Free Republic

I heard that The Ukraine won in Siversk, yesterday. A couple of days ago, The Ukraine won in Pokrovsk. They're presently winning in Myrnograd.

So much winning they are tired of winning. There has not been this much winning since Samuyil Hyde.

The Europeans would be the major contributors to any peacekeeping force, and they have been the current guarantors that have kept Ukraine from being taken over by Russia.

Every time the Euroweenies talk about inserting boots on the ground, they insist upon a U.S. backstop. They want to talk big and have the U.S. fight any war they start and can't finish. Turkey is the second strongest NATO military and the rest are insignificant.

Zelensky wants security guarantees from the U.S. because security guarantees from the Euroweenies are meaningless.

The NATO countries are capable enough to provide Ukraine with the weapons and economic assistance that Trump would deny Ukraine. The Europeans are much stronger than Russia, especially now that Ukraine has rendered the Russian military to third-rate status.

NATO with the U.S. cannot prove Ukraine with the weapons and economic assistance it needs. Ukraine does not need silly propaganda, and that is all the Euroweenies can provide.

That doesn’t address my point. His parents were not illegally here, even if noncitizens. I said *illegally* here without authorization or permission - not “foreign-born” parents.

Your nonsense about illegal alien parents makes no point.

14A makes no reference to the status of parents being legal or illegal. The first federal immigration control act was enacted in 1882. At the time 14A was adopted, the alien parents of a child had no federal law to break by being present in the United States.

14A could not and did not refer to something that did not and could not exist at the time is was ratified, namely an illegal alien.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

All persons

Are children persons when they are born? Yes, they are.

born or naturalized in the United States

Are children born in the United States, born in the United States? Yes, they are.

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Are children born in the United States, other than those inheriting immunity from a parent, such as the child of an accredited diplomat, subject to United States laws? Yes, they are.

Children born in the United States, with the exception of those interiting legal immunity from a parent, are citizens of the United States.

Your strained birther legal illogic reminds me of the "logic" expressed in a filing in Robinson v. Bowen et al, CAND (28 Aug 2008) Doc 27, page 4, footnote 2:

According to the plaintiff, Ambassador Keyes believes that any citizen of the United States born through natural procreative means (but not one born by caesarean section) is a “natural-born citizen” eligible to hold the Office of President.

I believe that was the DOJ lawyer that lied to sabotage the case.

You mean the DOJ lawyer who responded truthfully to the court and was fired and replaced by people who would lie to or deceive the court.

Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 4th Circuit No. 25-1345 (7 Apr 2025)

Consistent with this reality, the Government attorney appearing before the district court at the April 4 hearing candidly admitted that no order of removal is part of the record in this case. Dist. Ct. Op. at 14 (citing Hr’g Tr. Apr. 4, 2025, at 20 (counsel admitting no order of removal is part of the record), and id. at 22 (counsel confirming that “the removal order” from 2019 “cannot be executed” and is not part of the record)).

The Constitution, an original work, only speaks to laws of nations. That’s not a reference to Blackstone, it’s an obvious reference to Vattel.

We, having been at war with the British for many years, would have embraced our Ally and not succumbed to British Laws for dealing with other nations. At the time the Constitution was envisioned, France was our ally. We could have simply remained British if we accepted Blackstone and British law.

You deliberately remain clueless. The modern name for the Law of Nations is International Law. International law only applies where the territorial jurisdiction of no nation applies. Take for example the one case in the Constitution at Art. 1, Sect. 8, Cl. 10 "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high seas, and other Offenses against the Law of Nations." On the high seas is international territory, not within the territorial jurisdiction of anyone.

In Schick v. United States, 195 U.S. 65, 69 (1904), the Court said:

“That,” said Mr. Justice Bradley in Moore v. United States, 91 U. S. 270, 91 U. S. 274, referring to the common law, “is the system from which our judicial ideas and legal definitions are derived. The language of the Constitution and of many acts of Congress could not be understood without reference to the common law.”

Again, in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 124 U. S. 478, is this declaration by Mr. Justice Matthews: “The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

United States citizenship determinations are not given to an international court in the Hague to tell us who are, and who are not, citizens of the United States.

Your legal unknowledge evidently comes from wingnut birther websites. Birthers have failed in about 400 cases in a row to survive a pretrial motion to dismiss. They have no credibility whatever.

That matter has still not been directly adjudicated. Those manuals are not going to be case law as to whether or not children born to those illegally within the jurisdiction are going to be natural born citizens.

In Wong Kim Ark, at 169 U.S. 649, 674-675, the U.S. Supreme Court said:

So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.

Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.

The LOSING Briefs from the precedent setting U.S. Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark reveal the slightest tinge of racism involved in the attempt to save the nation from Yellow Peril. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), at the U.S. Supreme Court. Brief on Behalf of the losing Appellant (United States), by George D. Collins, Of Counsel for Appellant, and also signed by Holmes Conrad, Solicitor General; at page 34:

For the most persuasive reasons we have refused citizenship to Chinese subjects; and yet, as to their offspring, who are just as obnoxious, and to whom the same reasons for exclusion apply with equal force, we are told that we must accept them as fellow-citizens, and that, too, because of the mere accident of birth. There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that would be sacred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing alienage. Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance aud dignity of citizenship by birth? If so, then verily there has been a most degenerate departure from the patriotic ideals of our forefathers; and surely in that case American citizenship is not worth having.

In Wong Kim Ark, Brief on Behalf of the losing Appellant [United States], page 22-23, the losing side argued:

“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the language of the Constitution, and it is the most significant provision of the definition of citizenship there contained. Who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Manifestly not those who are subject to the jurisdiction of any other nation, or who owe allegiance to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty. Such is the con­temporaneous exposition of the Constitution’s definition by the very Congress that framed it, as is evidenced by what is now section 1902 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. It is there enacted: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Clearly, then, it was never intended that children born in the United States of alien parents should be considered citizens.

Such children at the moment of birth would be subject to a “foreign power,” to wit, the country of the parent, for it is a principle of international law, and recognized by the United States (sec. 1993, Rev. Stat. U. S.), that the children born abroad of citizens or subjects are citizens or subjects of the country of the parent. So, in respect to this case, it is the law of the Chinese Empire that the children of subjects when born abroad are subjects of the Emperor, Therefore, when Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco of Chinese parents there domiciled he at the moment of birth became a subject of the Emperor of China, and for that reason could not have been born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

At page 24, the losing Brief argues,

It is true, he was born in the United States; but he was not at the time of his birth, and certainly at no time afterwards, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof;” we mean, of course, the political jurisdiction of the nation; not the territorial jurisdiction, or which is the same thing, the jurisdiction, or more accurately, the operation of the laws. All the authorities agree that the provision of the Constitution's definition, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” has reference to the political jurisdiction of the United States in its international relation of a sovereign nation, and not to the operation of the laws. In other words, the sovereignty of the United States is of a dual nature—internal and external. The jurisdiction of the law pertains to the former; and the political power of the nation to the latter. All persons born in the United States and subject to the political power thereof are citizens—natural born citizens; it follows that persons born in the United States of aliens are not citizens.

The arguments of the losing side on brief were weighed, measured, and found wanting.

At page 35, the losing side added,

It is said in the district court’s opinion that—

The doctrine of the law of nations, that the child follows the nationality of the parents and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place of birth, is undoubtedly more logical, reasonable, and satisfactory.

* * *

Here is a more complete version of that quote from the district court:

The doctrine of the law of nations, that the child follows the nationality of the parents, and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place of birth, is undoubtedly more logical, reasonable, and satisfactory, but this consideration will not justify this court in declaring it to be the law against controlling judicial authority.

The inconvenient existing and controlling judicial authority came from the Circuit Court for the 9th Circuit.

The existing judicial authority was from In re Look Tin Sing, Circuit Court, California, 21 Fed R 905 (1884), Opinion of the Court by U.S. Supreme Court Justice (1863-1887) Stephen Field, sitting as a Circuit Court justice.

At 21 Fed R 906:

The first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution declares 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.” This language would seem to be sufficiently broad to cover the case of the petitioner. He is a person born in the United States. Any doubt on the subject, if there can be any, must arise out of the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” They alone are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who are within their dominions and under the protection of their laws, and with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered; and only those thus subject by their birth or naturalization are within the terms of the amendment. The jurisdiction over these latter must, at the time, be both actual and exclusive. The words mentioned except from citizenship children born in the United States of persons engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, such as ministers and ambassadors, whose residence, by a fiction of public law, is regarded as part of their own country. This ex-territoriality of their residence secures to their children born here all the rights and privileges which would inure to them had they been born in the country of their parents.

At 21 Fed R 908-909:

With this explanation of the meaning of the words in the fourteenth amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” it is evident that they do not exclude the petitioner from being a citizen. He is not within any of the classes of persons excepted from citizenship, and the jurisdiction of the United States over him at the time of his birth was exclusive of that of any other country.

The legal texts written by Blackstone and Vattel are no more law than is Constitutional Law by Chermerinsky, or the same title by Barnett, or American Constitutional Law by Tribe. They may be cited as a source of persuasive expert authority, but not as law itself.

Common law is the body of precedential court opinions issued by appellate courts.

In Schick v. United States,, 195 U.S. 65, 69 (1904), the Court said:

“That,” said Mr. Justice Bradley in Moore v. United States, 91 U. S. 270, 91 U. S. 274, referring to the common law, “is the system from which our judicial ideas and legal definitions are derived. The language of the Constitution and of many acts of Congress could not be understood without reference to the common law.”

Again, in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 124 U. S. 478, is this declaration by Mr. Justice Matthews: “The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

You should pursue a career in creative writing.

So, the martial law has repeatedly been extended by Ukriane's parliament, the Rada, which has the power to remove Zelenski as president if it so chooses.

I wrote that he CONSTITUTIONALLY imposed martial law. While martial law is in effect, military law governs. The Rada is a legislative body. Like the U.S. Congress, they have authority but they are not a body with power to enforce their decisions. The same can be said for the U.S. Supreme Court, see Merryman.

Black stone does not apply to the Constitution, 14th Amendment, natural born citizenship, or relations between nations.

Blackstone has to do with the common law, and as the U.S. Supreme Court stated, the Constitution was written in the language of the common law. Blackstone has nothing to do with international law.

Vattel has nothing to do with anything but international law. Black's Law Dictionary, Law of Nations; see International Law. Vattel has nothing to do with United States citizenship determinations.

Trump needs some lawyers in his administration who know how to fight and are willing to fight.

Without an order of removal there is no legal authority for him to be locked up. There is no cure for this level of stupid.

Court Order at 19-20:

B. No Order of Removal Exists for Abrego Garcia

No such order of removal exists for Abrego Garcia. When Abrego Garcia was first wrongly expelled to El Salvador, the Court struggled to understand the legal authority for even seizing him in the first place. At the first hearing in Abrego I, the Court inquired of Respondents’ counsel:

The Court: I want to ask, though, the very specific question, if there is a final order of removal, what . . . document got this process started? There is no warrant for his arrest by an order of removal. There is no statement of probable cause. There’s no charge. There’s no report that says that anyone saw Mr. Abrego Garcia doing anything illegal or criminal. So what is the actual document that gave these officers the authority to start this process?

Counsel: That is not in the record, and the government has not put that into the record. And that’s the best I can do.

Abrego I, ECF No. 33 at 21:11–22.

The Court continued to press counsel about the existence of a removal order and was told plainly that none can be found:

The Court: Okay. So if there’s a Title 8 removal order, there would be an order of removal that’s being executed, and we don’t have one for Mr. Abrego Garcia, right? . . . Do you have that order? . . . Is it in the record?

Counsel: I do not have that order. It is not in the record.

Id. at 23:7–24:4.

Since that time, Respondents have never produced an order of removal despite Abrego Garcia hinging much of his jurisdictional and legal arguments on its non-existence.

C. Continued Detention Without a Removal Order Violates the INA and Due Process

The absence of a removal order raises an intractable problem for Respondents. They took Abrego Garcia into ICE custody with the singular purpose of removing him to a third country pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231. See ECF No. 1-5 (notice of removal to Uganda); ECF No. 27-3 (notice of removal to Eswatini); ECF No. 52 at 32:18–19 (confirming notice of removal to Ghana sent “prematurely” to Abrego Garcia’s counsel); ECF No. 56 (notice of removal to Liberia). See also ECF No. 28 at 18 (Respondents arguing their third-country removal procedures are consistent with due process); ECF No. 72 at 25 (Respondents arguing Abrego Garcia “is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 as a result of his final order of removal”) (emphasis added).

Section 1231, however, only permits such third-country removal proceedings upon the issuance of a final order of removal. Entitled “Detention and removal of [noncitizens] ordered removed,” 8 U.S.C. § 1231 authorizes detention after the noncitizen “is ordered removed” and enters the “removal period.” § 1231(a)(1)(A). Section 1231(a)(2)(A) further articulates the terms of release or detention during the removal period, and § 1231(b)(1)–(2) discusses the selection of alternate countries in the event the noncitizen is granted relief from removal, or where the designated country of removal is unwilling to accept him. See also Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. at 542–43. Thus, without a final order of removal, § 1231 provides no lawful basis to detain and remove the noncitizen.

Respondents do not disagree. Abrego I, ECF No. 217 at 63:11–16 (Ernesto Molina, counsel for Respondents, explaining that ICE has statutory authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 to take into custody noncitizens subject to a final order of removal); Abrego I, ECF No. 235 at 86:6–17 (Sarmad Khojasteh, counsel for Respondents in Abrego I, explaining that the authority to remove Abrego Garcia flows from the final order of removal). Nor have they articulated any other basis to hold Abrego Garcia apart from § 1231. Accordingly, because Respondents continue to detain Abrego Garcia solely for the purpose of effectuating third-country removal under § 1231 but lack any authority to effectuate such removal absent a removal order, his continued detention must end.

I thought this muffer had been approved for deportation to some African country? What happened to that?

There is no order of removal. They got caught prevaricating about that. They could not produce one.

Court Opinion at 20-21:

Since that time, Respondents have never produced an order of removal despite Abrego Garcia hinging much of his jurisdictional and legal arguments on its non-existence. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 68–69; ECF No. 32 at 10, 15–17, 27; ECF No. 87 at 11–12. Indeed, Respondents twice sponsored the testimony of ICE officials whose job it is to effectuate removal orders, and who candidly admitted to having never seen one for Abrego Garcia. See ECF No. 107 at 30:16–22 (testimony of Cantú) (“Q: Based upon your many years of experience you described to us, you know what a final order of removal looks like, right, sir? Cantú: I do. Q: And have you seen a final order of removal in regard to Mr. Abrego Garcia? Cantú: I have not.”). See also Abrego I, ECF No. 234 at 46:6–12 (testimony of interim Assistant Director for ICE Removal Operations, Thomas Giles (“Giles”)) (“Q: You have not seen the final order of removal, have you, sir? Giles: What do you mean by that? Q: I mean, you have not seen a piece of paper that represents the final order of removal vis-a-vis Mr. Abrego Garcia, correct? Giles: No, I have not.”).15 Based on this, the Court concludes that no order of removal exists.

Respondents do not contend otherwise. Instead, they urge the Court to construe the October 10 withholding decision as an implied order of removal, or one that exists “by operation of law.” ECF No. 107 at 111:11–20.

[...]

Nor can the Court conclude legally that a removal order is “implicit” in the October 10 withholding decision, as Respondents urge. The Fourth Circuit has made clear, “when an IJ grants withholding of removal, an explicit order of removal must be included in the decision,” that identifies the country to which the noncitizen may be removed and alternative countries. Kouambo, 943 F.3d at 210 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). It is this explicit designation that “authorizes DHS to effectuate such a removal if a third country is identified.” Id.

Court Opinion at 30:

Because Abrego Garcia has been held in ICE detention to effectuate third-country removal absent a lawful removal order, his requested relief is proper.

Putin’s trolls want to vilify Zalenski, but he acts in accordance with, and through, the powers of Ukraine’s constitution. While he is the commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces during a time of war, he is far from a dictator like Putin.

Zelensky constitutionally declared martial law in February 2022. Governance by martial law is essentially dictatorial. Martial law shuts down the civil government and institutes governance by the military. The Ukraine constitution provides for it, but the powers under martial law are dictatorial in nature.

As the highest purveyor of all legal knowledge, see Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law

Martial law is the replacement of civilian government by military rule and the suspension of civilian legal processes for military powers.

That cites to Encyclopedia Brittanica which provides:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/martial-law

martial law, temporary rule by military authorities of a designated area in time of emergency when the civil authorities are deemed unable to function. The legal effects of a declaration of martial law differ in various jurisdictions, but they generally involve a suspension of normal civil rights and the extension to the civilian population of summary military justice or of military law. Although temporary in theory, a state of martial law may in fact continue indefinitely.

The lengthy version from Black's Law Dictionary begins with:

The law by which during wartime the army, instead of the civil authority, governs the country because of a perceived need for military security or public safety.

It absolutely is winning.

Yeah, it is winning the medal for first runnerup.

As Colonel McGregor estimates, at this stage there are 30 or 40 dead Ukrainians every day for each dead Russian.

The colonel is full of s-it. And so are you.

But when they do body exchanges, the Russians provide thousands and the Ukrainians provide dozens. Ukraine must be hoarding dead bodies.

Putin won't give up until ALL his troops are dead,

But it is the Ukrainians being slaughtered. They have this remarkable strategy of keeping their troops in a hardened defensive position until it is surrounded. They even block escape routes so their troops cannot retreat. Brilliant. Making the Maginot line great again.

Imagine that. Over a million casualties just for taking 1% of Ukraine.

You do have a vivid imagination. You need one to imagine that happpened.

Nut's doesn't begin to describe the insanity. Completely out of his mind is more like it. And you are out of your mind too.

I'm not the one praising the brilliance of Field Marshal Zelensky.

Kiev is the capital, and Putin launched the invasion to include the capital and Kharkiv. He wanted the biggest jewels, not Odessa.

Kiev is the political capital, Taking it would have ended the conflict. Taking Odesa would end Ukraine as a nation state.

The Europeans are the ones keeping Ukraine in the fight, and keeping Russia from taking Ukraine. Duh!

You mean the Americans. When Zelensky whines about a security guarantee, he is not asking Europe. If the U..S. pulls out, Ukraine collapses.

I guess that would make Ukraine equal to Russia in the number of ports that can be used, since Russia doesn't have any control of seaports anywhere around Ukraine.

Ukraine has no seaport now.

All trade would have to go by land through a neighbor state,

Very doable. Ukraine has good relations with ALL of Europe now, since Putin invaded.

Sure they do. They have really good relations with Hungary. I'm sure Viktor Orban can't wait to give Zelensky a hug and a kiss.

Remember the grain deal to move product through Poland, but not sell it into the Polish market? Somehow the grain popped up on the Pplish market and the Polish farmers took umbrage.

https://unn.ua/en/news/poland-investigates-ukrainian-grain-dumping-during-polish-farmers-protest

The Polish police are investigating a case of Ukrainian grain being dumped on the road by Polish farmers. This is reported by RMF24, UNN reports.

Details

Polish law enforcement officers in Chelm are investigating an incident that occurred on February 11 at about 11:30 a.m. in front of the Yagodyn-Dorogusk checkpoint, when Polish farmers poured grain out of several Ukrainian trucks.

It happened on the state road No. 12 to the border crossing in Dorohusk, near the site of the farmers' protest.

After customs clearance, three trucks driven by Ukrainian citizens entered Poland. The protesters did not allow the vehicles to proceed, and at one point opened the trailers, causing some of the grain to spill onto the road. The drivers turned back toward Ukraine

- said law enforcement officer Eva Chyzh.

https://unn.ua/en/news/blockade-on-the-border-with-poland-about-11-thousand-trucks-are-waiting-in-line-at-two-checkpoints

Blockade on the border with Poland: about 1.1 thousand trucks are waiting in line at two checkpoints

Kyiv • UNN

February 11 2024, 01:35 AM • 102500 views

About 1,100 trucks were queued up at two checkpoints on the Polish-Ukrainian border because of the blockade by Polish farmers.

I'm pickin' up good relations
She's giving me the excitations (oom bop bop)

Odessa will be very hard to take. Putin will lose another 500,000, perhaps another million troops trying to take Odessa; that would be more than the population of Odessa.

There you go again with the propaganda regarding casualties.

Odesa will not be very hard to take. Ukraine will not be able to keep it supplied or provide reinforcements. As Ukraine runs out of soldiers, things get less difficult for the Russians. You seem to overlook that Ukraine now has a general manpower shortage on the front lines.

But if you really think Ukraine is kicking ass, let them just keep kicking ass. Don't stop them while they are on a roll. Don't interfere with their battlefield successes until they reach Moscow.

And nobody should interfere with Ukraine kicking ass until Russia surrenders.

Russia will not surrender....

Then Ukraine is not winning. They are not kicking ass, either. As Colonel McGregor estimates, at this stage there are 30 or 40 dead Ukrainians every day for each dead Russian. It is now reduced to the stage of needless slaughter.

But if you really feel that Ukraine is kicking ass, then I really feel nobody should interfere with Ukraine kicking ass until Russia surrenders.

People here are having serious discussions about a matter of life and death in the Ukraine vs Russia war.

You were the one who introduced a fairy tale of war porn. Your source, The Military Show, is a purveyor of fiction narrated by AI. It is no more serious than Batboy from News of the World.

Common law, is that of the common man. Murder, ect.

When you have no clue what comprises the common law, you probably should not be wandering about unsupervised telling people all about it, or at least consult a legal dictionary or do a google search.

Common law, as stated in Black's Law Dictionary, is "The body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions." It notes, "Historically, [the common law] is made quite differently from the Continental code. The code precedes judgments; the common law follows them. The code articulates in chapters, sections, and paragraphs the rules in accordance with which judgments are given. The common law on the other hand is inarticulate until it is expressed in a judgment."

In Penny v. Little, 3 Scam. 301, Judge STEPHEN A. DOUGLASS recognised the landlord's common-law right of distress as part of the law of Illinois, in a case where the right to distrain was not expressly given in the lease. His words are worthy of quotation. "The common law is a beautiful system, containing the wisdom and experience of ages. Like the people it ruled and protected, it was simple and crude in its infancy and became enlarged, improved and polished as the nation advanced in civilization, virtue and intelligence. Adapting itself to the condition and circumstance of the people, and relying upon them for its administration, it necessarily improved as the condition of the people was elevated. Is it to be presumed then that our legislature, in adopting the common law of England, and the British statutes in its aid, prior to the Fourth of James I., intended to exclude all the improvements in the common law since that period? If we are to be restricted to the common law as it was enacted at 4 James I., rejecting all modifications and improvements which have since been made by practice and statutes, we will find that system entirely inapplicable to our present condition, for the simple reason that it is more than two hundred years old. The reason why 4 James I. was adopted instead of the Declaration of Independence was because that was the period of the establishment of the first colonial government, and with it the common law of England as it then existed. From that period we must look to American legislation and the reports of American courts for improvements and modifications in the common law."

If your assertation that the United States accepted Blackstone and British Common law, then why was the war of 1812 fought? Hint: the war of 1812 was fought over forced Impressment of US sailors onto British Warships. By Blackstone, all of these people had been born British, and thus could be Impressed into British navy service!!

Yes, the founding fathers were aware of British Common law. They rejected it outright when it came to ‘National’ issues as proven by the war of 1812. You might want to read this about who was aware of Vattel’s work.

That is blithering nonsense and you, sir, do not know what you are talking about.

As with Vattel, Blackstone wrote a book (or three volumes) [Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England] about the common law. Blackstone's book is not the common law itself.

The Law of Nations and International Law are interchangeable terms. Vattel literally wrote a book about international law, and birthers seem deluded into thinking United States domestic affairs are governed by international law.

Your claim that the Founders rejected the common law outright is ridiculous.

It is common knowledge that in our courts we cite binding legal precedents from case law. Binding legal precedents from case law do not exist in the continental code system of law which Vattel worked in. Binding legal judicial precedents are a feature of the English common law system. It would not function without them.

Each state made the application of the English common law clear in its constitution or statute laws. The language was clear to 18th century colonials. It may not be clear to 21st century dreamers seeking to find the law of European philosophers as their guiding light. I cannot help with the myopia of those who will not see. But I can certainly document that the states adopted the common law of England.

Constitution of Connecticut — 1776.

PARAGRAPH 1. Be it enacted and declared by the Governor, and Council, and House of Representatives, in General Court assembled, That the ancient Form of Civil Government, contained in the Charter from Charles the Second, King of England, and adopted by the People of this State, shall be and remain the Civil Constitution of this State, under the sole authority of the People thereof, independent of any King or Prince whatever. And that this Republic is, and shall forever be and remain, a free, sovereign and independent State, by the Name of the STATE OF CONNECTICUT.

Georgia, Act of February 25, 1784

3. Sec. I. Be it enacted, &c. That all and singular the several acts, clauses, and parts of acts, that were in force and binding on the inhabitants of the said province, on the 14th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1776, so far as they are not contrary to the constitution, laws, and form of government now established in this state, shall be, and are hereby declared to be in full force, virtue, and effect, and binding on the inhabitants of this state, immediately from and after the passing of this act, as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if the said acts, and each of them, had been made and enacted by this general assembly, until the same shall he repealed, amended, or otherwise altered by the legislature: And also the common laws of England, and such of the statute laws as were usually in force in the said province, except as before excepted.

Constitution of Maryland — 1776.

III. That the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England, and the trial by jury, according to the course of that law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their first emigration, and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances, and of such others as have been since made in England, or Great Britain, and have been introduced, used and practised by the courts of law or equity; and also to acts of Assembly, in force on the first of June seventeen hundred and seventy-four, except such as may have since expired, or have been or may be altered by acts of Convention, or this Declaration of Rights — subject, nevertheless, to the revision of, and amendment or repeal by, the Legislature of this State: and the inhabitants of Maryland are also entitled to all property, derived to them, from or under the Charter, granted by his Majesty Charles I. to Cæcilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore.

Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780

ART. VI. All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used, and approved in the province, colony, or State of Massachusetts Bay, and usually practised on in the courts of law, shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislature, such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and liberties contained in this constitution.

Constitution of New Jersey — 1776

XXII. That the common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law, as have been heretofore practised in this Colony, shall still remain in force, until they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature; such parts only excepted, as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Charter; and that the inestimable right of trial by jury shall remain confirmed as a part of the law of this Colony, without repeal, forever.

North Carolina, Act of 1778, Chap. 133

2. Be it enacted, &c. That all such statutes, and such parts of the common law, as were heretofore in force and use within this territory, (b) and all the acts of the late general assemblies thereof, or so much of the said statutes, common law, and acts assembly, as are not destructive of, repugnant to, or inconsistent with the freedom and independence of this state, and the form of government therein established, and which have not been otherwise provided for, in the whole or in part, not abrogated, repealed, expired, or become obsolete, are hereby declared to be in full force within this state.

Pennsylvania, Act of 1777

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.

Constitution of South Carolina— 1776

XXIX. That the resolutions of this or any former congress of this colony, and all laws now of force here, (and not hereby altered,) shall so continue until altered or repealed by the legislature of this colony, unless where they are temporary, in which case they shall expire at the times respectively limited for their duration.

Patrick Henry, Debates and Other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia, 2nd Ed., pp. 316-17.

When our government was first instituted in Virginia, we declared the common law of England to be in force.

Virginia, Statute § 1-200, The Common Law, (Code 1919, § 2, § 1-10; 2005, c. 839.)

§ 1-200. The common law.

The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly.

(Code 1919, § 2, § 1-10; 2005, c. 839.)

Vermont Act of November 4, 1797; An Act, adopting the common law of England, and declaring that all persons shall be equally entitled to the benefit and privilege of law and justice.

Sect. 1. It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont, That so much of common law of England, as is applicable to the local situation, and circumstances, and is not repugnant to the constitution, or to any of the acts of the legislature of this state, be, and hereby is adopted law, within this state; and all courts are to take notice thereof, and govern themselves accordingly.

1 V.S.A. § 271, common law adopted

§ 271. Common law adopted

So much of the common law of England as is applicable to the local situation and circumstances and is not repugnant to the constitution or laws shall be laws in this state and courts shall take notice thereof and govern themselves accordingly.

Northwest Territory, Act of July 14, 1795, A Law declaring what laws shall be in force.

The common law of England, all statutes or acts of the British parliament made in aid of the common law, prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the first (and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom) and also the several laws in force in this Territory, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered, as of full force, until repealed by legislative authority, or disapproved of by congress.

They rejected it outright when it came to ‘National’ issues

What actually happened at the Convention is early arrivals produced a draft which used the term national, as in national government. The adults arrived and struck the term national out everywhere it appeared. They created a federal government, and explicitly rejected references to a national government.

The founding fathers an All OF THE UNITED STATES rejected English law because we rejected the English!.

All 13 of the original states adopted so much of the Engish common law as was not incompatible with their constitution. English common law before July 4, 1776 is American common law.

U.S. Supreme Court, Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 86, 108-09 (1925)

The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3029 &context=penn_law_review

AMERICAN LAW REGISTER, SEPTEMBER 1882.

THE ADOPTION OF THE COMMON LAW BY THE AMERICAN COLONIES.

[excerpt]

Chancellor KENT, 1 Com. 472, says, "The common law so far as it is applicable to our situation and government has been recognised and adopted as one entire system by the Constitutions of Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Maryland. It has been assumed by the courts of justice or declared by statute, with the like modifications, as the law of the land, in every state. It was imported by our colonial ancestors, as far as it was applicable, and was sanctioned by royal charters and colonial statutes. It is also the established doctrine that English statutes passed before the emigration of our ancestors, and applicable to our situation, and in amendment of the law constitute a part of the common law of this country."

Our Federal courts function using the English common law system of law. English common law before July 4, 1776 is citable in our courts. Our courts rely on judicial precedent. Only one state in the nation does not use the common law system, that being Louisiana which retains its Napoleanic code system from when it was a French colony.

The[y] all read a French author called Emmerich de Vattel, and laws of Nations. The only book referenced in the constitution of the United States.

Vattel was a Swiss author who wrote a book in French, about international law. Only those who read French could have read his book. They all read Blackstone and wrote the Constitution using legal terminology of the common law.

Vattel's book was titled The Law of Nations. The Law of Nations is the archaic term for International Law. International law is not the citizenship law of any nation. International Law does not govern the domestic determinations of citizenship in the United States or in any other nation.

Vattel's book, The Law of Nations is not referenced in the Constitution. That is a book about the Law of Nations. The Law of Nations is the body of law governing relations between nations that grew out of customs and usage by nations. The modern term is International Law.

The Constitution at Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 provides, Section 8. [1] The Congress shall have the Power ... [10] To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations.

That is a citation to a body of law, not to Vattel's book about that body of law. It pertains to offenses on the high seas, not to domestic citizenship determinations where it has no applicability.

Vattel was dead while the states were still colonies and the United States did not exist. The term natural born citizen did not exist in the original French or English translation of Vattel's book on international law at the time the Constitution was adopted.

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R42097.html

Qualifications for President and the "Natural Born" Ciotizenship Eligibility Requirements, Jack Maskell, Legislative Attorney, January 11, 2016, Congressional Research Service 7-5700, R42097, Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

It was not until after the adoption of the Constitution in the United States did a translator interpret the French in Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations to include, in English, the term “natural born citizens” for the first time, and thus that particular interpretation and creative translation of the French, to which the Vattel enthusiasts cite, could not possibly have influenced the framing of the Constitution in 1787.¹⁰³

[...]

Although it appears that there is one single reference by one delegate at the Federal Convention of 1787 to Vattel (in reference to several works of different authors to support an argument for equal voting representation of the states in the proposed Congress),¹⁰⁴ there is no other reference to the work in the entire notes of any of the framers published on the proceedings of the Federal Convention of 1787,¹⁰⁵ and specifically there is no reference or discussion of the work at all in relation to citizenship at the Convention, in the Federalist Papers,¹⁰⁶ or in any of the state ratifying conventions.¹⁰⁷

It would appear to be somewhat fanciful to contend that in employing terms in the U.S. Constitution the framers would disregard the specific and express meaning of those precise terms in British common law, the law in the American colonies, and subsequently in all of the states in the United States after independence, in favor of secretly using, without comment or explanation, a contrary, non-existent English translation of a phrase in a French-language treatise on international law.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/195/65/

In Schick v. United States, 195 U.S. 65, 69 (1904), the U.S. Supreme Court said:

Blackstone’s Commentaries are accepted as the most satisfactory exposition of the common law of England. At the time of the adoption of the federal Constitution, it had been published about twenty years, and it has been said that more copies of the work had been sold in this country than in England, so that undoubtedly the framers of the Constitution were familiar with it.

Correct - but that did not address those born to those not legally within the realm - without legal authorization or permission.

14A - "All persons born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction" does not make the status of the parents relevant, other than if a parent can pass diplomatic immunity to the child, making it not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html#M301_1_1

[State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual]

8 FAM 301.1-1 INTRODUCTION

(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization;

(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:

(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and

(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.329

31 CFR § 515.329 - Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; person subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

§ 515.329 Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; person subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

The terms person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and person subject to U.S. jurisdiction include:

(a) Any individual, wherever located, who is a citizen or resident of the United States;

(b) Any person within the United States as defined in § 515.330;

(c) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and

(d) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, that is owned or controlled by persons specified in paragraphs (a) or (c) of this section.

[50 FR 27437, July 3, 1985, as amended at 68 FR 14145, Mar. 24, 2003; 80 FR 2292, Jan. 16, 2015; 81 FR 13991, Mar. 16, 2016]

- - - - -

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.330

§ 515.330 Person within the United States.

(a) The term person within the United States, includes:

(1) Any person, wheresoever located, who is a resident of the United States;

(2) Any person actually within the United States;

(3) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and

(4) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, which is owned or controlled by any person or persons specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section.

(b) [Reserved]

[28 FR 6974, July 9, 1963, as amended at 68 FR 14145, Mar. 24, 2003]