Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama is merely an inhabitant of the United States.
A Treatise on Citizenship ^ | 1881 | Alexander Morse

Posted on 06/12/2010 6:55:06 PM PDT by bushpilot1

There is ample information in this book to show Obama is not qualified to be President based on the natural born citizenship clause in the Constitution.

The subject book is being blocked by Google no doubt on the behest of the White House.

Obama contends he was born in Hawaii...well.. we say "being born is a church does not make one a Christian".

The natural-born or native is one born in the country of citizen parents.

"The country of the child is that of the father."

"There is" says McLeod, "something in the idea of native country which is intimately connected with the doctrine of allegiance. It is not, however, the spot of earth, upon which the child is born that connects him with the national society, but the relation of the child's parents to that society.

"In the ordinary concerns of life, there is no need for such minute distinctions; and the majority of men are possessed of too little discrimination to understand it.

"Every statesmen are not always wise; and designing men find it for their interest to keep up a confusion(Obots) of ideas upon important subjects."

"In the present discussion, nevertheless, it is necessary that I distinctly state to you the true bond which connects the child with the body politic. It is not the inanimate matter of a piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage."

"Let a child be born within the walls of a church, this does not make him a church member."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last
Photobucket

Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1928

1 posted on 06/12/2010 6:55:06 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1928

Bad definition, in my opinion. Different words mean different things, else they wouldn't be different.

Example:

animal; a dog.

dog; an animal.

This is circular, and neither choice provides a clear distinction between the two words being defined.

A Native Born Citizen is not a Natural Born Citizen.

2 posted on 06/12/2010 7:06:09 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

“Every statesmen are not always wise...”

Odd construction of an English sentence.


3 posted on 06/12/2010 7:23:47 PM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum

Thanks. The word is not correct. It is my typo. The correct word is Even.

“Even statesmen are not always wise;”


4 posted on 06/12/2010 7:27:07 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

He’s nothing but an illegal alien!


5 posted on 06/12/2010 7:28:14 PM PDT by dalereed (in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
The Bouvier definition is a LEGAL definition--therefore it reflects how a term has been used in law, whether or not it's a "good" definition or not, whether different words or not, all that is irrelevant, to its technical usage in law.

As the definition itself posits explaining LEGAL USAGE:

"There is no distinction between native born as used in the French Extradition treaty and natural born as used in the extradition act."

All of this is silly anyway--as the Supremes (or any other legal authority) will not allow the "natural born" of Obama issue to be touched with a ten foot pole--due to the horrendous implications, (which could include, false laws/treaties, terrible riots and even war, I think--coming out of certain communities.)

Just 2 and a half more years.... 1/20/2013!!!

6 posted on 06/12/2010 7:35:38 PM PDT by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
Read this carefully. From Bouvier's sixth edition, 1856:



John Bouvier Rev Sixth Edition, 1856  natives

John Bouvier Rev. Sixth Edition, 1856  Natives

7 posted on 06/12/2010 7:41:08 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

In this case, they’re saying that to be ‘native-born’ you must still be born of citizens. They’re not talking about ‘native’ to the soil, which is gnerally how people think of it today.


8 posted on 06/12/2010 7:41:31 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
Different words mean different things, else they wouldn't be different.

Not always. English is a very bastardized language, and one of the harder ones to learn as well. But consider:

Dog, Canine, pooch.

Swine, hog, pig.

A Native Born Citizen is not a Natural Born Citizen.

Not in modern usage, but in 1928 and for that matter 1787, they were the same.

9 posted on 06/12/2010 7:43:48 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan; Beckwith; bgill; bitt; butterdezillion; bvw; conservativegramma; Danae; dennisw; ...

NBC Ping


10 posted on 06/12/2010 7:45:37 PM PDT by ASA Vet (Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. De Vattel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
>""The country of the child is that of the father."

"There is" says McLeod, "something in the idea of native country which is intimately connected with the doctrine of allegiance. It is not, however, the spot of earth, upon which the child is born that connects him with the national society, but the relation of the child's parents to that society.

Listen to them try to explain this. Adolph Hitler comes to America, and procreates.

Is the son of Adolph eligible?

11 posted on 06/12/2010 7:47:14 PM PDT by rawcatslyentist (Jeremiah 50:31 Behold, I am against you, O you most proud, said the Lord God of hosts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Interesting definition. You find it reflected in court cases of the 19th century.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): Wong Kim Ark was the son of two resident Chinese aliens who could not naturalize as U.S. citizens due to a treaty between the Emperor of China and the U.S. Government forbidding such naturalizations. They were, however, permanent resident aliens.

Wong claimed U.S. Citizenship by basis of his birth in the U.S.A. He was vindicated by the Supreme Court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly of the decision in Minor vs. Happersett: “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.

On the basis of the 14th Amendment the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A. under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.) but it DID NOT extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” to those whose parents were not citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

So called anchor babies born here of illegal aliens can not become President.

In addition, Natural Born Citizenship is NOT a type of citizenship! It is but a circumstance of birth, and the only place it appears in U.S. law is in the U.S. Constitution as a requirement for eligibility to serve as President.


12 posted on 06/12/2010 7:55:10 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO Foreign Nationals as our President!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

We can probably find a dictionary from 1787 and find that the words Native and Natural were clearly differentiated in that time, just as they are today.

I think we both know that those words predate the formation of our country by a very long time. They would not have both come into existence in the language if there were not a need to differentiate the two separate classes of being.

“Dog, Canine, pooch.”

All synonyms for the same thing. Not so with the two words we’re discussing, which are two distinctly different things.


13 posted on 06/12/2010 8:01:57 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

“...the Supremes (or any other legal authority) will not allow the “natural born” of Obama issue to be touched with a ten foot pole—due to the horrendous implications, (which could include, false laws/treaties, terrible riots and even war, I think—coming out of certain communities.)”

Well, the courts certainly didn’t hesitate to do other things, such as find nonexistent ‘freedom of choice’ and ‘right to privacy’ in the U.S. Constitution, and that has wrecked all kinds of havoc, hasn’t it?

What I believe is the difficulty getting this issue to the Supreme Court is that the power to remove a President lies with the U.S. Congress - not the Judicial branch (The Courts).

The Congress has delegated some of that power, the power to remove a usurper, to the District Court of Washington, D.C., in a legal manuever called “Quo Warranto”.


14 posted on 06/12/2010 8:04:15 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO Foreign Nationals as our President!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; El Gato

McLeod’s book is located here the date is 1815.

Morse references Mcleod, MCLeod references Vattel..not sure the Vattel edition.

http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=kLUTAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+causes+of+the+present+war+Alexander+McLeod&as_brr=1&hl=en&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false


15 posted on 06/12/2010 8:06:29 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
The natural-born or native is one born in the country of citizen parents.

This sort of statement is the cause of all sorts of misunderstanding, and is the source of all sorts of mischief.

All citizens, regardless of how that citizenship was acquired, have identical rights and duties. There is no difference between the most newly-minted, naturalized citizen and the natural-born descendent of original citizens under the so-called "grandfather clause."

There is, however, restriction at the Federal level as to the requirements for eligiblity to hold Federal elected office. These restrictions can pertain to age, length of residency, length of citizenship if not natural-born, and for the highest office in the land, that of President and Commander in Chief, natural-born citizenship.

A citizen is a citizen, encompassing every means of attaining citizenship. Naturalized citizens are citizens, native born citizens are citizens, and natural-born citizens are citizens. Hence the interchangeable use of the term "citizen" to describe these several different types of citizen. They're all belonging to the same set.

A native citizen is born in the country, to parents legally present, such as resident aliens with a green card. The set of "citizen" is reduced to a subset of native born citizens via the restriction of native birth in the country.

A natural-born citizen is born in the country, to parents not just legally present, but who are citizens themselves. The citizenship of the parents of natural-born citizens can be acquired by any of the means available, from naturalization to legal statute to birth in the country. Doesn't matter how, it just matters that they are.

The terms native and natural born can be used interchangeably in certain contexts, just as the word "citizen" can be, when discussing citizens born in the country, because the meanings overlap in those contexts. That interchangeability in certain contexts does not render the two terms identical in meaning.

The only term and the only meaning that pertains to the executive branch and the Presidency is natural-born citizen. Do not be taken in by attempts to conflate native with natural-born when discussing the Presidency as a result.

Not so coincidentally, the Obama campaign website very carefully wrapped their description of then-candidate Obama in Constitutional language, but stopped short of claiming that he was anything but a "native born citizen."

There's that mischief, relying upon inattentiveness to any distinction. They did not claim that he met the requirement, they merely fluffed it into sounding similar.

16 posted on 06/12/2010 8:14:06 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Native and natural seems to come from early French edition of Vattel used by the Founders. The words can be traced to Justinian.

Naturels used by Vattel..and translated by the Framers to natural.


17 posted on 06/12/2010 8:15:17 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Resident Obama.


18 posted on 06/12/2010 8:18:40 PM PDT by Free Vulcan (No prisoners, no mercy. 2010 is here...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Obama is not qualified. The problem is, no one that has any power to do something about it is going to do anything about it. No one in government, including judges, wants to deal with the riots and bloodshed that will take place if he is removed.


19 posted on 06/12/2010 8:20:34 PM PDT by SaxxonWoods (Gone Galt and loving it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

But Congress accept him as bona fide.


20 posted on 06/12/2010 8:23:43 PM PDT by 353FMG (ISLAM -- America's road to destruction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Indigenes are native (indigenous). Naturels possess citizenship that naturally descends from the contition of the father. Natural-born combines them both because both conditions are always included in any description of natural-born citizenship from those who were in a position to know and understand, from Founders to early Supreme Court justices to the authors of the 14th Amendment.
21 posted on 06/12/2010 8:27:48 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SaxxonWoods
No one in government, including judges, wants to deal with the riots and bloodshed that will take place if he is removed.

BINGO! That's been the issue all along too.

22 posted on 06/12/2010 8:30:14 PM PDT by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
The subject book is being blocked by Google no doubt on the behest of the White House.

On the contrary, Google Books has the entire book online. Click here.

23 posted on 06/12/2010 8:34:53 PM PDT by upchuck (Don't let freedom slip away. After America, there is no place to go ~ Kitty Werthmann - Google her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
All synonyms for the same thing. Not so with the two words we’re discussing, which are two distinctly different things.

Go find that 1787 dictionary. You'll see that in some contexts, the two terms are synonyms. In fact we've been through that exercise, with the complication of translation from French. We used the "Royal Dictionary of French and English and English and French" 1729 edition, I think.

But the net result was that either of the two words used in Vattel, naturales or indigenes, could be translated as "native" or "natural born". And in fact that what the 1797 translation says:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

When you say "A or B, are C. the only way that makes sense is if A & B are synonyms.

24 posted on 06/12/2010 8:35:31 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet
THX for the PING

Interesting treatise isn't it. I have had this for quite some time and it just happened that I have been expanding my library on citizenship. Just got done reading an interesting case from the VA supreme court of 1805. The case was never overturned by the US Supreme Court and thus its holding stood as constitutional in that there was no such thing as perpetual allegiance or feudal birthright citizenship adopted by the federal government in the constitution. I'm now off to go fetch a copy of International Law by Karl von Savigny who was considered the ultimate authority and was the most quoted by the higher courts of the time. After Savigny, I plan to pull all I can from Dicey. Dicey is quite outspoken about Kent's tendencies to fall back to ECL which was NOT that of the law of the US and that even though Kent's works are important, they also must be scrutinized.

25 posted on 06/12/2010 8:35:34 PM PDT by patlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

The Founders had more backbone than the majority of the current members of Congress. If there are riots so be it.


26 posted on 06/12/2010 8:38:30 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Google is not allowing a full view of this book. You are wrong.


27 posted on 06/12/2010 8:39:43 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: upchuck; Red Steel

Book overview
Snippet view - 1881 - 385 pages - Political Science

You posted a snippets view. Try the full view.


28 posted on 06/12/2010 8:45:29 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG

“But Congress accept him as bona fide.”

Bona fide what?


29 posted on 06/12/2010 8:48:45 PM PDT by dalereed (in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Native refers to the soil in which one is born, Natural is what is passed to the child from the father/parents aka descent as in inherit. It stymes the mind why this is so hard for the obamatrons to understand.

another interesting fact is that in the Federalist papers, the Natives who are not citizens are referred to as inhabitants. Vattel § 213. Inhabitants:

The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

30 posted on 06/12/2010 9:03:55 PM PDT by patlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: upchuck; bushpilot1
Good find.



A Treatise to Citizenship  By Alexander Porter Morse

31 posted on 06/12/2010 9:05:42 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: patlin

I’m familiar with the concept of “inhabitants,” and have written upon it before. Most would be very surprised to learn that people residing in territories were regarded as inhabitants, as were those born in Washington, DC.


32 posted on 06/12/2010 9:07:41 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

I’m not sure I get your point. Are you claiming that someone with Obama’s parentage is not a citizen at all?


33 posted on 06/12/2010 9:08:08 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

BushP1 maybe Google has ID you as a rabble-rouser by blocking you... not so much tinfoil off/


34 posted on 06/12/2010 9:11:28 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Most would be very surprised to learn that people residing in territories were regarded as inhabitants, as were those born in Washington, DC.

Exactly. And now with immigration reform and anchor baby all over the news, now is the prime time to run with this and educate the dumbed down public.

35 posted on 06/12/2010 9:19:29 PM PDT by patlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

bttt


36 posted on 06/12/2010 9:30:33 PM PDT by tutstar (Baptist Ping List-freepmail me to be included or removed. <{{{><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Again, from "A Treatise On Citizenship"


Treatise On Citizenship Preface XI  Alex Morse

37 posted on 06/12/2010 9:36:05 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: patlin

I suspect a fear of that is at the root of a lot of the derision this matter receives from certain pro-business individuals and groups normally much more amenable to the Constitutional case.


38 posted on 06/12/2010 9:36:11 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1; El Gato
Native and natural seems to come from early French edition of Vattel used by the Founders. The words can be traced to Justinian.

Naturels used by Vattel..and translated by the Framers to natural.

Thanks for that.

I've read enough to know that the Framers intent was to ensure that all US presidents owed pure, and unalloyed allegiance to this country, and no other.

It's clear to me that their understanding of Vattel's definition of Natural Born Citizen was, one who is born of the blood and of the soil.

It just isn't any more complicated than that.

39 posted on 06/12/2010 9:41:37 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Under the immigration laws of the 1800’s , the same as today. A child born to parents who have immigrated(implied allegiance) to the U.S. but not yet U.S. citizens is a Native born citizen. Ark’s parents had legally immigrated(implied allegiance) to the U.S. and under the law at that time was a native born citizen. In the opinion of the court Ark was declared a native born citizen equal to that of natural born citizens. The Supreme did state that there was a distinction between Natural and Native born. The court still upheld that belief that citizenship is directly related to allegiance. Children of illegals have no allegiance therefore no citizenship.


40 posted on 06/12/2010 9:43:56 PM PDT by omegadawn (qualified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Windflier; El Gato; Red Steel

There are documents in the congressional record where the framers translated naturels to natural born. They are posted in previous threads on this subject.

This translation is the key.


41 posted on 06/12/2010 9:51:25 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
In the most current SCOTUS case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, where citizenship of the detainee Hamdi was in question and argued by the US that he was not a US citizen according to the constitutional definition of ‘subject to the jurisdiction’, Justice Scalia with Stevens joining him wrote in their dissent:

[June 28, 2004] Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Stevens joins, dissenting.

Petitioner, a presumed American citizen...

Interesting that they chose the word “presumed citizen” as if they have doubts as to his claim to UD citizenship as he was born in the US to aliens and was raised in a foreign country, thus there is still doubt that accidental birth on US soil automatically makes one a constitutional US citizen.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/542/507/case.html

Edwin Meese III along with John C. Eastman entered the following Amicus Brief on behalf of Rumsfeld:

1. Whether the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment requires (as opposed to merely permits)
treating as citizens individuals born to foreign nationals
who were temporarily visiting the United States at the
time of the individual’s birth?
2. Whether the clear intent of the framers who adopted and
the people who ratified the “subject to the jurisdiction
thereof” phrase of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution should prevail in, or at least
guide, the interpretation the Citizenship Clause?

http://www.claremont.org/repository/doclib/hamdimeritsbrieffinal.pdf

42 posted on 06/12/2010 10:07:10 PM PDT by patlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: patlin

A natural born citizen is not made by law. The 14th Amendment is a law.


43 posted on 06/12/2010 10:11:26 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: patlin

You’re citing one of the interests that would fear the consequences of following original intent as far as certain means of attaining citizenship. The Heritage Foundation came out years ago, interpreting births on the soil regardless of parentage as not just citzens, but natural-born.

The resources available to us on FR are very hard-won, the product of two years of independent research, each of us springboarding off of and building upon the efforts of another. Conversely, that foundation has legal counsel at its disposal and therefore was not unfamiliar with that which took so much effort for us to acquire.

In other words, they knew then and chose to ignore what we’ve just begun to uncover, decipher and assemble into a cogent “case.”


44 posted on 06/12/2010 10:29:30 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
A natural born citizen is not made by law. The 14th Amendment is a law.

The 14th Amendment was ratified to finally insure complete citizenship status for the freed slaves. You have to remember that they were counted as ‘citizens’ for representation purposes in Congress by the states, but were kept from all the rights of US citizenship. The 14th has nothing to do with naturalization, it was merely a formal law which finally defined who were the US citizens and the crux of the Amendment lies in the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ not in the phrase ‘born in the US’.

The 14th is NOT a naturalization law, it does not make one a citizen, that is done by A1 S8 C4 of the Constitution or by being born to citizen parent(S) or, if being born out of wedlock, born to an American mother. The 14th defines who is natural born and who is naturalized as there was no such thing as dual citizenship adopted and today, there is still no law on the books legalizing it. Since the revolution, there were the only 2 ways to gain citizenship, by natural law or by act of Congress and that is where the waters are still kept muddy. By those claiming that the 14th is a law that infers citizenship when it was only meant to define citizenship.

45 posted on 06/12/2010 10:38:10 PM PDT by patlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: patlin
Hmmm. Just finished going through the amicus brief in its entirety, and this strikingly states every argument against Horace Gray and Wong Kim Ark that I've ever encountered.

Their arguments even include what I'd to this point regarded as purely my own position regarding any claim of English common law being the basis for United States conceptualizations of citizenship, having been completely negated by the right of expatriation.

I'm going to have to dig back into things, to locate just what it was that the Heritage Foundation and Edwin Meese weighed in upon, that left me with not just a strong impression but the reasonable certainty that their position on "birthright citizenship" under the 14th Amendment actually comported with that of Gray and WKA. Off the top of my head, I'm recalling that it was in dictionary form, but am not certain.

Have you ever considered posting this brief in it's entirety to FR? Somebody should. What was the ultimate disposition of the case, by the way?

46 posted on 06/12/2010 11:01:08 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: patlin
The 14th defines who is natural born and who is naturalized

No, it does not. It confers citizenship upon those former slaves born in the country who were being denied citizenship by certain States in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War.

47 posted on 06/12/2010 11:04:15 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
From the heritage foundation & Meese, it was the book, the complete guide to the constitution which he coauthored. There is a plethora of info at heritages site dating back more than a decade that argues against WKA.
48 posted on 06/12/2010 11:17:00 PM PDT by patlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: patlin
Clarence Thomas' dissent seems to be the most informative. From my reading, the court declined to consider the legitimacy of Hamdi's claim of citizenship because it was a politcal question for another branch of government to determine.

I acknowledge that the question whether Hamdi’s executive detention is lawful is a question properly resolved by the Judicial Branch, though the question comes to the Court with the strongest presumptions in favor of the Government. The plurality agrees that Hamdi’s detention is lawful if he is an enemy combatant. But the question whether Hamdi is actually an enemy combatant is “of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and which has long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry.” That is, although it is appropriate for the Court to determine the judicial question whether the President has the asserted authority, we lack the information and expertise to question whether Hamdi is actually an enemy combatant, a question the resolution of which is committed to other branches. 

49 posted on 06/12/2010 11:34:06 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry; bushpilot1
No, it does not. It confers citizenship upon those former slaves born in the country who were being denied citizenship by certain States in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War.

I have to respectfully disagree, it does not say all black persons born, it say all persons as not to exclude the blacks. It was passed to put to rest the issue of race in regards to birth on the soil to citizen parents in accordance to the Declaration of Independence & Constitution. Slavery was not adopted by the Constitution, but instead left as a state issue. It took a civil war to completely abolish it. The framers of the Constitution were wise in their knowledge and in order to form the new Union under a federal constitution, they had to concede certain things for the moment, but did put in place a law that forbade the importing of new slaves. You could say that they paved the way for the civil war. By the time the 14th was ratified, all blacks held in slavery were born on US soil into slavery against which was not in compliance to the US Constitution. Thus, the 14th was passed to insure uniformity at the state level as there were blacks who were already citizens immediately after the revolution as well as blacks in Congress. However, Congress still held the power as to whom it allowed to naturalize aka the Chinese Exclusion Act, etc.

Framer Rep. John Bingham:

“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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.”

Framers Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard:

"main purpose" of the clause "was to establish the citizenship of the negro" and that "[t]he phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

Article. XIV.
[Proposed 1866; Ratified 1868.]
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

50 posted on 06/12/2010 11:37:45 PM PDT by patlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson