Posted on 11/12/2009 3:55:21 PM PST by Sibre Fan
Excerpt:
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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at in.gov ...
Anyone can read that decision carefully, understand it, and still maintain that Vattel’s view is U.S. law will be awarded the Barack H. Obama Mental Acuity Award.
Darn, that should have been:
Anyone **who**can read that decision carefully, understand it, and still maintain that Vattel’s view is U.S. law will be awarded the Barack H. Obama Mental Acuity Award.
Hey, Sabe, and congrats on the hitch.
“Anyone **who**can read that decision carefully, understand it, and still maintain that Vattel’s view is U.S. law...”
Why isn’t it US Law?
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."Kenya, the 51st state...
“... and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark...”
Which section of the US Constitution is Wong Kim Ark in?
Naturally, the Founding Fathers put in some pretty long days crafting our various national documents, and ordered a lot of Chinese food delivered to the Continental Congress.
Is this really a Court, I mean a non Satire Comedy Court writing this?
Was Sammy Davis Jr a Judge in Indiana?
Ping to big news. An NBC interpretation handed down.
(My two week hiatus from birther threads is officially over as of today.)
LOL!!!
;’)
Whatever the number is, he’s visited all of ‘em, even been a natural born citizen of several.
The U.S. Constitution is the bedrock foundation of all law. The Supreme Court’s decisions are also part of U.S. law. _Wong_ was a case tried before the U.S. Supreme Court; therefore, the Court’s interpretation — in the decision of _Wong_ — of constitutional provisions *is* the law of the land just as much as the Constitution is the law of the land.
The 14th Amendment.
Interesting.
Welcome back.
“The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “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.” Id. at 654, 18 S. Ct. at 459. They noted that “[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.””
See how they quoted Wong Kim Ark, “...the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution”, and promptly went on to ignore said principles, ie Vattell, ie
“Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained years earlier that to be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
eg In 1874, in the Minor v. Happersett case, the Supreme Court affirmed the definition of natural born citizen which had appeared in the 1797 English translation of Vattel’s Law of Nations:
…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. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874) http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/obama-presidential-eligibility-an-introductory-primer/
The Indiana Court has bent itself, and added itself to the role of shame.
They didn't ignore it. They don't agree that Vattel is such a principle:
"The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority [Wong Kim Ark] in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise [de Vattel] and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120"
Welcome back.
Unfortunately, all we seem to be getting is the free POO-POO Platter, along with a very slow delivery driver.
Yes they did. Go read the Wong decision.
The Indiana Appeals Court believes they did, stare decisis and all that. And no, they didn't "make it up." The citations are duly noted in the opinion.
So, contrary to the Indiana court's ruling, Wong Kim Ark provided no "guidance" whatsoever as to who is a Natural Born Citizen "for Article II, Section 1 purposes."
It needs to be kicked up to SCOTUS, because their decision is wrong.
What a laugh! The Law of Nations written by Vattel is mentioned in the U.S.Constitution more than once - go ahead, read the document yourself.
No where, to my knowledge, is English Common Law EVER mentioned in the U.S.Constitution, and for good reason. English Common Law dealt with the relationship between a sovereign and subjects. The U.S.Constitution deals with the limits of government power over citizens, who ARE sovereign. The difference is awesome.
Thank you for alerting me to this!
You might want to go to Leo’s site,
http://www.naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
Leo has already analyzed the decision and determined it is a real turkey.
And just in time for Thanksgiving, too!
OK. Show me the quote and reference from the USSC that says a US President can have a foreign father.
Remember the # 1 rule of politico’s, tyrants ,etc. ” When the Rules don’t fit CHANGE THE RULES ”
Is the Arkney decision the “official” start of revisionist history ?
They serve the poo-poo platter with some shiitake mushrooms on the side.
So, by your reasoning, the common law of the states is in no way based on the common law of England?
Hardly. "Revisionist history" has been used as a convenient weapon by statists to vindicate the power of the elite in government in the United States for decades, perhaps a century. Elsewhere around the world, it has been convenient weapon for tyrannical regimes probably going back to ancient times.
The citizenship requirement to be a NBC President cannot be derived from English Law because the children of English Subjects born overseas are English subjects also, and cannot at the same time be citizens of the USA. Therefor a different version of Citizenship was required, that based on Blood and Soil, ie the Law of Nations, natural Law per Vattel.
So now you’re talking about the law of the states? Indiana law is based on English Common Law? Is that what you’re claiming?
Really?
You mean we don't owe allegiance to Bam Bam?
... And I had so wanted SO MUCH to kiss his Royal ring, someday, but no, you had to come along and spoil everything!
Our constitution speaks to INDIVIDUAL sovereignty -- Not allegiance to a SOVEREIGN as SUBJECTS!
Great post, SatinDoll
STE=Q
Thanks!
TO All:
Excerpt from Leo’s site:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
...the Indiana Court chose to ignore the most relevant aspect of Wong Kim Ark where the SCOTUS clearly indicated that Wong Kim Ark was not natural born:
“Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate… and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
That tells you right there that the child of the citizen and the child of the alien are not both natural born.
You are most welcome, SatinDoll
STE=Q
Yes, I am claiming the common law of Indiana along with every state other than Louisiana is derived from the common law of England. None of the states set out to reinvent the wheel at the time of independence.
What odds would you give on the SC agreeing with you? I put it at far less than 50%. If this came before the SC, they would agree with Indiana because it doesn’t upset the status quo. Regardless of any historical background, they would not be reaching that far to side with English common law (believe me law students read English cases in other contexts often), and since it is the side that won’t cause a constitutional crisis, that is the side they will be on. This is a court probably still stinging from the last time they stepped in to the electoral process. Which justice are you picking to be willing to be the next Roger Taney? Which 4 do you think will sign on to help him achieve that?
Whatever Obama’s faults are, he isn’t a king or in the employ of foreign governments which seems clearly the people sought to be excluded.
Maybe, maybe not; but that has nothing to do with Constitutional requirements for Presidential eligibility. I have no idea why you even brought it up.
Because guaranteed they are going to look at it if they ever take this case. The laws of citizenship that most people in America at the time the constitution was written would have been familiar with are certainly something worth considering.
And with the likelihood they would practice a little bit of ends based jurisprudence, they are definitely going to consider the laws which most help them achieve their ends. Its all well and good that yall think Vattel is the intended definition, but with no explicit evidence of it, I can’t see them using it.
You are arguing that it is best for the USSC to not follow the Law. That is desperate, and wrong.
I’m arguing that they will go with the reading of the Constitution that doesn’t upset the status quo. It isn’t desperate or wrong. I just think they will be very pragmatic on this point. Since NBC has not been defined by the court before they don’t even have any precedent to deal with. They wouldn’t be not following the law, they would be giving it definition.
That’s an interesting point.
Law of Nations is twice mentioned in the U.S.Constitution, English Common Law never. Also, and I was surprised to discover this, ‘democracy’ is never mentioned either.
This decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals is terrible, and as Leo Donofrio points out on his website, full of glaring discrepancies, omissions, and outright falsehoods.
He, for one, hopes publicity shines fully on Indiana’s Appeal Court decision because it is awful and amateursih vis a vis the Constitution.
Just in time, as a couple big rulings happen. Hope your project went well...
A quick command + F of the Constitution only found “law of nations” once, and I’m somewhat skeptical that it is reference to the book. Certain words never being mentioned doesn’t mean the things they represent aren’t an influence on the document.
So far as we know the clause passed without any discussion and it isn’t explained in the Federalist Papers. I have been told that the Framers were all very familiar with Vattel. They may have been, but certainly not everyone in the US would have been. And I think they would have been more explicit if they were going to reject the definition everyone would be familiar with.
And, again, strictly from a pragmatic view considering the potential repercussions of agreeing with Vattel, I don’t think the court will. They have enough leeway here that siding with the common law definitions isn’t a huge stretch.
The common law definition, which I don’t buy, is a red herring.
A natural born citizen is born of citizen parents. Note: two parents, both citizens. Because it is based on natural law, there is no statute. Any other type of citizenship is either, 1) citizenship by statute or, 2) citizenship by 14th Amendment. Neither are natural born citizenship. Note: there is no right to be president. So the Constitution’s Article 2 Presidential requirements are not discriminatory. If that were to be the case then anyone at any age or duration of residency could run for President. Since there exist instances of potential candidates being removed from state ballots because they didn’t meet one or more of the Article 2 requirements, this discriminatory claim is invalid.
I personally hope some enterprising group takes this Indiana Appeals Court decision up to higher courts - it is an invalid decision based on politics and NOT based on historical precedence. There exist documents in the custody of the Lee Family of Virginia, and descendents of the Adams Family of Massechusetts, that explain the role of Vattel in creating the U.S.Constitution. Both families insist that English Common Law played no role in the creation of our constitution. They’ve posted opinions here on Free Republic that those documents will soon be made public, and especially made available to lawyers challenging Obama’s eligibility before SCOTUS.
The Indiana Appeals Court furthermore lied about the circumstances surrounding Chester Arthur’s background. Barack Obama II has admitted to having been born a British subject. Chester Arthur hid the fact that his father was British when Chester was born in the USA; in fact, it was Leo Donofrio who uncovered that fact in December, 2008. Arthur burned his private papers to cover up the truth of his ineligibility for the Presidency as he was, in truth, a British subject.
It just demonstrates how desperate Democrats are to keep Obama in the White House that Indiana’s Appeal Court Justices must LIE concerning President Arthur being known as a British subject at the time of his Presidency. How outrageous! This is a feeble attempt to create precedence by rewriting history, something Liberals do all the time.
“The Indiana court also pointed to dicta in a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals case which labeled two children of an illegal alien as natural born. That case stated:
The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
But nothing about the issue was discussed. The children were mentioned in passing dicta. Whether the children were natural born was not an issue in that case. And it was a mistake for the court to say they were natural born.
The Indiana Court of Appeals acknowledges that the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark did not hold that the man was a natural born citizen. Essentially, the Indiana court acknowledges that the US Supreme Court exercised judicial restraint, but the Indiana Court of Appeals here doesn’t feel that they are restrained in that regard. How brave of them.
Furthermore, the Indiana Court chose to ignore the most relevant aspect of Wong Kim Ark where the SCOTUS clearly indicated that Wong Kim Ark was not natural born:
Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’
That tells you right there that the child of the citizen and the child of the alien are not both natural born.
“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:
- he compares two children
- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien
- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen
He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.
He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.
The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.
The Indiana Court conveniently ignored this analysis. And that comes as no surprise to me. They had to ignore it because there was no possible way for them to distinguish it.”
Leo C. Donofrio
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/indian-court-of-appeals-trips-over-natural-born-citizen-issue/
Yes, to mean what we call today "international law." It's not a citation or endorsement of Vattel's book.
English Common Law never
Try reading the Seventh Amendment, which mentions it twice.
What’s the difference betwen a US Citizen, a Naturalised Citizen, and a Natural Born Citizen? They have to be different because they are all used as separate terms in US Statute Law, and in the Constitution.
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.