Replies

You are insane.

Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 654

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

Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 655

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

Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 655

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," " faith" or "power," of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual—as expressed in the maxim, protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects.

Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 658

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction, of the English Sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. at 660

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

3 Pet. equals 28 U.S.

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

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

169 U.S. at 662

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

169 U.S. at 662

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You should be ashamed of yourself!!!

That is what Squeeky said to you.

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

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

Here is the relevant page of their report.

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

You provide the title page of:

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

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

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

You can get rid of all those judges you cited. They have nothing to do with the page 26 you exhibited. The page you exhibited was written by the President of the Courts of Common Pleas, of the Fifth Judicial District of Pennsylvania who was never a justice of the supreme court of anywhere, and not by anyone else.

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

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

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

It is, indeed, thrilling that someone with the Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania expressed an opinion you so cherish that you attributed it to four other people you say were at the Constitutional Convention. The author of your book was born in 1763 and died in 1820. The youngest delegate to the Constitutional Convention was Jonathan Dayton, age 26. Your author would have been, at best, 24.

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

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

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

3 Stat. 53

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

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

With all that being said, anything issued prior to the 14th Amendment, and inconsistent with it, would be struck down by the 14th Amendment. It does not matter what was said or who said it.

All that trouble of mismatching the title page of a book, and a text page from another book, and attributing the authorship of one to the text of the other, gone to waste when you could have been doing something productive, such as reading some Pennsylvania law.

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

§ 1503. Applicability of colonial law.
(a) English law.--The common law and such of the statutes of England as were in force in the Province of Pennsylvania on May 14, 1776 and which were properly adapted to the circumstances of the inhabitants of this Commonwealth shall be deemed to have been in force in this Commonwealth from and after February 10, 1777.

https://famguardian.org/Publications/PropertyRights/Precept.html

Reception statute of Pennsylvania, 1777:

[[section]]1. "Each and every one of the laws or acts of general assembly, that were in force and binding on the inhabitants of the said province on the 14th day of May last, shall be in force and binding on the inhabitants of this state, from and after the 10th day of February next, as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if the said laws, and each of them, had been made or enacted by this general assembly . . . . and the common law and such of the statute laws of England, as have heretofore been in force in the said province, except as hereafter excepted.
[[section]]2. Provided always, that so much of every law or act of general assembly of the province aforesaid, as orders taking or subscribing any oath, affirmation or declaration of allegiance or fidelity to the king of Great Britain, or his successors, or oath of office; and so much of every law or act of general assembly aforesaid, as acknowledges any authority in the heirs or devisees of William Penn, Esq., deceased, the former governor of the said province, or any other person whomsoever as governor; and so much of every law or act of general assembly, as ascertains the number of members of assembly in any county, the time of election and the qualifications of electors; and so much of every law or act of assembly aforesaid, as declares, orders, directs or commands any matter or thing repugnant to, against, or inconsistent with the constitution of this commonwealth, is hereby declared not to be revived, but shall be null and void, and of no coerce or effect; and so much of the statute laws of England aforesaid relating to felonies, as takes notice of or relates to treason or misprision of treason, or directs the style of the process in any case whatsoever, shall be, and is hereby declared, of no force or effect, anything herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding."

Pennsylvania, Act of 1777, An Act to revive and put in force such and so much of the late laws of the province on Pennsylvania, as is judged necessary to be in force in this commonwealth, and to revive and establish the Courts of Justice, and for other purposes therein mentioned.

II. Be it therefore enacted, and it is hereby enacted, That each and every one of the laws or acts of General Assembly, that were in force and binding on the inhabitants of the said be province on the fourteenth day of May last, shall be in force from and binding on the inhabitants of this state from and after the tenth day of February next, as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if the said laws, and each of them, had been made or enacted by this General Assembly; and all and every person and persons whomsoever are hereby enjoined and required to yield obedience to the said laws, as the case may require until the said laws or acts of General Assembly respectively shall be repealed or altered, or until they expire by their own limitation; and the common law and such of the statute laws of England as have heretofore been in force in the said province, except as is hereafter excepted.