Posted on 06/15/2010 10:48:31 AM PDT by rxsid
“Let us appeal to enlightened and disinterested judges. No one is more so than Vattel.” Jefferson
“Vattel is one of the most zealous and constant advocates for the preservation of good faith in all our dealings”
Jefferson
Nice finds. I also found out how he felt about Blackstones Commentaries:
Blackstone and Hume have made tories of all England, and are making tories of those young Americans whose native feelings of independence do not place them above the wily sophistries of a Hume or a Blackstone. These two books, but especially the former, have done more towards the suppression of the liberties of man, than all the million of men in arms of Bonaparte, and the millions of human lives with the sacrifice of which he will stand loaded before the judgment seat of his Maker. —
TITLE: To Horatio G. Spafford.
EDITION: Washington ed. vi, 335.
PLACE: Monticello
DATE: 1814
The exclusion from the courts of the malign influence of all authorities after the Georgium Sidus became ascendant, would uncanonize Blackstone, whose book, although the most elegant and best digested of our law catalogue, has been perverted, more than all others, to the degeneracy of legal science. A student finds there a smattering of everything, and his indolence easily persuades him that if he understands that book, he is master of the whole body of the law. The distinction between these, and those who have drawn their stores from the deep and rich mines of Coke on Littleton, seems well understood even by the unlettered common people, who apply the appellation of Blackstone lawyers to these ephemeral insects of the law. —
TITLE: To Judge Tyler.
EDITION: Washington ed. vi, 66.
PLACE: Monticello
DATE: 1812
“Early in the session of May 79. I prepared, and obtained leave to bring in a bill declaring who should be deemed citizens, asserting the natural right of expatriation, and prescribing the mode of exercising it.
This, when I withdrew from the house on the 1st of June following, I left in the hands of George Mason and it was passed on the 26th of that month.” Jefferson
Any one see this before?
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28tj010010%29%29
Printed in the Report of the Committee of Revisors, p. 41.]
The 14th was meant to make sure the states did not withhold citizenship to the emancipated slaves, or the already free ones. It made the states come into compliance with federal law. Period. It was never intended to grant automatic/feudal citizenship to babies of foreigners.
Also, US citizenship is & always has been a contractual consent between the parties (person & state/country)& an infant under law can not enter into contracts other than by the consent of a parent or expressly, that of the father at the time of the adoption of the constitution. The phrase that the you drones/trolls purposely avoid is ‘subject to the jurisdiction’. Foreigners only owe a temporary & local allegiance while they are in the country, citizens owe complete allegiance to the jurisdiction of local & federal. So that begs the question, can a foreigner enter into a contract for his child that binds him to that foreign government forever? The answer is NO. You are either a citizen by nature, natural law is that the child is of the father not of the soil OR you are a citizen by consent. With the US adopting the right of expatriation upon the Declaration of Independence, we know that dual allegiance was neither adopted or allowed by the laws of the states and thus a child of a foreigner owed allegiance to his fathers country at the time of birth. The only way for the child born of a foreigner to gain citizenship was for the father to consent to it by himself becoming a citizen. Under the laws of the US, which mutual consent must be given in EVERY CONTRACT, an alien does not have the legal standing to bestow a foreign citizenship upon his child without the consent of those of the people under the laws adopted and the infant does not retain the legal capacity to enter into a binding contract without the parent’s consent. In these modern times, you all claim that a birth certificate is proof of citizenship, but I ask you, when did a birth certificate become a binding contract? And that is the crux of the entire issue.
********************************************************
Is the Birth Certificate an adhesion contract? Not really! There is no consideration and none is explicitly conveyed so how could it be a contract?
How is “contract” defined in law? Please reference the following:
“Contract defined.” A contract is an agreement to do or not to do a certain thing. California Civil Code, Section 1549
Does a Birth Certificate mention anything about an agreement to do or not do a certain thing? Of course not, so how could it be a contract?
All contracts have essential elements to make a contract lawful. Please consider the following for your legal edification:
“Essential elements of a contract.” It is essential to the existence of a contract that there should be: (1) Parties capable of contracting. (2) Their consent. (3) A lawful object. (4) A sufficient cause or consideration. California Civil Code, Section 1550
An adhesion contract is a one-sided contract, more commonly known as a “nudum pactum” or naked contract:
“Nudum pactum.” Latin. A bare contract or agreements that amounts to merely a naked promise. See 22 S.E. 2d 186. “A contract, naked of any obligation or duty on one side, a ‘nudum pactum’ is not enforceable. 151 P. 270, 273. Contracts must generally be supported by a consideration on each side. A naked contract is one that is bare of a valid consideration on one side and hence unenforceable. See “mutuality of obligation.” Barron’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition
Also, consider the following from Public Law:
“Adhesion contracts do not bind the citizen to a commercial contract. Without the six elements of a valid contract, none exists. PL#95-147, 91 Stat. 1227 (Oct. 28, 1977)
1. a valid offer and acceptance
2. two or more parties involved
3. parties who are legal age and competent understanding
4. a termination date
5. full disclosure; and
6. the contract must be voluntary in nature
In reality, the Birth Certificate is simply documentation denoting that a human being was born and converted into juristic person (artificial person) status by the State’s agent or res accessoria, the mother.
“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has been interpreted literally hundreds of times by the Supreme Court to exclude foreign diplomats with diplomatic immunity and foreign occupying armies. If illegal aliens were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of US Immigration Law, we would not be able to detain or deport them under our law. Every person, be they citizen or not who is resident in the US except those mentioned above is “subject to the jurisdiction of US law.” That’s why our prisons are filled with criminal foreigners to this day.
Each state and the federal government have passed Confidentiality regulations with regard to Vital Records including birth information, death information and marriage information. Those statutes have nothing to do with contract law but rather with the right ot privacy.
You can read Hawaii’s Disclosure of Records Statute here:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.HTM
It is in no way substantively different than any other state’s laws.
Here’s a couple of relevant statements from the Supreme Court from US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) for you to ponder:
“[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
The Wong court also said:
“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.’”
and: “…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
III. “The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
I urge you to read the entire decision in Wong Kim Ark if you’ve got the time and interest because the only court that has taken a definitive stand on whether Barack Hussein Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen or not is the Indiana Court of Appeals. That court ruled: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009
This is from the VA legislature & was adopted:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.html
And I remind you..Supreme Court decisions are NOT and NEVER have been the LAW of the LAND! They are always subject to being overturned, thus they are merely precedent. Now show me the legislation or where in the Constitution that precedent is LAW.
So, Get Over It & Get Over Yourself! We're taking this fight to state legislatures, US Congress & to the courts and we will battle until we get that corrupt ruling from a corrupt judge overturned. The guy should have been in jail for his shenanigans, especially the rulings wherein he gained financially.
WKA = We Kick Ass! IOW, We Will Never Back Down!
And I remind you..Supreme Court decisions are NOT and NEVER have been the LAW of the LAND! They are always subject to being overturned, thus they are merely precedent. Now show me the legislation or where in the Constitution that precedent is LAW.
So, Get Over It & Get Over Yourself! We’re taking this fight to state legislatures, US Congress & to the courts and we will battle until we get that corrupt ruling from a corrupt judge overturned. The guy should have been in jail for his shenanigans, especially the rulings wherein he gained financially.
WKA = We Kick Ass! IOW, We Will Never Back Down!
I’m not sure which ruling by which corrupt judge you’re talking about but good luck with the fight.
If you meant the Indiana Court of Appeals, that was a three judge panel and the appeal of the plaintiffs to the Indiana Supreme Court trying to get Obama’s Indiana Electoral College votes invalidated was rejected.
But as you say, the fight will go on.
That just shows how corrupt this ruling was. Thanks for showing your ignorance to the law & history, but especially your ignorance of the English language.
Citizen and person are synonymous terms.* Citizen is analogous to subject at common law.-Morse (1881)
analogous: Similar in function but not in structure and evolutionary origin
synonymous: Having the same or a similar meaning; Equivalent in connotation
a free citizen holds the natural right to motion. He may at any time shake off the allegiance of his government should he find it foes not suit his needs in his pursuit of happiness. He holds the right to expatriation and is not subject to any ruler nor is he the ruler of any subject. The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:
[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]
a subject holds no right of motion that would allow him to shake off his allegiance to the sovereign ruler. A subject's allegiance is perpetual & can only be lost by an act of parliament. He is always indebted to the sovereign. He never holds it within himself.
Prof. Solum, Chicago: [T]he language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms “citizen” and “subject.”For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers “judicial power” on the federal courts, “citizens” of the several states are differentiated from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states—corresponding to the distinction between diversity and alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state.
“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.’”
and: “…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
That just shows how corrupt this ruling was. Thanks for showing your ignorance to the law & history, but especially your ignorance of the English language.
Citizen and person are synonymous terms.* Citizen is analogous to subject at common law.-Morse (1881)
analogous: Similar in function but not in structure and evolutionary origin
synonymous: Having the same or a similar meaning; Equivalent in connotation
a free citizen holds the natural right to motion. He may at any time shake off the allegiance of his government should he find it foes not suit his needs in his pursuit of happiness. He holds the right to expatriation and is not subject to any ruler nor is he the ruler of any subject. The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:
[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]
a subject holds no right of motion that would allow him to shake off his allegiance to the sovereign ruler. A subject’s allegiance is perpetual & can only be lost by an act of parliament. He is always indebted to the sovereign. He never holds it within himself.
Prof. Solum, Chicago: [T]he language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms “citizen” and “subject.”For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers “judicial power” on the federal courts, “citizens” of the several states are differentiated from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states—corresponding to the distinction between diversity and alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state.
Your indignation would have been best taken up with US Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray who wrote the decision for the Court in Wong and he used those terms but he died in 1902. Perhaps you could arrange a seance and let him know how you feel?
Five additional Supreme Court justices concurred with Justice Gray and in the last 112 years, the decision in US v Wong Kim Ark that a child born on US soil to foreign parents is a natural born citizen of the United States has not been reversed.
Here’s what the most conservative member of the CURRENT US Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia had to say in a recent case before the US Supreme Court and he used Wong Kim Ark in his opinion:
Justice Scalia wrote a concurrence in “Nguyen v. INS,” saying [that he didn’t feel the Court had an ability to grant someone citizenship who did not get it in one of the two ways he described in his concurrence in Miller v. Albright. You don’t have to read Miller very far to realize what Scalia’s talking about and also to realize what little hope there is that the current Supreme Court will overturn Wong Kim Ark.
From Scalia’s concurrence in Miller v. Albright:
The Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898).
Scalia’s not going to vote to overturn Wong Kim Ark.
He went on to say:
“I remain of the view that the Court lacks power to provide relief of the sort requested in this suit–namely, conferral of citizenship on a basis other than that prescribed by Congress. See Miller v. Albright,523 U.S. 420, 452 (1998) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). A majority of the Justices in Miller having concluded otherwise, see id., at 423 (opinion of Stevens, J., joined by Rehnquist, C. J.); id., at 460 (Ginsburg, J., joined by Souter and Breyer, JJ., dissenting); id., at 471 (Breyer, J., joined by Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., dissenting); and a majority of the Court today proceeding on the same assumption; I think it appropriate for me to reach the merits of petitioners’ equal protection claims. I join the opinion of the Court.”
In oral arguments in “Nguyen v. INS,” Justice Scalia said the following:
Justice Scalia: “… I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?
They did not want that.
They wanted natural born Americans.”
[Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token…
Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?
[Ms.] Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.
Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.
I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.
I don’t think you’re disagreeing.
It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?”
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argument
And declares them to be citizens of the United States. Not natural born citizens nor even native born citizens. Modern usage has come to refer to such as "native born", but modern usage is not what was used in 1787, or even much later.
Wong Kim Ark was ruled to be a natural born citizen although neither of his parents were US citizens.
He was ruled to be a citizen, under the the 14th amendment. All the quotes of Common Law, and Lord Cooke in Calvin's case, are dicta.
The only time the difference between a 14th amendment, born in the US citizen, and a natural born citizen could possibly be an issue is in a Presidential eligibility case. WKA was not President, he was not running for President, nor did he ever later do either.
Your basing your opinion on that? BWAHAHAHAHA
And declares them to be citizens of the United States. Not natural born citizens nor even native born citizens. Modern usage has come to refer to such as “native born”, but modern usage is not what was used in 1787, or even much later.
Wong Kim Ark was ruled to be a natural born citizen although neither of his parents were US citizens.
He was ruled to be a citizen, under the the 14th amendment. All the quotes of Common Law, and Lord Cooke in Calvin’s case, are dicta.
The only time the difference between a 14th amendment, born in the US citizen, and a natural born citizen could possibly be an issue is in a Presidential eligibility case. WKA was not President, he was not running for President, nor did he ever later do either.
In the oral arguments of Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS (No. 99-2071), Justice Scalia made it clear that his view is that natural born citizenship, the requirement to be president, is based on jus soli (birth in the United States).
Here is the relevant section from the transcript:
Justice Scalia: … I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?
They did not want that.
They wanted natural born Americans.
[Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token…
Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?
[Ms.] Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.
Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.
I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.
I don’t think you’re disagreeing.
It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?
Your basing your opinion on that? BWAHAHAHAHA
Of course it does, and jus sanguia.
there is no decision by the Supreme Court which says that there are anything other than two types of US citizenship: Citizens-at-birth and naturalized citizens
That very oral argument you cite, Tuan Anh Nguyen and Boulais versus Immigration and Naturalization Service (Boulais is Nguyen's father) has a discussion and cites to cases where the court did exactly that. Persons, such as Mr. Nguyen, born abroad with one US parent are citizens at birth, but under the naturalization power of Congress.
Justice Souter: Maybe it would be simpler if I asked the... I think I can ask the question a different way.
Do you think that the... the... the act of recognizing citizenship here for children born abroad is naturalization within the meaning of the naturalization clause?
Ms Davis: Yes, Your Honor, it is naturalization within the meaning of the constitutional naturalization clause.
So citizenship by birth may be naturalized citizenship. Breaking apart your nice neat little "two cases" only argument.
Justice Scalia is merely arguing that NBC requires jus soli, not that it is *only* jus soli. He's saying that someone born abroad of a US parent or parents, is not natural born, even though a citizen at birth. Ms. Davis was trying to argue otherwise, Justice Ginsberg was upset to discover that her Grandchildren, born in France, would not be considered natural born.
But again not only would this be dicta if it were in the decision, it's not even that, because oral argument is not much above random thoughts of the parties, it tends to very disorganized.
Justice Scalia: Well, wait.
Why is there no problem with transfer of allegiances?
I mean, it's fine to make it retroactive as far as the law is concerned, but that doesn't change the reality of it. The reality of it is he's not an American citizen until these conditions are... are met, and he's proclaimed to be such. Prior to that he's not an American citizen, is he?
Ms Davis: As soon as those conditions are met, then his citizenship is recognized at the time of birth. That's recognized under statute...
Justice Scalia: But he was a citizen of some other country before then.
Scalia is recognizing the fact that under the US Constitution & US codified law, the the US, there is no law allowing for dual citizenship. This would apply whether born in the US or abroad.
Ms Davis: I think it's... I think it's totally clear that jus sanguinis citizenship has a different history than naturalized citizenship and has traditionally by this Court as well as by Congress been treated differently.
Justice Scalia: But has not been called natural born citizenship?
I mean, isn't it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?
They did not want that.
They wanted natural born Americans.
Ms Davis: Yes, by the same token...
Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn't it?
Ms Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can't apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.
Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.
I'm just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.
I don't think you're disagreeing.
It requires jus soli, doesn't it?
Ms Davis: No, Your Honor, I do disagree with that.
I believe that it encompasses jus sanguinis citizenship.
Justice Ginsburg: And any academic right is... there's a debate over that?
Ms Davis: Is a debate over it, that's correct...
Justice Ginsburg: There is a debate over whether my grandson is a natural born citizen.
I think he is.
Ms Davis: whether he can be Vice President.
Justice Stevens: Of course the interesting thing about that provision, it requires that he be natural born at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
That's what it literally says.
N.Y. Historical Society’s Collections (Lee Papers), vol. III, 1873
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.