants that I occasionally see working on the roof of a neighbor's home.
In my ideal world, citizenship would be entirely conditional, because the power to affect the body politic is a heavy burden not to be wielded lightly. But that is not how the principles of citizenship have developed over the centuries, both in America and abroad; as it stands, citizenship (in the American sense) confers certain rights and privileges, but does not mandate any particular duties that one would consider particularly unique. In that sense, we are far beyond what John Adams noted in his 1798 letter to a Massachusetts militia: "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
So with that in mind, quibbling over who is or who isn't a "natural-born citizen" seems like quite the waste; "natural-born citizens" are just as capable of evil as any foreigner, and are just as capable of having divided loyalties and allegiances (just look at our current President, one Joseph R. Biden, born in Pennsylvania of two American citizens).
Character and virtue are essential. One's parents, and one's place of birth, by comparison, are accidental.
How is that different from pretend?
Do you know what word would signify that they are not pretending?
"Is."
I lose track after awhile, and at this point I don't want to go back and look, but that is exactly what I took someone to be arguing. That "Jurisdiction" simply means that we will apply our laws to you.
and given the uniform rule of naturalization granted to Congress; it would seem that the power to define "natural" citizenship (within limits) was conveyed to Congress.
Last year I saw a meme talking about the casting of a black woman as a Viking "King." The meme showed a man at a podium and he said "Haakon Sigurdsson is male." And then a woman asked "How do you know?" To which he replied, "It's in the name. "Sigurds'-SON."
"Natural" does not mean "artificial." It means created by nature. And for further clarification for the era in question, it is derived from "natural law." You can't re-define "natural." It's like calling a trannny a "woman."
The correct term for the power congress has is naturalization, which means to make "like natural."
It's *ADOPTION*. It is exactly *ADOPTION*. Congress can ADOPT. It cannot birth.
So yes, I would maintain that such citizens by birth are indeed "natural-born" (because again, naturalization in the strict sense is only available for those who are already born;
This idea is so directly contradicted by various court rulings over the years, I'm surprised you are still trying to go with that. If you write a law to "naturalize" at birth then it is still naturalization. That is exactly what the Wong court said in that bit I quoted you in my last message to you.
Practically speaking? The one who actually has to meet conditions. Citizenship that is earned is far stronger (in the sense that it carries with it a sense of duty and responsibility) than citizenship attained by the mere accident of birth.
In your very statement you point out that there is a difference between earned (which means you might not succeed at attaining citizenship) and "birth" citizenship.
How can the two be the same when even you point out a difference?
Both classes have the same rights, privileges, powers, and immunities.
Except for the ability to serve as president. But isn't that what we are arguing about? :)
There is nothing "artificial" about it; no more than the fact that our "natural citizenship" is a function of the fact that we were born within the artificial, manmade creation known as the United States of America.
What if we weren't? What if we were born in space, or in international waters? Which of us would still be citizens and which would suddenly become foreigners?
Place of birth is a silly criteria in deciding what you are. Children inherit what they are from their parents. That works in biology and it worked in law in every part of the world except England, and there is a story behind that that we may get to in the scope of this discussion. (Calvin's Case.)
The etymology of the word 'citizen' is irrelevant to my point that many of the rights and privileges of American citizens (as understood at the time of the Founders) were carryovers from those enjoyed by English subjects.
You are trying to argue that our supposed English law origins for citizenship are embodied in a Swiss word. Occam's razor suggests that the framers chose the Swiss word because they were following the ideas of the man who put the idea of forming the United States into their head.
From "Law of Nations"
"Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.
I can assure you such an idea does not occur anywhere in English law because it would have been treasonous to write such a thing in England. As a matter of fact, every monarchy in Europe would have regarded such a statement as treasonous. So of course it was written in the Swiss Republic, and no where else.
The United States are based on the ideas of Vattel. *HE* put the idea into their heads.
That they used the term "citizen" instead of "subject" seems only natural, because there was no monarchal sovereign or liege lord to be the "subject" of.
But you are arguing that they carried everything over from English law which would make you into a SUBJECT and applied it to this concept of "Citizen", which was a concept that at the time, only existed in the Swiss Republic. You would have us believe that the framers intended us to be like monarchical subjects in all but name.
I think they chose "citizen" precisely to denote we were *NOT* subjects, and they borrowed this word from the same body of thought that suggested they form a confederated Republic of independent states. (Like Switzerland.)
It's interesting that you bring up the republics of ancient Greece (unless you're referring to the Roman Republic...which would be ironic, because Roman citizenship at birth was only granted if born from a married father who was also a Roman citizen), because their concept of "citizen" came with conditions!
You say "conditions", but I think you mean obligations. Yes, the idea that citizenship follows the father was universal until England pulled their little Calvin's Case stunt.
It should go without saying that historical developments between the time of Plessy and Brown showed that the notion of "separate but equal" facilities (as a reminder: in Plessy, the SCOTUS decision was rather deferential to the power of the state compared to the federal government, insofar as the Constitution was apparently silent on racial distinctions being made in an absolute sense) were hardly so; that such facilities were separate is conceded. But equal? No one pretends otherwise. There is no contradiction per se: Plessy's decision was conditioned on "separate but equal" being a legitimate possibility. By the time the matter came back up in Brown, history and human experience sufficed to show that "separate but equal" had not just become a legal fiction, but rather a means of actual exploitation on the part of those who wanted to reduce the power of racial minorities in their state. Had there been truly "separate but equal" facilities (equivalent schools, equivalent public services, equivalent privileges, etc), Brown might have gone differently.
You didn't really clarify whether the Supreme Court was *WRONG*, or whether we should believe two contradictory rulings from it are both correct simultaneously.
For the sake of simplicity, i'm just gonna say they were *WRONG*, which proves they can be wrong, which is why I don't put a lot of stock in people citing court cases to "prove" something.
You can "prove" what the guys with guns will enforce because the Judges say so, but this is a very different thing from proving something is factually true.
With all this being said: I do find your apparent insistence on making a distinction regarding a "natural citizen" to be fascinating, because there are many "natural-born citizens" serving in the halls of power right now (in Washington D.C. and elsewhere) who I wouldn't trust to protect my house over one of the local migrants that I occasionally see working on the roof of a neighbor's home.
Well absolutely, but I didn't write the requirements for the presidency, I am merely pointing out the technicality of what they actually mean. I agree that we could probably have a lot of good presidents that are not natural born citizens. I liked Ted Cruz and I think he would make a good president. (Trump is a *GREAT* president.)
I would overlook his inability to meet the criteria because we already let that lousy bastard in, so as far as i'm concerned, the precedent has been made.
But this is a very different thing from accepting the claim that the framers intended for anyone with 14th amendment citizenship or naturalized at birth by the power of congress to be a "natural born citizen" as John Jay wrote in his letter.
This argument is academic, but I like arguing, so there is that. :)
So with that in mind, quibbling over who is or who isn't a "natural-born citizen" seems like quite the waste;
I don't think an accurate understanding of things is a waste.
"natural-born citizens" are just as capable of evil as any foreigner, and are just as capable of having divided loyalties and allegiances (just look at our current President, one Joseph R. Biden, born in Pennsylvania of two American citizens).
No doubt, but in the framers time, allegiance to another sovereignty was a serious problem in Europe, and the intent of the framers was to specifically *AVOID* all that nonsense right from the start.
They could exclude what they saw as a serious danger of foreign influence, but there is not much they could have done to prevent absolute crooks and @$$holes from getting into power. They left that to the people.
Just to clear something up - you believe that a naturalized citizen is not a real citizen just a pretend citizen. Is that right?
As directly held in Wong Kim Ark, the child of two aliens, if born within the territory of the United States, is not only born within the jurisdiction, but is born a United States citizen.Through the process of mass naturalization by the law of the 14th amendment.
We know this process is outside "natural born citizen", because they had those in 1776, long before the 14th amendment came along.
No, NOT through any form of naturalization. You are mentally irregular.
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
149 U. S. 716.
The Convention between the United States and China of 1894 provided that"Chinese laborers or Chinese of any other class, either permanently or temporarily residing in the United States, shall have for the protection of their persons and property all rights that are given by the laws of the United States to citizens of the most favored nation, excepting the right to become naturalized citizens."
28 Stat. 111. And it has since been decided, by the same judge who held this appellee to be a citizen of the United States by virtue of his birth therein, that a native of China of the Mongolian race could not be admitted to citizenship under the naturalization laws. In re Gee Hop (1895), 71 Fed.Rep. 274.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
"all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,"
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [169 U. S. 703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.
149 U.S. 704
VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth.
Wong Kim Ark acquired citizenship by birth while being born to two Chinese aliens.
There are two classes of citizen, and two only: natural born and naturalized. Naturalization applies only to aliens at a time after their birth. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen at birth, did not need naturalization, and as a citizen was not even eligible for naturalization. That leaves only the one other category possible, natural born citizen.
Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1872)
The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
Au contraire mon frere. It may be "irrelevant" to the way the ridiculously pompous legal system views things, but those of us who are interested in real and actual truth can point out it's relevancy with ease.
Take the bullflop of your imagination to coourt and lose.
I forget. Have I shown you Rogers v. Bellei yet?
You have only shown me your mental health challenges.
Rogers v. Bellei? I remember your description well. That was the one where the Chief Justice, for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court, pronounced from the bench that the Court had struck down the Fourteenth Amendment, Article I, Section 1, Clause 1 as being repugnant to a book on The Law of Nations, and that jurisdiction over U.S. citizenship issues resided at court at The Hague, Netherlands.
The Law of Nations is the old fashion term for International Law. The magical book was written by by an Austrian who wrote it in French and then died before the colonies declared independence.
Do I recall your description correctly?
Outside your Court of the Imagination™ I find the following:
https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam010203.html
8 FAM 102.3-8 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTORY CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT FOR RETENTION OF CITIZENSHIP ACQUIRED BY BIRTH ABROAD (ROGERS V. BELLEI)(CT:CITZ-57; 06-07-2021)
a. In Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) the court upheld the constitutionality of the retention provisions of former section 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
b. The court found that:
Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in this country on appellee, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment's definition of citizens as those 'born or naturalized in the United States,' and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful.c. In Rogers v. Bellei, however, the court held that the constitutional definition of citizenship in the 14th Amendment does not include persons who acquired citizenship by birth abroad to a citizen parent. This definition was:
"one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States."d. The court held:
"The plan thus adopted by Congress with respect to a person of this classification was to bestow citizenship at birth but to take it away upon the person's failure to comply with a post-age-14 and pre-age-28 residential requirement. It is deprival of citizenship, once bestowed, that is under attack here."****
"Of initial significance . . . is the Fourteenth Amendment's opening sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The central fact, in our weighing of the plaintiff's claim to continuing and therefore current United States citizenship, is that he was born abroad. He was not born in the United States. He was not naturalized in the United States. And he has not been subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. All this being so, it seems indisputable that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment has no application to plaintiff Bellei. He simply is not a Fourteenth-Amendment-first-sentence citizen . . . . The plaintiff's claim thus must center in the statutory power of Congress and in the appropriate exercise of that power within the restrictions of any pertinent constitutional provisions other than the Fourteenth Amendment's first sentence."
****
"A contrary holding would convert what is congressional generosity into something unanticipated and obviously undesired by the Congress. Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process. The plaintiff here would force the Congress to choose between unconditional conferment of United States citizenship at birth and deferment of citizenship until a condition precedent is fulfilled. We are not convinced that the Constitution requires so rigid a choice. If it does, the congressional response seems obvious.
. . . Neither are we persuaded that a condition subsequent in this area impresses one with 'second-class citizenship.' That cliche is too handy and too easy, and, like most cliches, can be misleading. That the condition subsequent may be beneficial is apparent in the light of the conceded fact that citizenship to this plaintiff was fully deniable. The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of non-citizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place. His citizenship, while it lasts, although conditional, is not 'second-class.'"
e. The court summarized:
“the statutory pattern, therefore, developed and expanded from (a) one, established in 1790 and enduring through the Revised Statutes and until 1934, where citizenship was specifically denied to the child born abroad of a father who never resided in the United States; to (b), in 1907, a governmental protection condition for the child born of an American citizen father and residing abroad, dependent upon a declaration of intent and the oath of allegiance at majority; to (c), in 1934, a condition, for the child born abroad of one United States citizen parent and one alien parent, of five years' continuous residence in the United States before age 18 and the oath of allegiance within six months after majority; to (d), in 1940, a condition, for that child, of five years' residence here, not necessarily continuous, between ages 13 and 21; to (e), in 1952, a condition, for that child, of five years' continuous residence here, with allowance, between ages 14 and 28. Thus, in summary, it may be said fairly that, for the most part, each successive statute, as applied to a foreign-born child of one United States citizen parent, moved in a direction of leniency for the child.”
McCain could not have been born in a CZ Naval Hospital in 1936. It was built in WW2. You have not seen the records for the non-existent hospital.I may have done, but my recollection is it included the name of the doctor that delivered him and his mother's name. The reporter that did the story said he verified everything he could about the record he had found, and it was inherently consistent.
Maybe I can illuminate your failing memory and you can actually say what you are trying to say. As a caution though, your source is WAPO, and it spewed a number of false claims.
The doctor was falsely named as "Capt. William L. Irvine."
The reporter, or transcriptionist, was Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post.
McCain's Birth Abroad Stirs Legal Debate
His Eligibility for Presidency Is QuestionedBy Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 2, 2008
[Dobbs:] "A senior official of the McCain campaign showed a reporter a copy of the senator's birth certificate issued by Canal Zone health authorities, recording his birth in the Coco Solo 'family hospital.'"
The article contains several errors of fact, among them being the claimed Coco Solo family hospital which did not exist. The Navy has never had a command called a "family hospital." Just outside the main gate of the base was a hospital run by the Canal Zone authorities. There were no sponsored dependents at Coco Solo, meaning McCain and his wife were required to live off base. They would have to drive past the hospital to enter the base that had no hospital.
Here, Michael Dobbs did not find a record. He claimed a reporter (unnamed) was shown a record.
Neither Dobbs nor McCain ever made such document available to the public.
Michael Dobbs was also the original fact checker for WAPO.
Dobbs, Michael (2008-05-20). "The Fact Checker: John McCain's Birthplace". The Washington Post.
"The birth certificate was signed by Captain W.L. Irvine. I have now checked that name against the Naval Register for 1936, and I find that William Lorne Irvine was director of the medical facility at the submarine base hospital in Coco Solo, Panama Canal Zone, during that time period. You can see the entry here [DEAD LINK] I think this effectively disposes of any remaining doubts that McCain was born inside the Canal Zone."
The linked document was a list of Medical Directors in the Navy Medical Corps holding the equivalent rank of Captain. Other, more senior Medical Directors, on another list, held the equivalent rank of Rear Admiral. Michael Dobbs, (or the senior campaign official) was unable to correctly read the Navy publication.
"Captain" Irvine was not a Captain. Prior to the 1950s conversion of Staff Corps officers to Line Corps rank names, there were no Captains in the Medical Corps. Irvine's rank was that of Medical Director. He was Medical Director Irvine, and had previously held the lower rank of Flight Surgeon. This did not mean he was the Director of anything, or that he performed surgery, airborne or otherwise. It just meant his rank was called Medical Director.
No copy of a birth certificate signed by "Capt." W.L. Irvine has ever been produced. Any document from 1936, with such a signature, would necessarily be a fake if it actually showed the rank of a Medical Corps officer as Captain.
While the records for the Canal Zone have been preserved, a birth certificate for John McCain is not among them. The page that should have John McCain's name is there, but his name is not on the page.
A senate resolution declared:
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be itResolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a 'natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
There is nothing in 14A, or U.S. citizenship law, about birth on a military base. If not born within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, the determination of birth citizenship is made pursuant to the effective Federal law at the moment of birth. John McCain was not born within the territory of the United States. In McCain's case, the federal law itself was horribly defective and did not apply to someone born within the jurisdiction of the United States. The law was changed the next year.
[Dobbs]: "I find that William Lorne Irvine was director of the medical facility at the submarine base hospital in Coco Solo, Panama Canal Zone, during that time period."
The military never had "directors" of medical facilities.
There was likely a small sick bay or clinic/dispensary which was an integral part of the submarine command, existing as its Medical Department. There were no sponsored dependents allowed at Coco Solo, so there could not be an OB/GYN clinic, or military family health care. And assuredly, there was no hospital.
While there have been commands called a Naval Facility, there has never been a command called a Medical Facility. Naval records document there was no Naval Hospital at Coco Solo prior to the 1940's.
A clinic or dispensary cannot routinely deliver babies in an ad hoc delivery room. The Feres Doctrine protects the military from malpractice suits by military members but not by civilian dependents. Were there to be a problem delivery, it sure would be nice to have an operating theater nearby, with a staff to man it. Navy clinics and dispensaries do not sport operating theaters and an O.R. staff. The base had zero command sponsored dependents.
Factchecker Dobbs:
'As I reported earlier, the McCain campaign has declined to publicly release the senator's birth certificate. But a senior campaign official showed me a copy of his birth certificate issued by the "family hospital" in the Coco Solo submarine base.'A senior campaign official showed Dobbs a copy of what was purported to be a birth certificate issued by the "family hospital".
On a base with zero sponsored dependents, it is an absurdity.
FIVE PINOCCHIOS
Factchecker Dobbs:
"The birth certificate was signed by Captain W. L. Irvine. I have now checked that name against the Naval Register for 1936, and I find that William Lorne Irvine was director of the medical facility at the submarine base hospital in Coco Solo, Panama Canal Zone, during that time period. You can see the entry here [DEAD LINK] I think this effectively disposes of any remaining doubts that McCain was born inside the Canal Zone.
FIVE PINOCCHIOS.
Note that while there as no such thing as a Captain in the Medical Corps in 1936, Dobbs specifically identified the docment he was shown as having been signed by Captain W. L. Irvine.
This is what you get from a senior campaign official and his transcriptionist.
If it was fake, it was a d@mn good fake.
It appears it was good enough to fool you.
In Hollander v. McCain, an attachment to Doc 20, Doc 20-1 was a purported birth certificate for John McCain submitted by Hollander. It was provided by Donald Lynn Lamb whose affidavit claimed he is "the legal representative of the New York company known as The Panama Railroad Company." It was a document AGAINST John McCain in the failed case of Hollander v. McCain.
See: https://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/the-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/
The Birth Certificate is a forgery!
The Bingham quote in your tagline has nothing to do with th 14th Amendment. It pertains to the Civil Rights Act of 1866.If you say so.
NO. Not if I say so.
I'm not going to look it up because I no longer have the zeal I used to have.
I spared you the trouble in my #32. I linked, cited, and quoted the Congressional Globe. Your Bingham quote was highlighted in blue font and underlined. Bingham argued that th Civil Rightsd Act was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.You exhibit precisely that amount of zeal consistently. https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4169134/posts?page=32#32
I will inform you that the citizenship clause was an amendment initated in the Senate by Senator Jacob Howard. Bingham's draft did not even have a citizenship clause.The Bingham quote in your tagline has nothing to do with th 14th Amendment. It pertains to the Civil Rights Act of 1866. In the following three sentences, Bingham argued that the CRA was unconstitutional.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, March 9, 1866, pg. 1291
Has the Congress of the United States the power to pass and enforce the bill as it comes to us from the committee? Has the Congress of the United States the power to declare, as this bill does declare, in the words which I propose to strike out, that there shall be no discrimination of civil rights among citizens of the United States in any State of the United States, on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery.I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright, and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him. But while this is admitted, can you declare by congressional enactment as to citizens of the United States within the States that there shall be no discrimination among them of civil rights?
Obviously, John Bingham was talking about a bill and not about the Fourteenth Amendment which was not even introduced for consideration until several months later.
"Vattel was by far the most quoted legal source in pleadings in American cases, by almost a factor of 4, between 1790 and 1820. (Nussbaums Concise History of the Law of Nations, 1962)."
Domestic decisions regarding a nation's own citizenship is not decided by international law, but it is clear you would prefer to have the United States subservient to the crackpots in The Hague.
Here is a tip for you. If you make your comment too much trouble to read, people will skip it.It would be helpful if you condensed your points down to a few important ones that people can more easily digest.
Here is a tip for you. Don't post insane nonsense which would be better left unread, so not to lower the knowledge of the reader.
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.