Posted on 02/06/2016 1:47:14 AM PST by RC one
Edited on 02/06/2016 5:34:58 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
“No I do not, because that is not a historical fact. What you are doing is taking a certain class of individuals who are without question natural born citizens and making that class exclusive, when it never was. The truth is that there has always been controversy about who is and who is not a natural born citizen, because there was no single standard, even at the time the Constitution was framed.”
Totally and utterly wrong. On the contrary, subjects made and citizens made have always been naturalized. There has never been a time when subjects-made and citizens made have not been naturalized.
“I wasn’t touching on how a state arises, just remarking on the ramifications if a state does not arise.”
Actually, that is the whole point. It is not necessary to have a state in order for a society to have natural born citizens, natural born subject, or natural born members of any kind under the principles of natural law. Birth as a natural member of a group in a society is a natural principle extending backwards into the prehistoric ages and prehistoric cultures and long before the advent of cities, civilizations, and statutory laws. That is why Positive Law is disqualified from legislating its existence or its character.
“And nowhere did I say that the constitution created natural law.”
I did not say that you did.
“What I said was that the constitution expresses who will be considered citizens under it (the constitution).”
That statement is not quite accurate. The Constitution granted the Congress the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Naturalization is the taking of an alien born person and conferring upon that alien born person some of the same rights and obligations already possessed by a person born in the jurisdiction of the United States with only U.S. citizen parents, who are actual natural born citizens. The Constitution is silent about the determination of who is a natural born citizen, because the Constitution and the Congress that legislated the Constitution do not have the power to legislate changes to the natural law governing who is a natural born citizen.
“That is not saying that the constitution creates them, any more than your words expressing what a natural citizen is, creates the natural citizen.”
Words must be used to describe what a natural citizen is, but those words cannot change the actual nature of a natural citizen or the natural origin of a natural born citizen. Compare it to the difference between a natural mother versus an adoptive mother. A child is natural born as the child of natural parents, but statutory law can create a legal fiction or legal pretense of an adoptive mother, who is not the natural mother. Likewise with the natural born citizen, where a child born within the jurisdiction with a natural mother citizen and natural father citizen can only have the same citizenship as the jurisdiction and the parents obedience and allegiance to that jurisdiction. I makes no difference whether the jurisdiction is the head father or the head mother of a a band of prehistoric hunter-gatherers or U.S. citizens on the Tennessee frontier in the 18th Century; one relationship is natural by circumstance of birth and the other is artificial and manmade by changeable rules and laws adopting persons not born into the family and natural duty of obedience.
“The subject at hand is qualification for president under the constitution, not qualification for president of the state of nature.”
The Positive Law of the legislated Constitution included a condition of natural law in the form of the natural born citizen clause as a mandatory requirement to qualify for eligibility as President. Furthermore, this mandatory requirement in the form of the natural born citizen clause is nothing unique to the experience of the United States, North American colonial, British, English, French, Dutch, Spanish, German, Swiss, Roman, ancient Athenian, or other legal doctrines in regard to public officers. All of these legal systems have applied the principles of natural law, the Law of Nations, and common law traditions to limit eligibility for public offices in their statutory laws.
Citizens by birth are patently not ‘made’. And this position is consistent with the US Code. It is you are out of alignment.
And now allow me to be a pedant. I said "the constitution expresses who will be considered citizens under it (the constitution)." I did not say "the constitution expresses who will be considered natural born citizens under it (the constitution)."
Your exposition also overlooks the fact that not all persons born into a society or within the jurisdiction of a society are found to be citizens of those societies. See Vattel S:213, Inhabitants; and S:219, Vagrants; and S:227, Supplicants; as well as @:215, Children of citizens born in a foreign country, which operates in both directions, that is, the section also operates as "Children of aliens born in this country."
Ultimately, you have not settled on a source of law for defining NBC for US constitutional purposes. You are handwaving.
There are no records of Obama having been born in ANY hospital. None. Even Obama claimed to have been born in two different hospitals.
“Since you are intent on being pedantic about it, change my remark to “”I wasn’t touching on how a society arises, just remarking on the ramifications if a society does not arise.”
And now allow me to be a pedant. I said “the constitution expresses who will be considered citizens under it (the constitution).” I did not say “the constitution expresses who will be considered natural born citizens under it (the constitution).””
It is to be regretted you feel it is unnecessarily being pedantic, but it is the fine details of the wording that is being used and twisted by opponents to wrongfully assert the natural born citizen clause is undefined and/or means any person born with a U.S. citizen parent or in the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born citizen. Consequently, these differences in wording, no matter how minute, have to be nailed own to prevent continued misrepresentation and misapplication. Also, the United States arose from a pre-existing population who maintained their previous allegiances to their parents, communities, and legislative sovereigns, and severed their allegiances to the feudal landlords and their royal sovereign in preference to their incorporated United States of America.
“Your exposition also overlooks the fact that not all persons born into a society or within the jurisdiction of a society are found to be citizens of those societies. See Vattel S:213, Inhabitants; and S:219, Vagrants; and S:227, Supplicants; as well as @:215, Children of citizens born in a foreign country, which operates in both directions, that is, the section also operates as “Children of aliens born in this country.”
Incorrect, because the definition applies only to the children of citizens, and mere inhabitants such as slaves and non-White inhabitants for example were until the 14th Amendment to the Constitution excluded as possible U.S. citizens. You see the same principle of citizenship at work in Ancient Greece with the Spartan citizens versus the Helots and the Athenian citizens versus their non-citizens.
“Ultimately, you have not settled on a source of law for defining NBC for US constitutional purposes. You are handwaving.”
No, that is totally wrong. I have repeated over and over and over again that natural born citizenship is governed by the same law that has been in use since the beginning of mankind, Natural Law. This is just as plain as the nose on a person’s face, the child is the natural born child of a natural mother and a natural father, and all three persons have one or more permanent and/or temporary sovereigns at the time the child is born. When the natural born child of the natural father and natural mother share one and only one sovereign, the child naturally acquires a duty of obedience and allegiance to the one and only same sovereign. In cases where the child is born owing a duty of obedience and allegiance to more than one sovereign, a statutory law or other manmade rule is required to adopt the child into the duty of obedience and allegiance of the sovereign the same as when a child with alien parents must be adopted by the sovereign. natural born citizens acquire citizenship involuntarily, whereas naturalized citizens such as a child born abroad with citizen parents must adopt and be adopted to acquire the citizenship. Ted Cruz adopted U.S. citizenship and the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 adopted Ted Cruz into U.S. citizenship by naturalization at birth as stated in the Foreign Affairs Manual and the naturalization act. Despite all of the contrary obfuscation and gaslighting by government officials and lawyers, the meaning is quite simple to understand and to apply.
Where your hand-waving comes into play is when you simply declare the operation of that supposed law: "When the natural born child of the natural father and natural mother share one and only one sovereign, the child naturally acquires a duty of obedience and allegiance to the one and only same sovereign."
This is not the conception of "natural law" that underpins our U.S. concept of natural born citizen. That comes to us from Calvin's Case, an English case from 1608.
It is the natural law by which a person born within the realm of the sovereign owes by Divine right an allegiance to the sovereign of that realm under whose protection he is born. The concept traces back to St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans:
"1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. Rom 13:1-2 (KJV)
As stated by Lord Coke in Calvin's Case:
The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction; and this is lex æterna, the moral law, called also the law of nature. And by this law, written God in the heart of man, were the people of God a long time gone law was written by Moses, who was the first reporter or writer of The Apostle in the second chapter to the Romans saith, Cum enim gentes quæ elegem non habent naturaliter ea quæ legissunt faciunt. And this is within the moral law, honora patrem, which doubtless doth extend to him that is pater patriæ. And these be the words of the Great Divine, Hoc Deus in Sacris Scripturis jubet, hoc ut quilibet subditus obediat superior [This God commands in Sacred Scripture, this the law of nature dictates, in order that anyone who is a subject might render obedience to the superior] and Aristotle, nature's secretary, lib. 1. Cap. 5. that jus naturale est, quod apud omnes homines eandem habet potentiam. agree Bracton, lib. 1. cap. 5. and Fortescue, cap. 8. 12. 13. and Student, cap. 2. and 4. And the reason hereof is, for that God a [7-Coke-13 a] to all, and therefore the law of God and nature is one to al nature is the faith, ligeance, and obedience of the subject due to superior. And Aristotle 1. Politicorum proveth, that to command nature, and that magistracy is of nature: for whatsoever is necessary for the preservation of the society of man is due by the law of nature and government are necessary and profitable for the preservation man; therefore magistracy and government are of nature. And erewith accordeth Tully, lib. 3. De legibus, sine imperio nee domus ulla, nec civilas, nec universum genus stare, nec ipse denique mundus potest. This law indeed is the eternal law of the Creator, infused into the heart of the time of his creation, was two thousand years before any laws written judicial or municipal laws. 7 Eng. Rep. 777, 292
So it is by natural law that Robert Calvin was ruled a "natural born" subject of King James of England, even though his parents were aliens as to England at the time of his birth. It is that conception of natural law which underlies our Constitution and jurisprudence. For example:
The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity." William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1829)
The "natural law" concept operative here focuses on the birthplace and attendant allegiance deemed owed by the person. The focus is not on the status of the parents.
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.