Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: mkjessup
How can a person who is born a British subject be considered a natural born citizen of the United States?

Because the United States has always recognized the definition of citizenship of common law, as outlined in Blackstone, as compared to that of European continental civil law, as defined in Vattel?

The most bizarre claim of the birthers is this one. It uses a law system utterly foreign to US legal history to define a term used in our Constitution.

6 posted on 12/27/2009 3:05:23 PM PST by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Sherman Logan

The most bizarre claim of the birthers is this one. It uses a law system utterly foreign to US legal history to define a term used in our Constitution.

**********************************************

If US Legal History came AFTER the Constitution, how could you use it to define a term in the Constitution?


8 posted on 12/27/2009 3:08:34 PM PST by ROTB (Public Option vs. Insurance: Armed men at my door demanding payment vs a "bill")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Sherman Logan

Please, our forefathers did not want our citizenry subject to British Common Law. Our country was bore of free men not subjects. British Common Law, made anyone born anywhere a subject, even in territories.

During the War of 1812 the British tried to use British Common Law to force our citizens into fighting.

They wanted citizenship for those who wanted to be American voluntary and they wanted ALLEGIENCE!!!!!!


9 posted on 12/27/2009 3:13:44 PM PST by panthermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Sherman Logan; ROTB
How can a person who is born a British subject be considered a natural born citizen of the United States? Because the United States has always recognized the definition of citizenship of common law, as outlined in Blackstone, as compared to that of European continental civil law, as defined in Vattel? The most bizarre claim of the birthers is this one. It uses a law system utterly foreign to US legal history to define a term used in our Constitution.

The most bizarre claim of the birthers is this one. It uses a law system utterly foreign to US legal history to define a term used in our Constitution. ********************************************** If US Legal History came AFTER the Constitution, how could you use it to define a term in the Constitution? ---ROTB

ROTB's comment makes more sense to me. Thanks, ROTB...you are thinking straight!

10 posted on 12/27/2009 3:17:04 PM PST by NorwegianViking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Sherman Logan
The most bizarre claim of the birthers is this one. It uses a law system utterly foreign to US legal history to define a term used in our Constitution.

Would that be the same law system used by Congress in the 1790 Immigration Act wherein two American citizen parents were required for one to be considered a "natural born citizen"??? or would that have been the one used by Senate Resolution 511 in 2008 with the same two-parent definition??? or both???

14 posted on 12/27/2009 3:53:27 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Sherman Logan

Well in that case, just never mind why 0bama has spent upwards of a million bucks to hide the details of his birth, his school records, his travel history, ad infinitum.

It must be just something ‘personal’, eh Sherman?


20 posted on 12/27/2009 5:02:33 PM PST by mkjessup (*** It's SUNDAY Lord, how 'bout a big ol' Jesus-sized LIGHTNING bolt aimed at 0bama's AZZ?!? ***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Sherman Logan

It seems odd that jurists such as John Marshall were apparently not as learned as you and said the opposite. But what did they know who were around when people still knew why the words were chosen?


27 posted on 12/27/2009 6:58:46 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Sherman Logan

Founder George Mason and others condemned the Constitution and walked out. Mason in particular, stated that it completely overturned English Common Law.

Mason’s resistance is the reason we have the Bill of Rights, drafted as promised immediately after the first Congress was seated. Drafted on Christmas Day, 1789, in fact, and modelled after the Virginia Declaration of Rights, penned by Mason.

To the extent that English Common Law is embodied in our Constitution, these Amendments drafted to placate George Mason represent it. The Constitution as ratified, however does not, as Mason pointed out. Emerich de Vattel was indeed a primary influence upon the framers, and there are copious historical references and cites to back up that claim.

Now, the States were a different matter. Many States were almost entirely creatures of the English Common Law, such as New York. Others, such as Connecticut, Virginia and Georgia, were not. There was a strong Dutch and German influence in many of the colonies, so much so that German at one point vied for English, as a contender for the “national language.”

Our legal heritage is in no way entirely that of the English as a result. And, even if it were, to claim that our Founders, men who risked their lives and their fortunes to rebel against the English, would turn right around and use the very same construct, that of the natural-born subject of the English King, to determine their own citizenship, is irrational.

Vattel covered aspects of law including citizenship law internationally, hence the name of his two volume work, The Law Of Nations.

Blackstone dealt strictly with the English monarchy.

Has the United States ever been a monarchy, in your estimation? No, it has not. Therefore, Blackstone is of very limited utility, in seeking to understand original intent of the Founders.

I’ve been studying this matter for going on two years now, and repeated claims made, as if we’ve remained subjects of the English King all along, are the bizarre ones, not those that acknowledge multiple sources influencing the Founders of what was, after all, the very first modern Constitutional Republic. By the way, the constitutional republic was discussed and outlined at length by none other than ... Emerich de Vattel.

Not Blackstone.


41 posted on 12/27/2009 9:11:56 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Sherman Logan
The most bizarre claim of the birthers is this one. It uses a law system utterly foreign to US legal history to define a term used in our Constitution.

The Framers of the US Constitution used many sources during the development of the Constitution. If you are referring to Vattel's Law of Nations, it too was one of those references.

Here's a search link for you. Put your opinion to the test.

83 posted on 12/31/2009 9:20:05 AM PST by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson