Skip to comments.Natural Born Citizenship: Myths, Law of Nations; Update: Common Law Still Exists?
Posted on 08/28/2009 8:05:10 PM PDT by conservativegramma
Prolific blogger and attorney Leo Donofrio has posted yet another fascinating opinion regarding not only natural born citizenship myths you know, those things that we tend to presume when getting into a great debate either on this blog or other sites but also the law of nations as referred in the Constitution:
Rarely, when conducting legal research does one find a historical document that is directly on point. But even more rare is to find a document which is directly on point multiple times. But thats exactly what has happened this week. A historical document which destroys every bogus point being made by Obama POTUS eligibility supporters was recently discovered by a cracker jack team of university students from UCONN.
They have been sending me good stuff for quite a while now. This group is preparing the mother of all natural born citizen research reports based upon their unique historical document discoveries.
But for now, and as a lead in to their work, I offer you one of their superb historical finds. Its an article from The American Law Review dated Sept./Oct. 1884. The American Law Review was a premier legal journal - the brain child of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes.
The article I am about to show you was published in The American Law Review, written by George D. Collins, Esq. Attorney Collins was the Secretary of the California Bar Association. His name was recognized nationally for cases in the federal courts and moreso due to his regular publishing of articles via The American Law review.
The article provides historical opposition for every single point raised by Obama eligibility pundits and destroys all propaganda in its path.
(Excerpt) Read more at therightsideoflife.com ...
I’m no legal beagle, but is this asserting that there can be no such thing as an “anchor baby”?
MHG did you see this ???
Complain all you want, that's the truth. He squats in our house because they let him.
That’s how I’m reading it.
Well, that sucks. Now I can’t be President.
I read that is it is fascinating.
I’ve read this, my daughter sent it to me this week. It is some of the best work so far on why BO is not legally eligible to be in the WH. When will the Robet’s court step up and defend the constitution?
Wouldn’t that be great. Maybe these anchor babies should go home and maybe they should start paying the American people the money stolen from us.
This sounded a bit odd to me, so I looked over the document. He does not make this claim, which would be absurd; rather, he states that common law is irrelevant to federal law, which is quite a different claim (but one that is relevant to the citizenship issue).
There is a weakness in his argument. It relies on the citizenship (allegiance) of the offspring as being that of the father’s alone. A clear enough notion when the Constitution was written, but would it stand close judicial scrutiny today?
Can we still state the allegiance of the child belongs solely with that of the father, and, if so; what legal premise do we use to support this contention? Why wouldn’t the citizenship of the mother now play an equal role in the allegiance of the child of today, or in 1961?
But let’s be clear, none of these questions can even be addressed unless or until Obama comes clean about his past, and that is going to take a court order.
The only other way I can see we can proceed in this regard is to form “Birther” committees in every state of the union with the idea of getting the state legislatures to pass a state statute requiring all presidential and vice-presidential candidates to prove they meet the requirements of the office as set forth in the U.S. Constitution before their names can be placed on the ballot of that state.
Common law exists, but by definition it is not the subject matter of federal administrative law, which is also called statutory law, and which is what the United States federal government runs on.
So, one could say that there "is no common law in the United States," if one meant "in the operation of the United States government," rather than "in legitimate existence in the entirety of the country named the United States of America."
Yes, one could say that. Getting a court to actually sit in common law, however, is another thing.
The 14th Amendment starts: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...". This was ratified shortly after the Civil War, and was intended to provide citizenship to emancipated slaves and their offspring. It was later misinterpreted by the US Supreme Court to apply to all persons born in the US.
This is absurd, since it obviously wouldn't apply to offspring of foreign diplomats, who happen to be born on US soil, or offspring of an invading army, who might be born on US soil, while their parents are attacking America, but many think that it does apply to invading civilians.
The key phrase is "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...". An illegal alien is subject to the jurisdiction of his or her own country. When invading America, an illegal alien is simply subject to removal.
Now born in Indonesia (14th paragraph)
Interesting. That’s the first time I’ve seen Indonesia as ‘the birthplace’ mentioned!
That’s amazing. Written in 2006. The press didn’t bat an eye.
Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while they are in the US.
Our prisons are full of em.
Nice try though.
However, if that alien were to murder someone, would you have a problem with him being tried in by a state court? If the only thing that can be done to that person is to deport him, then okay. But if he can be tried in a court in the United States then he is subject to their legal jurisdiction.
It is worse than that.
We do not KNOW for certain >
Who his father was
Where he was born
If he has traveled on a foreign passport
If he is really a natural born U.S. Citizen
If he is a U.S. Citizen
What name he attended Occidental and Columbia University under
If he attended college under a foreign exchange tuition program
NO ONE but the magic negro could have done this. How could our representatives in both parties have allowed this to happen.
NOW, We the People must FIX this. NOW!
There should be many members of Congress charged with Treason for participating in what they knew was illegal.
The media should be investigated for their part in this and punished under the law.
We demand our Constitutional Government BACK.
Thank you for this link.
That’s interesting. It is either an indictment of our judiciary, or the press. Or both.
This IS LENGTHY, but includes the relevant passages from Blackstone, Vattel, the Supreme Court, and the British Nationality Act of 1948. Otherwise, you have to get it off the Net yourselves ...
SCOTUS has ruled that there IS NO Common Law in the United States. However, absent any CLEAR understanding of the language and law in the Constitution, SCOTUS has suggested time and again that Common Law ought be consulted in order to arrive at a decision. It has done this in order to ascertain the original intent of the Founding Fathers.
See Wheaton v. Peters (January Term 1834), Minor v. Happersett (March 29, 1875), Smith v. Alabama (January 30, 1886), and United States v. Wong Kim Ark (March 28, 1898) for more information on the applicability of English Common Law
Mind you, I said Common Law ought be consulted - not bound by ...
Why, you may ask ???
Because the Founding Fathers, in separating from England, DID NOT ENTIRELY abandon Common Law - they ONLY abandoned what they objected to specifically. * (See COMMENT, below).
In fact, the MAJORITY of Common Law became the basis of U.S. law. The lawyers amongst the Founding Fathers were schooled in Common Law (Blackstone) and (to a lesser extent) the Law of Nations (Vattel).
Now, you need to examine and FULLY read Blackstones Commentaries on the Laws of England Book I, Chapter X: Of the People, Whether Aliens, Denizens, or Natives VERY CAREFULLY. It describes WHO is a natural-born subject.
Blackstone declares that, ... the children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such ....
The OPERATIVE phrase is GENERALLY SPEAKING - it is NOT a definitively declarative statement, therefore, there MUST be AT LEAST one condition where children born of aliens in England ARE NOT natural-born subjects.
In order to ascertain this, you THEN need to examine the traits AND characteristics of a natural-born subject.
Per Blackstone, ... the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own put off or discharge his natural allegiance and cannot be divested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters; and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince ....
... Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien for so long time as he continues within the kings dominion and protection: and it ceases, the instant such stranger transfers himself from this kingdom to another. Natural allegiance is therefore perpetual, and local [allegiance] temporary only ....
... An alien born may purchase lands, or other estates: but not for his own use; for the king is thereupon entitled to them. If an alien could acquire a permanent property in lands, he must own an allegiance, equally permanent with that property, to the king of England; which would probably be inconsistent with that, which he owes his own natural liege lord ....
... And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once ....
... A Denizen is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them And no denizen can be of the privy council, or either house of parliament, or have any office of trust, civil or military, or be capable of any grant from the crown ....
... Naturalization cannot be performed but by act of parliament: for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the kings ligeance; except only that he is incapable of being a member of the privy council, or parliament, etc. ....
Assuming he was born in Hawaii, Obama fits the GENERAL definition of a natural-born subject since he was the child of an alien who was born in the U.S.
HOWEVER, Obama FAILS to meet the traits AND characterisitics of a natural-born subject. That is because he DOES NOT owe a SINGULAR natural allegiance to ONE sovereign or government.
Why, you may ask ???
Because, per the 14th Amendment, he is a citizen of the U.S. AND, per the British Nationality Act of 1948, he is a British subject:
British Nationality Act of 1948 Part II, Section V:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
Obama is a dual national which, if you look CLOSELY at Blackstone, EXACTLY fits his definition of a DENIZEN. A DENIZEN enjoys MOST of the rights of a natural-born subject, except that he CANNOT hold high office.
Per Blackstone, a natural-born subject cannot sever ties with his sovereign. However, the Americans (who were natural-born subjects of King George III) did just that.
Their justification MUST have been rooted in Vattels Law Of Nations:
Chapter XIX: Of Our Native Country And Several Things That Relate To It
§ 220. Whether a person may quit his country.
... 1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born; they are under an obligation to show themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers They ought, therefore, to love it, as we have already shown, to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible, by serving it in turn But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it ....
This shows that the Founding Fathers DID NOT entirely rely on Common Law.
§ 212. Citizens and Natives.
... The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens ... those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights ... The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children ... I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country ...
§ 213. Inhabitants.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country ... though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens ... Their children follow the condition of their fathers ...
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him ...
IF THE FOUNDING FATHERS STRICTLY ADHERED TO VATTEL AND NOT COMMON LAW, OBAMA WOULD NOT EVEN BE A CITIZEN - SINCE THE CHILD FOLLOWS THE FATHER UNDER VATTEL.
HOWEVER, THE 14TH AMENDMENT STILL MAKES OBAMA A CITIZEN OF THE U.S. AND, UNDER VATTEL, HE IS A BRITISH CITIZEN - THUS, MAKING HIM A DUAL NATIONAL ...
What does this ALL mean ???
1. The Founding Fathers DID NOT consider English Common Law to be the controlling law in the Colonies. For if they DID, as Natural Born English subjects, they NEVER could have severed ties with England without the Sovreigns consent (per Blackstone).
2. The Founding Fathers seem to have borrowed from Vattell as justification for the severance. This seems to verify that the Founding Fathers DID NOT ENTIRELY rely on English Common Law when founding the United States.
3. Blackstone states that the children of foreigners born on English soil are, GENERALLY SPEAKING, Natural Born subjects.
4. HOWEVER, Blackstone ALSO declares that a Natural Born subject CANNOT serve two masters.
5. Therefore, per Blackstone, a child of a foreigner appears to be a Denizen rather than a Natural Born subject assuming that the foreign fathers country recognizes the child as one of its citizens (dual nationality).
6. Per Blackstone, a Denizen enjoys MOST of the rights of a Natural Born subject except that he CANNOT hold high office.
7. The British Nationality Act of 1948 recognizes OBAMA as a British subject AND the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution recognizes him as a United States citizen (dual nationality), IF he was born in Hawaii.
8. As a dual national, OBAMA DOES NOT fit the definition of Natural Born as the Founding Fathers knew it.
Mr. Collins had a persuasive arguement which he made in 1884.
In fact in 1892 in the Supreme Court case US vs Wong Kim Ark two Supreme court justices agreed with him.
Unfortunately for Mr. Collins arguement the other 7 didn’t.
I don’t put much stock in law review articles that the Supreme Court later repudiates.
My mistake. US vs Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898 not 1892.
If you read the ARK decision CAREFULLY, you will find that the result of the decision was that Ark was found to be a citizen of the United States - per the 14th Amendment ...
Not natural born citizen, as Ark’s attorney had claimed - but citizen, and as such, was allowed entry into the United States ...
And if you read Mr Collins law review article CAREFULLY, his point was that children of aliens could not be citizens.
His arguement was rejected by the Supreme Court.
Also from the dissent of the Kim case regarding the majority opinion “...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”.
Of course that was just the opinion of the minority.
That same 1884 article by Collins was posted on another FR thread earlier this week. There I posted a similar comment to yours, calling Collins' strict patrilineal citizenship theory archaic. Not only has the SCOTUS repudiated it, but so have subsequent US citizenship statutes in many instances.
“The article provides historical opposition for every single point raised by Obama eligibility pundits and destroys all propaganda in its path.” Blind obamanoid kneepad sycophants don’t need no facts or truth, they can deny anything! The question is, will the pirate john roberts ever allow a hearing of the issues in the SCOTUS.
Anyone have any news on this from their state? Totally agree with this. This takes time, so everyone start writing their state legislatures. .