Posted on 09/07/2011 4:33:52 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Edited on 09/07/2011 4:35:41 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Sorry, but your examples don't change anything. In the sentence from the WKA decision, we KNOW the SCOTUS UNANIMOUSLY rejected V. Minor's claim of 14th amendment citizenship because she was presumably born in the country to citizen parents. The court's commitment to the view is based on a unanimous decision, not on what Miller and others understood or not. Likewise, in your example, it doesn't matter what John and Bob think. Either the poster is lying or the poster is NOT lying. What John and Bob think is not relevant to whether or not the poster is actually lying.
Sorry, but the SCOTUS said otherwise. Here's the quote AGAIN.
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.
The court says "At common law" but the definition of NBC, as I have shown, is a verbatim match of Vattel. The Minor decision says NOTHING else about common law NOR does it ever specifically cite English common law. The definition may be "in light of" common law, but again, it matches Vattel's definition nearly word for word. No OTHER citation of English common law in the Wong Kim Ark decision specifically uses the term natural-born citizen. Three citations of NBC are pulled from the Constitution. Two are from the Minor decision, with the verbatim definition matching Vattel. One is from the Naturalization Act of 1790. None are from English common law.
He never said they do not meet the definition.
He said the second class were those persons recognized as citizens without regard to the citizenship of the parents. This is a basic point of logic. If the parents are citizens, they meet the definition. If the parents aren't citizens, they don't meet the definition of NBC and fall within the first class of citizens for whom there is NO DOUBT about their citizenship. This second class Waite says is included as citizens. He does not say they are included as or are even potentially considered to be "natural-born citizens. The doubt is specifically due to the second class not having citizen parents ... hence they do NOT meet the definition. Otherwise, there's no point in referring to this as a second class.
The word in this case is domicil, not domicile, and it means a permanent legal residence. As I have shown, domicil is not merely mentioned, but is tied specifically to the subject clause of the 14th amendment.
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.
Here's another quote from WKA that helps drive this point home (pun intended):
... unless the general rule, that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted, the Fourteenth Amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose ...
If Rubio's parents were permanently domiciled, then he falls under the subject clause of the 14th amendment and is a citizen, but as I have shown, according to the Supreme Court, he is NOT a natural born citizen unless the parents were citizens when he was born. Obama, under this same criteria, even if born in Hawaii, is neither a 14th amendment citizen nor a natural born citizen.
Yep, he’s tribe over nation.
You removed the “neither – nor” from a quote, and continue to claim it did not change the meaning of the quote.
You ignore multiple references in WKA to English common law, and claim that Vattel is what they mean by “common law”
You ignore Justice Waite’s statement in Minor v Happersett that there are doubts about whether certain citizens classify as natural born, and that the court won’t address the issue. Instead, you claim the court did address the issue.
You claim there is no definition of jus soli = natural born, when there are several sources for the definition. “Born on the soil” is the same as natural born starting with the English Calvin’s case in 1608. Note that this case is cited by WKA, and has been cited in other Supreme Court cases.
You have not shown that. What you have shown is
So the reality is I use foreign law more than anybody on the Court. But it's all old English law.
I explained why it didn't change the meaning and with YOUR OWN analogies. Why do you ignore this????
You ignore multiple references in WKA to English common law, and claim that Vattel is what they mean by “common law”
I didn't ignore the references to English common law. I specifically pointed out that NONE OF THOSE REFERENCES specifically pertained to NBC. I pointed out what ALL references to NBC did pertain to, which was the Constitution and Minor v. Happersett. I also pointed out that it was the SCOTUS's language that identified the Vattel-matching definition of NBC as "at common-law." The words are theirs, not mine. You are the one who is ignoring them.
You ignore Justice Waite’s statement in Minor v Happersett that there are doubts about whether certain citizens classify as natural born ...
Flat-out wrong. Waite did NOT say there are doubts about certain citizens being classified as natural born. He said there are doubts about certain classes of individuals simply being CITIZENS. This is an example of YOU having a reading comprehension problem.
You claim there is no definition of jus soli = natural born, when there are several sources for the definition.
NONE of your linked sources used the phrase "natural born" in the definitions of "jus soli"-only and NEITHER does the SCOTUS.
“Born on the soil” is the same as natural born starting with the English Calvin’s case in 1608.
Calvin's Case was based on a declaration of the King to unify Scotland and England and thus incorporate Scots as British subjects. It has been misunderstood to apply to all aliens, but this was not the case as denizens (legal aliens) and their children born domestically were still recognized as denizens, in BOTH Britain and in the U.S. colonies. Second, aliens were required to have "actual obedience" to the crown in order for their children to be recognized as natural born subjects. There's no equivalence for this in terms of citizenship in the United States, up until the subject clause of the 14th amendment. Yet it doesn't really matter, because none of that overrides the legal precedence set in Minor where NBC is defined in accordance with Vattel's Law of Nations definition. Gray cited English common law, not to define NBC, but to create a specific class of 14th amendment citizenship that he called "citizenship by birth." After he cites the Minor definition of NBC, he never references the term again in the decision. Note below how he opts for a new separate term that is defined BY the Constitution, which is different from NBC which Gray acknowledged was defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution.
"... all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America.
... there was any principle of international law which could defeat the operation of the established rule of citizenship by birth within the United States ...
In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.
both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.
The effect of the enactments conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of American parents has been defined, and the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion of the United States, notwithstanding alienage of parents, has been affirmed, in well considered opinions of the executive departments of the Government since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
... the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory
But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.
What you WON'T find in those citations of "citizenship by birth" is any correlation to natural born citizenship. If jus soli=NBC, then it should have been very easy to say so. There would have been no need to have this convoluted essay on English common law and the so-called "fundamental rule of citizenship by birth." The problem for Gray is that the ONE legal precedent for specifically defining NBC as mentioned in the Constitution is from the Minor decision, a decision that makes NO specific reference to English common law. Further, Gray still included a domicil component to citizenship by birth in order to satisfy the subject clause (which I've already proven). As you can see, I have not IGNORED anything here, but have addressed everything head on and explained it in simple, easy-to-understand language. Read it. Learn it. Comprehend it.
Wrong. The court said it didn't need to resolve the citizenship of persons who were not born to citizen parents. By providing a simple, clear and exclusive definition of NBC, tied DIRECTLY to Art II, Sec I, the NBC issue was resolved. The WKA affirmed that definition of NBC.
You refuse to acknowledge that omitting "neither and nor" from the beginning of the quote reverses the meaning of the quote.
No, I SHOWED how it didn't change the meaning of the operational phrase. You ignored this.
You have a bizarre theory that when Justices refer to "common law" they really mean Vattel's Law of Nations.
Wrong. I only pointed out that one specific reference to the term "at common law" in the Minor decision was a word-for-word match of the NBC definition of the Law of Nations definition Vattel. These were the court's words, not mine. NOTHING in the Minor decision specifies nor even hints or alludes to English common law on this definition.
You will ignore the Supreme Court declaring that the US follows Jus Soli
No, I've pointed out that jus soli was not used as the exclusive basis for the court's definition of NBC.
When desperate, you claim that there is no definition that Jus Soli means "born on the soil" = natural born.
Wrong again. No one was desperate. You presented three links and NONE of them backed up YOUR claim. The court's one AFFIRMED definition of NBC means born on the soil ... to citizen parents. It is not solely a jus soli definition and you know it, but won't admit it.
A quote for you from Justice Scalia, during a debate with Breyer on foreign law:
Scalia footnotes Vattel in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, June 2008:
“And if any person above described shall have in his custody, use, or bear arms, being thereof convicted before one justice of peace, or other judge competent, summarily, he shall for the first offense forfeit all such arms” (quoting 1 Geo. 1, c. 54, §1)); Statute Law of Scotland Abridged 132–133 (2d ed. 1769) (“Acts for disarming the highlands” but “exempting those who have particular licenses to bear arms”); E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) (“Since custom has allowed persons of rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in time of peace, strict care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear swords”);Game. Set. Match.
link
“If I recall, it wasn’t appealed to the state supreme court.”
There’s now this thing called ‘Google’ that’s useful for checking stuff like that. Maybe I can help with some keywords:
4/01/10 ——THIS MATTER HAS COME BEFORE THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT ON A PETITION TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF A DECISION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS. THE PETITION WAS FILED PURSUANT TO APPELLATE RULE 57. THE COURT HAS REVIEWED THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. ANY RECORD ON APPEAL THAT WAS SUBMITTED HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COURT FOR REVIEW, ALONG WITH ANY AND ALL BRIEFS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AND ALL THE MATERIALS FILED IN CONNECTION WITH THE REQUEST TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION. EACH PARTICIPATING MEMBER OF THE COURT HAS VOTED ON THE PETITION. EACH PARTICIPATING MEMBER HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THAT JUSTICE’S VIEWS ON THE CASE IN CONFERENCE WITH THE OTHER JUSTICES. BEING DULY ADVISED, THE COURT NOW DENIES THE APPELLANT’S PETITION TO TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION. RANDALL T. SHEPARD, CHIEF JUSTICE ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. KJ 04/05/10
I have no problem admitting I was wrong about the appeal. Nothing in what you quoted shows that the justices addressed any of the arguments I’ve presented. As I noted previously: “The only thing that court did with any legal authority was deny a citizen a right to hold the governor of Indiana accoutable for failing to vet presidential candidates.” The denial of the appeal to the ISC doesn’t disprove this point.
Work and houseguests. Reply coming tomorrow.
I'll break it down for you:
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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. [some authorities think that those born inside the country of noncitizens are also natural born citizens, ]As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first [some people say one way, some the other, so there are doubts.] For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.[For this case, it is not necessary to decide which side is correct about children of noncitizens being natural born]Which means, as I have said, that the court in Minor v Happersett declined to resolve the question. Are you still confused?
”you refuse to acknowledge that omitting "neither and nor" from the beginning of the quote reverses the meaning of the quote.
No, I SHOWED how it didn't change the meaning of the operational phrase.
No matter how much you claim it didn’t, removing “neither… nor” reversed the meaning. That is very plain. You butchered the quote to make it seem it supported your interpretation. Whatever contortions you want to go through to say other sentences and paragraphs supported your point, you still butchered a quote to give a false impression.
NOTHING in the Minor decision specifies nor even hints or alludes to English common law on this definition.
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar...The common law the Founders knew was English common law. Look at cases where Scalia cites common law. (hint, he’s not talking about Vattel) Then of course there’s the Heritage Guide to the Constitution, where Edwin Meese (President Reagan’s attorney general) wrote
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens”, and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President ...”
English common law via Blackstone:
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.[exceptions for children of foreign diplomats, and occupying military]So if we follow the English concept, as declared in Rogers v. Bellei, clearly children of aliens born in the US (with the few exceptions) are natural born citizens. And WKA repeatedly referred to English Common Law, I have already highlighted in previous posts.
The court's one AFFIRMED definition of NBC means born on the soil ... to citizen parents. It is not solely a jus soli definition and you know it, but won't admit it.
The court's one definition you point to said it wouldn't resolve the question, but of course you won't admit that.
Gray cited English common law, not to define NBC, but to create a specific class of 14th amendment citizenship that he called "citizenship by birth."
Citizens by birth = natural born citizens. There are two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized. Where in the Constitution or legislation does it say there is a third category? If you are arguing for a category that is just "citizens," it’s rather like saying there are white chess pieces, black chess pieces, and a third category of “chess pieces” that are not black or white, as opposed to containing both types.
The supreme court has spoken of two types. Here’s Elk v Wilkins 1884:
The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which "No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,"Note that the court recognizes two types of citizenship: by birth, and by naturalization. Note also the equivalency of “citizenship by birth” and “natural born.”
Scalia footnotes Vattel in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER,
And the fact that Justice Scalia footnoted Vattel in a case having nothing to do with citizenship means to you that he follows Vattel in all things? He has been quite clear that he interprets many cases in using English common law. Again, from his debate wtih Breyer
I mean, the Founders used a lot of foreign law. If you read the Federalist Papers, it's full of discussions of the Swiss system, German system. It's full of that. It is very useful in devising a constitution. But why is it useful in interpreting one?
Now, my theory of what I do when I interpret the American Constitution is I try to understand what it meant, what was understood by the society to mean when it was adopted. And I don't think it changes since then.
Now, obviously if you have that philosophy -- which, by the way, used to be orthodoxy until about 60 years ago -- every judge would tell you that's what we do. If you have that philosophy, obviously foreign law is irrelevant with one exception: Old English law, because phrases like "due process," the "right of confrontation" and things of that sort were all taken from English law. So the reality is I use foreign law more than anybody on the Court. But it's all old English law.
MR. DORSEN: But suppose old English law tells you that the way this provision ought to be interpreted is in light of contemporary conditions, as the Commerce Clause may have, for example?
JUSTICE SCALIA: You'll find some English law that says that, and I'll use it --
JUSTICE BREYER: Blackstone. (Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: Absolutely.
Later in the debate:
JUSTICE SCALIA:It had a meaning to the American colonists, all of whom were intimately familiar with my friend Blackstone. And what they understood when they ratified this Constitution was that they were affirming the rights of Englishmen. So to know what the Constitution meant at the time, you have to know what English law was at the time.
It doesn't matter. The only way they would resolve the doubt is by examing whether or not the parents were citizens or not. If the parents were citizens, then the child was NBC. If not born to citizen parents, then they'd have to look at other factors. That's what happened in WKA. Ark was not an NBC.
The common law the Founders knew was English common law.
Sorry, but the "nomenclature known by the founders," as Waite cited it, was a verbatim match of Vattel's Law of Nations definition of NBC. The founders were generally very well acquainted with it. Justice Marshall quotes Vattel in the Venus decision. In Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor, the Court looked to Vattel for guidance:
It appears to me that upon principles of public law as well as of the common law, he must if born a British subject, be deemed to adhere to, and retain the national allegiance of his parents at the time of the treaty. Vattel considers the general doctrine to be that children generally acquire the national character of their parents, Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219, and it is certain, both by the common law and the statute law of England, that the demandant would be deemed a British subject.Citizens by birth = natural born citizens. There are two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized.
There's NOTHING in the WKA decision that says this. The decisions says there are two SOURCES, not types, of citizenship .... contemplated by the 14th amendment. Keep in mind, Gray has already excluded NBC from the birth clause of the 14th amendment (and I say this because NBC are affected by other parts of the 14th amendment, just not the part about citizenship, which Minor rejected).
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration thatThe supreme court has spoken of two types. Here’s Elk v Wilkins 1884:
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,
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.
The Elk v. Wilkins case is not favorable to your argument. The passage after what you quoted says:
The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.
The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
This decision noted that Indians, even though born in U.S. territory, did not meet the subject clause and were not considered citizens by virtue of the 14th amendment. Obviously they weren't considered citizens PRIOR to the 14th amendment either, which blows the English common law theory.
And the fact that Justice Scalia footnoted Vattel in a case having nothing to do with citizenship means to you that he follows Vattel in all things?
Your claim was that when Scalia references "common law" he means English common law. This footnote that referenced Vattel did so in a context about common law. Obviously it proves that Scalia knows of Vattel and will cite his work.
He has been quite clear that he interprets many cases in using English common law.
He says he uses English common law more than the other justices, but I showed where also uses Vattel. Since we have precedent from other citizenship cases using Vattel, there's no compelling reason to assume Scalia would overturn the basis of those decisions in favor English common law. Gray certainly didn't do so.
It doesn't matter. The only way they would resolve the doubt is by examining whether or not the parents were citizens or not.
Nice of you to decide that for them. Where in the decision did it say that was the way they would resolve it? Rather they said
For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Sorry, but the "nomenclature known by the founders," as Waite cited it, was a verbatim match of Vattel's Law of Nations definition of NBC.
Are you saying the court thinks Vattel = common law? Or do you think the court can't tell the difference between Vattel and common law? Or do you think, just maybe, the court brought Vattel in because there were disagreements about common law?
I notice you do not address what Reagan's attorney general wrote:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens”, and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President ...”There you have it neatly put together: Citizen from birth = natural born citizen, otherwise known as jus soli. Which was cited by SCOTUS in Rogers v. Bellei.
Gray has already excluded NBC from the birth clause of the 14th amendment
Only in your butchered quote, where you left off the "neither... nor"
The Elk v. Wilkins case is not favorable to your argument. ... This decision noted that Indians, even though born in U.S. territory, did not meet the subject clause and were not considered citizens by virtue of the 14th amendment. Obviously they weren't considered citizens PRIOR to the 14th amendment either, which blows the English common law theory.
Bogus, as Indians were put in a completely separate category, considered akin to a foreign nation, even though on American soil. According to Judiciary Committee Chair Senator Trumbull when debating the 14th amendment and implications for Indians
Our dealing with the Indians are with them as foreigners, as separate nations. We deal with them by treaty, and not by law... [Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, p 498]If you read the next paragraph of Elk v Wilkins, it clarifies
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government. or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.That is what is being excluded, and was even discussed in those terms during the 14th amendment debates. Mr Trumbull on page 572:
The Senator from Missouri and myself desire to arrive at the same point precisely, and that is to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States. We cannot make a citizen of a child of a foreign minister who is temporarily residing here. There is a difficulty in framing the amendment [to the Act] so as to make citizens of all people born in the United States who owe allegiance to it. I thought that might perhaps be the best form in which to put the amendment at one time, 'That all persons born in the United States and owing allegiance thereto are hereby declared to be citizens;' but upon investigation it was found that a sort of allegiance was due to the country from persons temporarily resident in it whom we would have no right to make citizens, and that that form would not answer."Bottom line from all this is that Rubio would be recognized by SCOTUS as a natural born citizen.
They don't say that it can be resolved at all, however, going by their definition of NBC, if the citizenship of the parents is considered and the parents are citizens, then there would be no doubt that the persons in question would be citizens. If the parents are NOT citizens, then there may not be a resolution of citizenship. Such a determination would then have to rely on the relevant naturalization laws or on the 14th amendment. Such persons, if the parents are not citizens, are obviously not natural born citizens.
Are you saying the court thinks Vattel = common law?
No, I'm only explaining that the definition given is a verbatim match of Vattel. There's no other reference to any other common law in the Minor decision.
Or do you think the court can't tell the difference between Vattel and common law?
This court does not make a distinction. Where it uses the terms "at common law," the following text is a verbatim match of Vattel.
Or do you think, just maybe, the court brought Vattel in because there were disagreements about common law?
There are no disagreements in the Minor decision. It was unanimous. It rejected the 14th amendment as being necessary to define the citizenship of a person who fit the Vattel definition of natural born citizen.
I notice you do not address what Reagan's attorney general wrote:
It's not relevant to anything other than his own opinion. The SCOTUS definition is the only precedent needed and it was affirmed in the WKA decision: "All children born in the country to parents who were its citizens."
According to Judiciary Committee Chair Senator Trumbull when debating the 14th amendment and implications for Indians
The Trumbull quote doesn't support your argument. The WKA decision was on the basis of persons whose citizenship were impacted by treaty. Gray's argument was that, in the spirit of English common law, that a sovereign nation has a right to determine who its citizens are and that the 14th amendment overrode any treaties to the contrary. The dissent in WKA disagreed saying that the U.S. was still beholden to such treaties. Under the WKA decision, Indians would become 14th amendment citizens, but they are not natural born citizens, else Trumbull wouldn't refer to Indians as foreigners.
They don't say that it can be resolved at all, however, going by their definition of NBC, if the citizenship of the parents is considered and the parents are citizens, then there would be no doubt that the persons in question would be citizens. If the parents are NOT citizens, then there may not be a resolution of citizenship. Such a determination would then have to rely on the relevant naturalization laws or on the 14th amendment. Such persons, if the parents are not citizens, are obviously not natural born citizens.
Lots of verbiage, which amounts to a repeat of your claim that the court would resolve the question in the way you want, without any evidence that’s the case. I take the court at its word – they said there was doubt, they said they did not need to resolve it for Minor, and they did not resolve it.
”Or do you think, just maybe, the court brought Vattel in because there were disagreements about common law?”
”There are no disagreements in the Minor decision. It was unanimous.
The Minor decision was unanimous on the question before the court – did the 14th amendment guarantee women the right to vote. The court specifically said it wasn’t going to resolve the doubts about children of noncitizens, after referring to competing theories on the matter.
It's not relevant to anything other than his own opinion. The SCOTUS definition is the only precedent needed
So you think Ed Meese, attorney general to President Reagan, is not as good at understanding SCOTUS decisions as you are?
and it was affirmed in the WKA decision: "All children born in the country to parents who were its citizens”
While you highlight the quote from Vattel, you have somehow omitted the other quotes the court cited, choosing only to focus on one of many. Some others quoted in WKA:
"mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil;"and Justice Swayne in United States v. Rhodes (1866),
"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."So you picked out the one quote that says what you want, and ignored the many others that don't. Worse, you then claim it "defined" the term.
The Trumbull quote doesn't support your argument. The WKA decision was on the basis of persons whose citizenship were impacted by treaty. Gray's argument was that, in the spirit of English common law, that a sovereign nation has a right to determine who its citizens are and that the 14th amendment overrode any treaties to the contrary. The dissent in WKA disagreed saying that the U.S. was still beholden to such treaties. Under the WKA decision, Indians would become 14th amendment citizens, but they are not natural born citizens, else Trumbull wouldn't refer to Indians as foreigners.
Your argument that Indians were not considered “natural born” and therefore contradicts that “US natural born citizenship is based on common law” shows that you don’t understand the situation with regards to Indians. Indians were considered to be a separate, foreign nation, albeit on US soil. They were therefore in a different category than children of any other noncitizen.
And now, seeing how you misread and distort, I don't care to continue the discussion any more. If you think you understand the Constitution and the law better than President's Reagan's attorney general, you are obviously not going to listen to facts.
They didn't need to dispute her claim, yet they did. Midway through the decision, the court says:
The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters.
Do you understand this?? If the question regards ALL citizens, then there wouldn't be an inherent need to discuss what kind of a citizen Minor is. The point is that SHE was claiming to be a 14th amendment citizen, which should have negated any necessity for talking about citizen parents. The court, however, took exception to her claim. IOW, they did not accept that the 14th amendment created citizenship for those persons born of citizen parents. By saying there are doubts about other classes of citizens, the court is saying that the 14th amendment cannot be applied to natural born citizens. And in fact, the Wong Kim Ark decision recognized this as legal precedence. Both decisions followed a very specific definition of natural born citizen and NEVER referred to birth of non-citizens as natural born citizenship. NEVER.
So you think Ed Meese, attorney general to President Reagan, is not as good at understanding SCOTUS decisions as you are?
The decisions speak for themselves. All children born in the country to parents who were citizens. These were the natives or natural born citizens ... Ed Meese's interpretation skills are not my concern. He apparently has an opinion and I've shown that it is wrong.
While you highlight the quote from Vattel, you have somehow omitted the other quotes the court cited, choosing only to focus on one of many. Some others quoted in WKA:
Nothing is ignored. These other quotes do not pertain to natural born citizenship, nor do they override the Minor decision. Gray was searching for enough dicta to give the 14th amendment more force in terms of the citizenship clause. The Constitution placed itself and treaties on the same legal footing, so in order for the Constitution to trump a treaty that contradicts the Constitution in some fashion, it would be necessary to do so in terms of legal principles that have broader force and effect. The first part of your quote applied to French law and the other part was from a decision that recognized you could be born on U.S. soil and be either a British subject OR a U.S. citizen depending on the loyalties of the parents.
So you picked out the one quote that says what you want, and ignored the many others that don't.
I picked the quotes that specifically apply to the terms in questions. I'm not going to use quotes about oranges when the issue is specifically about apples. Apples and oranges may be types of fruit, the same way natural born citizens and 14th amendment citizens are types of citizens, but an orange is not an apple in the same way as a 14th amendment citizen is NOT a natural born citizen. IOW, using this apples and oranges analogy. Rubio might be an orange, but he's not an apple. Obama is neither, although he might be a fruit.
If you think you understand the Constitution and the law better than President's Reagan's attorney general, you are obviously not going to listen to facts.
I have given the facts. You're the one who doesn't want to listen.
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.