Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.
Are you really that dishonest?? Don't edit the question down. I've read WKA and I've schooled you dozens of times on it.
Now, answer MY question and ALL of MY question. Where is the quote in English common law that says: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens ... these were natives or natural-born citizens (or subjects)??
“That the common law as arose in the early nation was of necessity formed via colonial governments...”
His point was that in interpreting the US Constitution, which is NOT part of common law, the legal terms used by the lawyers who wrote the Constitution and ratified it were legal terms found in English common law.
And realistically, there IS a national common law, which is why the US Supreme Court decisions matter. If we had no national common law, the US Supreme Court would be a fairly trivial part of government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
You are trying to quote Vattel, when you need to read WKA - which you refuse to do, since you are incapable of reading a single sentence with comprehension, and the WKA decision has PAGES of sentences.
And when you quote Vattel, you don’t quote Vattel. You are quoting a translation made in 1797, and a bad translation at that.
“The fact that the framers used the same word or term that had previously been used by some judge creating our common law does not necessarily mean that the framers intended that same meaning.”
In the absence of any contrary reasonable interpretation, it would.
Natural born citizen/subject HAD a well known meaning at the time the US Constitution was written and ratified. That well known and accepted meaning, found in English common law, IS the meaning, unless someone can provide evidence that it was not.
Says this person who edited my question down to a handful of words. I didn't "try" to quote Vattel. I gave a quote of the Supreme Court in BOTH WKA and Minor which was the original source, that said "at common-law" "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens" ... these are the natives, or natural-born citizens. So where does it say that in ENGLISH common law??
Boy, if you read my prior posts (see, e.g., post 1410) I have tried very hard to explain that the common law (judge-made law) and statutory law (legislature-made law) are two completely separate things
Once again, the common law is the body of judge-made law created one case at at time. Judges created rules to decide cases when there wasn't any statute that governed the question. They did this over hundreds of years. For example, somewhere back in time Mr. X took Mr. Y to court and asked the court to enforce Mr. Y's promise to give $ 10.00 to Mr. X. Mr. Y points out that he had just promised to give Mr. X the $ 10.00 as a gift and that Mr. X never promised to give anything in return. Should the court enforce this promise to make a gift? There is no controlling statute passed by the legislature and so the court has to decide. Well,the court had to create a rule and at some point in the development of our common law, the courts devised the rule that the courts won't ordinarily enforce a mere promise to make a gift because the promisor "received no consideration in exchange." That kind of opinion was in writing and the next time a similar case came before the court, it would be decided the same way. In that manner, a common law contract rule was born. Someday, down the road, two other parties show up with a similar, but somehow different case (a new wrinkle), One of the parties says apply the old rule. One of the parties says that the difference in the facts warrants a new and different rule. If the court creates a new rule (maybe as an exception to the old rule), the new rule also becomes part of the common law. And, over time the common law grew and changed.
Statutes are created by legislatures. If a statute changes the common law, the court will thereafter be required to apply the statutory law rather than the old common law rule it would otherwise have applied.
So, the common law and statutory law are both law, but they have different sources (courts vs. legislatures).
Had the Framers intended to require a natural-born subject as President they were well familiar with that actual term in full and would have used that term. Otherwise “citizen” joins “natural” and is rendered yet another linguistic distinction without a difference, an unusual circumstance given the renowned rigor and economy with words of the Framers.
I've provided several examples this evening of colonial common law being formed, by consent of the governed, upon laws, customary or otherwise, from the Roman Republic. The specific language employed by numerous courts pertaining to the term natural-born citizen is in many instances drawn directly from or an accurate paraphrase of Vattel, no matter how frequently or how often that source is derided.
Therefore, the Common Law upon which elements of our Constitution is based is clearly not that of England. I'd go so far as to state that the only place it exists is in the Bill Of Rights.
You edit your quotes to make them mean something they do not. Minor specifically refused to explore the limits of the meaning of NBC. The quote in WKA came here:
“That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection” (that is, in relation to citizenship),
reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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 [p680] 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”
So they obviously are NOT trying to limit NBC to those born of citizen parents - all the more so since half the decision discusses why that is NOT true.
Minor screwed it up, because they were opining on a subject not at issue, and thus they took a bad translation of Vattel made in 1797, and called it common law. They screwed up BECAUSE it was ‘ober dictum’
As the WKA decision also noted:
“In weighing a remark uttered under such circumstances [the Slaughterhouse case], it is well to bear in mind the often quoted words of Chief Justice Marshall:
It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated.”
“Therefore, the Common Law upon which elements of our Constitution is based is clearly not that of England.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FWIW, that was also argued, and rejected, in WKA. The legal language of the Constitution is of English common law, because the lawyers doing the writing were steeped in English common law.
If you want to pull in a definition from someplace else, you need to show THAT definition was the one the writers had in mind. And it is a pretty safe bet that the writers of the Constitution, in 1787, were NOT thinking about a bad translation of Vattel made 10 years LATER!
Well, I can't argue with that because I really have no idea how definite or unambiguous that term was at the time our Constitution was written. But, assuming all of the Founding Fathers had an absolutely clear and uniform opinion as to the meaning of the term "natural born citizen," then I would agree that they probably intended it to have the same meaning in the Constitution. That's a huge assumption, however, and it should be remembered that that "clear and uniform" opinion as to the term is just a means of determining their intent. The truth is that many (probably most) of the framers never gave much thought to the precise meaning of a term like "natural born citizen." They had much bigger fish to fry, like what to do about slavery, and how to institutionally protect smaller states from larger states.
Again, so says the person who edited out half of the original question I asked.
Minor specifically refused to explore the limits of the meaning of NBC.
Sorry, but this simply is not true. It gave the full limits of the meaning of NBC. What it did not explore were the limits of how birth citizenship could be defined. But again, this all extraneous because you're ducking the question. The Minor court equated birth to citizen parents with "common-law," so ONE more time, where does it say this in ENGLISH common law. Focus on the actual question.
Your misapprehension of WKA verges upon legend, Mr. Rogers.
You have a nice evening, and do try to keep it civil.
“The Minor court equated birth to citizen parents with “common-law,” so ONE more time, where does it say this in ENGLISH common law.”
It does NOT say that in English common law. Minor screwed it up, which is what happens when judges start making throw-away comments.
“Your misapprehension of WKA verges upon legend, Mr. Rogers.”
Feel free to point out my errors. If you can.
I like it the more I think about it, just for how it can explain some of what I can't make sense of now.
If obama is the son of either FMD or Malcolm X, but has merely been fraudulently using a different last name for whatever reason(s), that’s not just forgivable from several points of view, that adds quite a bit to his street cred and this theory gives the GOPe reasons to go along with not calling him on all the fraud he might have committed by claiming, using and defending that identity.
Think about it. Being the son of either man, obama would scare old schoolers for the same reasons either man scared them back in the day, which is the same reason it would enhance his cred now with a wide segment of the left's most ideological new schoolers, and that would scare old schoolers all over again!
Not only that, the real twist is, it wouldn’t be the demonrats who ran a Constitutionally ineligible candidate, it's the republicans with Panamanian born McCain! The party of Nixon runs ineligible McCain!
Their war hero Admiral’s son was ready to cash in his turn to run for the White House, just like Dole did, and had to be made whole.
So, the club got together and signed and passed whatever that was that they all agreed made McCain a NBC.
And Obama keeps his secret and his fraud goes away.
Plus, he gets obamacare and his judges and whatever else he’s wanted, including F&F not being a career ender. .
From then on, what can the republicans do other than push hard against NBC ever becoming an issue? Easy enough. Back to business as usual.
If this is true, the only saving’s grace for us is that Obama really isn’t his father’s son. Instead, he’s just your average garden variety choom gang stoner, more or less that family’s better version of a Jesse Jackson Jr.
And he’s pulled it off. He’s slick enough and can give good oratory with the decent speech writers and those ever present teleprompters. Whatever talents he has, whomever he inherited them from, they’ve been more than enough.
Especially with whatever dirt he’s got on the GOPe…the party of Nixon who ran an unConstitutional candidate for POTUS. No wonder they keep "birthers" quiet.
That was fun. As theories go, I like it.
I know Mr. Rodgers is aware of this but it may be worth sharing it with RegulatorCountry and Tau Food in case they are not.
Between 1785 and 1791 the Massachusetts legislature passed a series of naturalization acts (prior to the Constitution and for a period after it was adopted, states continued to naturalize citizens). These Massachusetts acts all have the same basic format and language. And they all did the same thing - they naturalized foreigners as citizens of Massachusetts. What’s interesting about them is their language. They start by saying that so-and-so has taken the required oath and fullfilled the requirements and is therefore deemed to be a “natural born” - and that’s where it gets interesting because sometimes they “citizen” and sometimes they say “subject”.
Here are several examples:
February, 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.”in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
March, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
October, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
In March, 1790, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
He knew there was a good chance he would get nailed for ineligibility by a very hostile press out for blood after 8 years of Bush.
He had to lose...or rather, he didn't want to win and didn't.
But not all bad, as a side benefit for the GOPe, they lucked into taking out a rising star early in her trajectory, before she could do to them nationally what she did to them locally in Alaska.
You imagine it, just as you do your facts.
Hard to imagine facts that are entirely verifiable.
Nice try, though.
I actually started to add that to my list of indications from early America as to what natural born citizen means.
I think I will.
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.