Skip to comments.Kerchner v. Obama Appeal to the Third Circuit to Be Decided on the Briefs with No Oral Argument
Posted on 06/15/2010 10:48:31 AM PDT by rxsid
"Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al Appeal to the Third Circuit to Be Decided on the Briefs with No Oral Argument
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals which sits in Philadelphia has notified me today by letter dated June 15, 2010 that there will not be any oral argument on the Kerchner appeal to that Court. The case will be submitted on the briefs on Tuesday, June 29, 2010. Our presence is therefore not required.
The Court also informed me that the Third Circuit Panel that will decide the appeal will be comprised of Circuit Judges Sloviter, Barry, and Hardiman.
The court can call for oral argument when it has questions. As we know, the Federal District Court granted Obamas/Congresss motion to dismiss the complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question. The Kerchner plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On a motion to dismiss the complaint on its face for lack of standing and political question, both the trial and the appeals courts are supposed to accept the facts alleged in the complaint/petition as true and in a light most favorable to the non-movant. We have alleged and shown that Obama is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen" because he was born a subject of Great Britain through descent from his British subject/citizen father who was never a U.S. citizen, making Obama born with dual and conflicting allegiances if he was born in the U.S. or with sole allegiance to Great Britain if he was born in Kenya. We have also alleged and shown that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was even born in Hawaii. Obama and Congress have presented no evidence or argument to the Federal District Court or to the Court of Appeals contesting these arguments. The issues of standing and political question are well briefed. We have presented in our briefs how the Kerchner plaintiffs have standing and how the Obama eligibility issue does not present any objectionable political question for the Court. Hence, the Court might not have any questions and so it did not see any need for oral argument.
Of course, it is our hope that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the decision of the Federal District Court which dismissed the complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question and returns the Kerchner case to the District Court for discovery and trial. If the Third Circuit Court affirms the District Court, we will then be filing a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court which will have the final word in any event.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq."
Sorry, MrRogers, but the Supreme Court used a definition of native and natural born to be equivalent with Vattel’s definition of “native” and/or “indigenous.” They used his definition nearly verbatim. Native, in this case, means to be born in a country to citizen parents, specifically a citizen father. Of this there is no doubt. The 14th amendment did not resolve ANY doubt anyone being born to noncitizens being = to natural born.
There’s no question that Obama has loyalty to his home country. He’s been trying to get the Kenyan constitution changed to allow dual citizenship, presumably so he can legally be a U.S. citizen and not just a Kenyan.
My source for citizen was the dictionary. Sorry you don’t like the results.
And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the Kings obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)...also see:
As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States . Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.
I also cited Blackstone.
Want the Supreme Court?
Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign .That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. 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.
Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harbor, (1830)
“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. from “A View of the Constitution of the United States” (1829) William Rawle
“Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the King; and aliens are such as are born out of it. It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, founded in reason and the nature of government The English Law made no distinction in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward.
Rep. Wilson, 1866 Civil Rights Act debates. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115, 1117 (1866)
So please knock off the nonsense that Vattel’s definition held sway until Obama. There is a lot of legal support for the idea that the original intent of the Constitutional phrase natural born citizen is found in English common law.
“the Supreme Court used a definition of native and natural born to be equivalent with Vattels definition of native and/or indigenous.”
Bull. Read more. Study more. Post less drivel.
Deal with it. Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark both use Vattel’s definition and you know it.
One of us is.
origins, ancestry, a paternal kingdom/country
IOW, a child follows the condition of the father(faeder) under natural law, which was the original laws of England prior to the conquest. To be a citizen of that country/kingdom, one must have been born to a father who was a freeman/citizen of that kingdom/country. Children(faederen) belonged to the father
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
So you see they acknowledge that there was a legal dispute about the meaning, which there would NOT be if Vattel was the end all birthers claim.
WKA goes much further.
"The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar 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."
[Note they specifically insist that common law defines the term, not Vattel!]
"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. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."
As the dissent noted:
"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."
Please don't post about decisions you haven't bothered to read.
Dude - we are not Romans. The USA rejected the idea that parentage determines citizenship.
The meaning must be taken from the origins of natural law which was the law of England prior to the feudal conquest. English historians are very forth coming that the conquers were not able to shake every shred of natural law from the country. If it had been, Queen Anne would never have had the definition of law that extended birthright subjectship to children of subjects born abroad. She had to go back to the natural laws of ancient England when it was 1st formed.
Ignorance must be bliss and yes you are ignorant to think that the history of England which was ingrained into English children would have been cast aside when the founders wrote:
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I challenge you to find me one shred of evidence that feudal law was based on natural law.
You are lazy & ignorant and you are becoming annoying to think that English law began in the mid 1600’s when feudal law was forced upon the people after the conquest. You think the founders only knew history from the conquest forward. You are wholly WRONG!
“the founders adopted natural law”
The Supreme Court disagrees, at least in determining the meaning of NBC.
correction: You are lazy & ignorant and you are becoming annoying to think that English law began in the mid 1000s aka after 1066.
The Supreme Court hasn’t referenced Roman law for determining the meaning of NBC, or for ANY citizenship determinations.
Somewhere in your studying, you should have found out we are not Romans...
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
James Madison, The Founders Constitution (1789)
Thea slight majority that didn't include the chief justice(who wrote a scathing dissent) of the Supreme Court disagrees, at least in determining the meaning of NBC
Supreme Court rulings are not ipso facto "laws of the nation" as they are always subject to being overturned. They can merely be used as precedent in future cases. One who is stuck on WKA = One who is stuck on Stupid.
give me a link to that cite
“Dude, I’m NOT a dude and the founders adopted natural law.”
No, they used positive law. That’s what the Constitution is, although it is unique in that world for referencing the universe of God’s Law that lies beyond the world of men, namely with the 9th amendment.
“’The natural born or native is one who is born in the country, of citizen parents’
‘Alexander Porter Morse of Washington DC probably forgot more about citizenship in one nights sleep than what you completely know.’”
Ironic that you asked Mr. Rogers if he can read. That excerpt demolishes the standard Birther argument. One thing we know for certain is that in the contemporary U.S. “native” citizens (the imaginary seperate category that Birthers dreamed up to distinguish between born citizens and natural born citizens) don’t have to be born of citizen parents.
“NBC is a constitutional provision, as written and never amended”
The phrase was never amended, but it doesn’t have to be for its application to change, which ought to be a lot more obvious to everyone involved in this debate. Natural born citizen means citizen from birth, which at the time of the Constitution’s adoption may very well have been restricted to children born of two citizen parents. Fine, but after the 14th amendment it’s absolutely irrelevant, because now “jus soli” rules and children born in U.S. territory are citizens from birth.
Let’s assume the Framer’s intended to restrict the presidency to people with two citizen parents. The mechanism by which they sought to secure it was to allow eligibility only to born citizens. Over time, the category of born citizens expanded, and hence the import of the clause changed without being directly amended. Easy-peasy, Japanesey.
“Is an ‘anchor baby’ considered a ‘natural born’ citizen?”
“Get over it. What’s your agenda???”
I am motivated always and perpetually by the desire to avoid meaningless controversy.
What he leaves out is that the discussion pertained to citizen, not NBC & he further went on to say that “Mr. Smith founds his claims upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony...if he were not a minor, he became bound, by his own act, ... if he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature.”
Smith was making his claim that he was a citizen by mere fact of birthright, however Madison goes on to dispel that claim. He however explains that Smith being a minor at the time of the Declaration of Independence; Smith's citizenship came through his father(ties of nature). The act of Smith's father taking an oath automatically gave consent for his children by becoming himself a member of the new society himself. As usual, DrConspiracy parses & edits to fit his argument and completely takes out of context Madison's words.
IOW, according to Madison, birth on soil did NOT automatically make one a citizen, the parents must have been citizens for the child to become one.
Read the entire archive, not just what someone else parsed. That phrase is taken completely out of ocntext which is what drones, trolls & those who cling to subjectship do.
NO, positive law is the law of nature written & adopted by governments for the use in a civilized society.
So far your previous postings has done NOTHING but creating YOUR controversy and questionable agendas!!!
“NO, positive law is the law of nature written & adopted by governments for the use in a civilized society.”
Is it your position that every law passed by man-made institutions is an enactment of natural law? The Supreme Soviet, for instance, adopted the law of nature for use in its society? Or is there a fundamental distinction between the two, as basically everyone who ever took natural law seriously, from Aristotle on down, maintains?
He argues based on allegiance, and where does that allegiance come from? From birth, and minors still owe allegiance to the country of their birth.
“Mr. Smith being, then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society, with respect to the question of independence and change of Government; and if afterwards he had taken part with the enemies of his country, he would have been guilty of treason against that Government to which he owed allegiance, and would have been liable to be prosecuted as a traitor.
If it be said that very inconvenient circumstances would result from this principle, that it would constitute all those persons who are natives of America, but who took part against the revolution, citizens of the United States, I would beg leave to observe that we are deciding a question of right, unmixed with the question of expediency, and must, therefore, pay a proper attention to this principle. But I think it can hardly be expected by gentlemen that the principle will operate dangerously. Those who left their country to take part with Britain, were of two descriptions minors or persons of mature age. With respect to the latter, nothing can be inferred, with respect to them, from the decision of the present case ; because they had the power of making an option between the contending parties ; whether this was a matter of right or not, is a question which need not be agitated in order to settle the case before us. Then, with respect to those natives who were minors at the revolution, and whose case is analogous to Mr. Smith’s, if we are bound by the precedent of such a decision as we are about to make, and it is declared that they owe a primary allegiance to this country, I still think we are not likely to be inundated with such characters; so far as any of them took part against us, they violated their allegiance, and opposed our laws...”
It takes a powerful leap of imagination to suggest Obama Jr owed allegiance to the UK or Kenya as a member of their society, assuming he was born in the USA with an American mother who then raised him with no help from the father.
“So far your previous postings has done NOTHING but creating YOUR controversy and questionable agendas!!!”
I’m not the one creating countless threads and filling them with hundreds of posts. I’m not the one clinging to year-old nonstories and crafting elaborate conspiracy theories around them. They started it.
Being eligible for the Office of President, is not a privilege of citizenship. If it was, Arnold could be President, but he can't.
Some persons born US Citizens are considered naturalized for Constitutional purposes. Namely those born abroad (unless the parent(s) were abroad in the service of the country, such as diplomats or military). They are citizens because of the operation of a statute, and are not covered by the 14th amendment's "born in the US" provision. Since Congress only power over citizenship is through the naturalization rule(s), they must be naturalized or Congress could not have made then citizens, at birth or otherwise. So says the Supreme Court. (except for the "of diplomats..." exception, which AFAIK has not been tested at the SCOTUS.)
It's not the dual citizenship, per se, it's the lack of being a natural born citizen. That is what the requirement says. The question then becomes, what did *they* understand the term to mean. Not what someone thinks it means today, or in some context other than Presidential eligibility.
There is much evidence to indicate they understood it to mean "born in the country of parents who are citizens". (With some exception for those born abroad of fathers in service to the country, such as diplomats).
It doesn't allow anything. It prevents the goverment from infringing upon a right of the people. Like you said, read the words.
Even before the 14th amendent was passed, white people born in the country were citizens at birth. But "all persons" were not. The 14th merely prohibited discrimination in citizenship matters. Some guy with an English or French citizen father and US mother, would not have been a natural born citizen. In fact he'd have been the very sort of person that the founders were trying to keep out of the office of President.
“It doesn’t allow anything. It prevents the goverment from infringing upon a right of the people. Like you said, read the words.”
Preventing the government from infringing upon our rights is allowing us to keep and bear arms.
“allow: v. al·lowed, al·low·ing, al·lows. v.tr. 1. To let do or happen; permit”
Which isn’t to imply that our rights derive from the Consitution. They are God-given, and the law only protects them. Nevertheless, if it were enough that it is our right, we would not need any law to protect it. And yet we have a law, and it seems to be generally celebrated by those who believe in natural rights. They recognize, as do I, that though our rights can never be circumscribed by positive law, it is useful to use positive law to protect our rights. Madison was correct, theoretically, in arguing against the point on the grounds that it would tend to trick everyone into believing our rights were few and enumerated. But theory is theory and practicality is something else. And in that sense, positive law “allows” or “permits” us to retain our rights.
You can speak against it as loose talk; however, seems to me that generally those who believe in natural law celebrate the second amendment, even though it is not the right to keep and bear arms itself, but merely the means by which we inform government of its duty to allow us said right.
“because the Anglo-Saxon aka ancient Rome definition of fatherland/county is”
Saying that Anglo-Saxons are also known as ancient Romans is a supremely stupid statement.
Me: “People born U.S. citizens possess all privileges of citizenship”
You: “Being eligible for the Office of President, is not a privilege of citizenship. If it was, Arnold could be President, but he can’t.”
Arnold wasn’t born a U.S. citizen, you obfuscater.
“Some persons born US Citizens are considered naturalized for Constitutional purposes.”
No they aren’t, and you can’t point to one law or court decision that says so.
“Namely those born abroad...They are citizens because of the operation of a statute, and are not covered by the 14th amendment’s “born in the US” provision. Since Congress only power over citizenship is through the naturalization rule(s), they must be naturalized or Congress could not have made then citizens, at birth or otherwise”
There is no such thing as naturalization from birth. That is an entirely fictitious category. You see the distinction as being through the use of a statute, which is positive as opposed to natural law. However, there is really no such thing as a citizen of the U.S. by nature. The U.S. exists by virtue of positive law, namely the Constitution. Before the Constititution, there was no U.S., and without it there is no U.S. Therefore, though it’s not a “statute,” it is nonetheless man-made—or un-”natural.” And if citizens from birth via Congressional enaction are naturalized, I submit that people born citizens by virtue of the Constitution are unnatural as well.
The 14th amendment did not change the meaning of “natural born” citizen. It didn’t even use the term.
Even before the 14th amendent was passed, white people born in the country were citizens at birth. But “all persons” were not. The 14th merely prohibited discrimination in citizenship matters. Some guy with an English or French citizen father and US mother, would not have been a natural born citizen. In fact he’d have been the very sort of person that the founders were trying to keep out of the office of President.
And from the actual decision concerning Miss Elg in “Perkins v Elg” (1939):
“And the mere fact that the plaintiff [Elg] may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law .”
The Supreme Court declared Miss Elg to be a natural born citizen of the United States,
In Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884) The Supreme Court equated the terms “citizenship by birth” and “natural born citizen;”
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president; and the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.”
I would agree that it would be a very good idea for Congress or the Supreme Court to rule on whether a “Citizen-at-Birth” is also an Article 2, Section 1 “natural born citizen.” No such clarification has ever been made in law or in ruling by the High Court.
Current US law does not penalize a minor child who automatically inherits foreign citizenship from being considered a natural born citizen. The issue would only be relevant once the child reaches the age of majority and if the child makes an affirmative act to establish foreign (dual) citizenship; like voting in a foreign election or joining a foreign military.
“There are may forms of law in which positive is but one.”
There are other forms of law, obviously. Common law, for instance. The Constitution is not one of those other forms of law.
It was bad argumentative form for me to prove that not all positive law is an governmental expression of natural law by pointing to the contrast between man-made law with natural law and leaving it at that. However, your comment that “positive law is the law of nature written & adopted by governments for the use in a civilized society,” remains outrageous. It is often anything but that. The example of the Supreme Soviet still stands.
It is your statement that is supremely ignorant. You can not understand & interpret the language of your forefathers without studying where it was derived from. Do you think they just pulled it our of thin air? According to your answer, that would be my guess.
When was this codified? Date, Bill number, sponsor, co-sponsor, official language of the bill? And please don't point to the Cornell law site or any other, direct us to a link of the actual bill in the congressional archives. If you can't this is merely an opinion, and NOT LAW! For crying our load, you can't even work in the white house until you formally renounce any foreign allegiance you born with, so when did Obama formally renounce his foreign birthright citizenship?
“The question then becomes, what did *they* understand the term to mean. Not what someone thinks it means today, or in some context other than Presidential eligibility.”
Yes, I know. It so happens that some people think that since their intent was to prevent people with split loyalties from being president, it follows that “natural born citizen” must mean the child of two citizen parents. However, that is not necessarily so. It could be—and in my opinion was—the case that “natural born citizen” meant nothing but to be born a citizen, and that whether or not at the time of the Constitution’s original passage only the children of citizens were born citizens (though it may well have been the case) is irrelevant in light of the 14th amendment’s invocation of jus soli.
We have here two competing interests: what the Constitution says and what I shall call the indirect intent of those who wrote it. Originalists easily fall into the trap of treating the intent as the law itself. Which can be valid, since being overly literal causes one to lose the forest for the trees. But there is clear danger in the other direction, especially as the ascribed intent gets more and more indirect. Them not wanting presidents to have split loyalties is one thing. Treating the clause as if it says “no person with split loyalties shall be eligible for the office of the presidency” is quite another.
This or that clause was meant to do that, which would affect that, and hopefully bring about that and that and that. At what point do you stand back and say, hold on, we can’t interpret the text according to the Framer’s forecasts. We have to understand that they can be wrong. And often were, given the myriad ways in which the Constitution’s performance differed from what they expected. In other words, they were wrong a lot. Their system for presidential elections, for instance, didn’t last past two administrations.
“There is much evidence to indicate they understood it to mean ‘born in the country of parents who are citizens’”
“where do you think their language was derived from?”
“It is your statement that is supremely ignorant. You can not understand & interpret the language of your forefathers without studying where it was derived from. Do you think they just pulled it our of thin air? According to your answer, that would be my guess”
Please, could you clarify which statement of which you speak?
The society of the state which man joins must have laws. These laws are termed positive because they are enacted for the special society in which they are to have force. They are the outgrowth of man's nature to meet such emergencies and promote such prosperity, as the general utility of the society demands. They have a particular application to the defined territory of the society.
The term positive is used in contra-distinction to natural, which natural law man restricts by the positive law, to meet such rules of conduct as will best govern the members of society in their relations to each other. These laws of the society, which are termed positive, are the fabric of the government, which is an institution of man.
The natural law is universal, the positive law is territorial.
However so much the positive law of one society may differ from the positive law of another, the rule is: that, in either case, the laws are enacted for the common good of the members of the society within which territory the laws are enacted. It is not open to one society to do any act by which to make any change in any existing law which governs in another society. Such laws are purely autonomous and do not concern other societies. This is the general rule which governs among civilized countries. In the interests of humanity argued from the standpoint of religion there are many instances of interference on the part of civilized societies in the affairs of barbarous and irreligious communities. Nor can countries debar themselves from intercourse commercially with other countries. This position was taken by Great Britain and the United States in regard to China and Japan, both of which countries were forced to open their ports for trade with the civilized world and for reason of the rule which follows: “As the laws of each particular state are designed to promote its advantage the consent of all or at least the greater number of states may have produced certain laws between them. And in fact it appears that such laws have been established tending to promote the utility not of any particular state but of the great body of the communities.”
“If mere birth was the case, then why the need for the grandfather clause and why the distinction between citizen & NBC?”
You know why the grandfather clause was necessary. Because there was no U.S. until the Constitution was ratified in 1789. Hence, no one born before 1789 was born a U.S. citizen. Without some special dispensation, no one on earth or elsewhere could’ve been president before 1824.
The distinction between citizen and NBC derives from the fact that there is such a thing as naturalization.
But nobody here are forcing you to participate. You have the free will to ignore all those "year-old nonstories/conspiriracy theories" unless it pleases you greatly to participate and make them controversy, right???
Exactly. It’s amazing how much sophistry is spun about the grandfather clause when its reason for being is self-evident.
“They are the outgrowth of man’s nature to meet such emergencies and promote such prosperity, as the general utility of the society demands.”
Perhaps. Or maybe they’re the instrument by which one class dominates another. Or maybe they’re for the benefit of a single tyrant. Maybe they’re the result of a misguided philosophy which is good for no one.
“the rule is: that, in either case, the laws are enacted for the common good of the members of the society within which territory the laws are enacted”
That is nonsense. It’s not even the case that they are always intended as such.
“This is the general rule which governs among civilized countries.”
Well, that’s a little escape clause there, isn’t it? You can go ahead and exclude the Soviet Union from “civilization,” thereby denying their proclaimations the positive law label. Which is reserved for enlightened nations like our own, which never, ever promote anything but the good of the whole (just ask black people).
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.