Posted on 08/24/2010 6:37:15 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Good point. I revise my statement: the 14th Amendment did not change anything with respect to citizenship status for white people born free. The effect of the citizenship clause was to ensure that all blacks born in the USA, including slaves, became citizens.
True, but as Scalia has pointed out, legislative history is not reliable as historical background.
Legislators can and do say anything to try to round up votes. That's why it matters not what they say on the floor when debating the measure; what matters is the actual text of the law they pass.
The only historical background relevant to constitutional jurisprudence is textual. That is, the jurist must read the words of the constitutional text according to the meaning they had at the time they were written. Contemporary historical sources are useful only in so far as they assit the jurist to this end.
Hence the term, "natural born citizen" should be read according to how the founders understood this term. As it was a term of English common law, then it is English common law, as understood at the time, that guides our intepretation.
Unfortunately for birthers, English common law did not require two citizen parents for natural born citizenship. Birth within the domains of the sovereign were sufficient
Actual, he never quotes the passage in Minor your cite. All he does is say Minor resorted to common law.
So at your second at bat, you have another strike: Justice Gray, contrary to your assertions, NEVER defines natural born citizenship to require citizen parents in the case of a child born overseas..
"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."
There you go again, ripping Minor out of context. The very next sentence totally undermines your argument, so I dare you to post it. Will you accept the challange?
This definition does not extend to anyone but those born in the country of citizen parents. Period.
Justice Waite's very next sentence puts the lie to that claim. No wonder you continue to rip his words out of context.
Nonsense. The common law argument was used in support of the court's view on the 14th amendment. And the court specifically cited the 14th amendment citizenship phrase as being the decisive factor, not common law.
Not true. The court used BOTH arguments.
What you cited on the law of England from the decision doesn't make WKA a natural born citizen,
To any person literate in English above the 8th grade level, it clearly does, your baseless denials notwithstanding.
obumpa
'Actual'?? Sorry, but it IS in there.
There you go again, ripping Minor out of context. The very next sentence totally undermines your argument, so I dare you to post it. Will you accept the challange?
There's nothing out of context. The definition Minor used and later quoted in WKA, says this was the nomenclature in which the founders were familiar and it is the only definition for which there is no doubt. As a for a 'challange,' I'll pass.
Justice Waite's very next sentence puts the lie to that claim. No wonder you continue to rip his words out of context.
Sorry, but you need to explain how the context changes the definition. It's not enough just to blather 'out of context' over and over.
Not true. The court used BOTH arguments.
No common law argument was used to redefine natural born citizen. The only thing they could use to declare WKA to be a citizen of the United States was the 14th amendment.
To any person literate in English above the 8th grade level, it clearly does, your baseless denials notwithstanding.
Any person literate in English above the 8th grade level would recognize that I provided direct and supported refutations of the faither mischaracterizations of Wong Kim Ark, not baseless denials. Better luck when you finish 8th grade ... maybe.
I’ll have to disagree.
George Mason, the “Father of the Bill of Rights” and one of the “Founding Fathers” of the United States, proclaimed: “The common law of England is not the common law of these states.” ( Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 19 June 1788).
English common law, in many respects, but specifically as it relates to citizenship, is not the law of our country. The Consitution, however, is the law of our country.
The Founders replaced the English common law with the law of nations which became the new U.S. federal common law and the law of the federal government.
The key foundational difference here was “subjects” versus “citizens.”
The Framers did not define an Article II “natural born Citizen” because they did not see a reason to....they had no idea how poorly educated (and apathetic) the populace would become.
The only persons who aren’t “subject to the jurisidiciton thereof” are those with diplomatic immunity or members of a foreign occupying military on US soil.That's not completely true. Anyone who is a "foreigner" is also subject to the "jurisdiction" of the United States. Their soveriegn status may or may not apply. And even if you're born here "under the jurisdiction" of the U.S., you're merely a "Citizen of the United States" according to the Amendment. Remember the Amendment XIV context. By jurisdiction, Congress meant authority over your citizenship. Here are examples of not being under the jurisdiction of the U.S.:
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.