Posted on 09/16/2011 5:56:50 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
“There are only two direct references of the phrase “natural-born citizen” in your C&P. “
That is because, as they clearly stated, they considered natural born subject to be the source of the phrase natural born citizen.
“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]”
and
n Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
“There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
and
“In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
“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 [p663] 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.”
and
“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”
“And BTW, Gray ignored a quote from the opinion of the court in Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor in which the court followed the Law of Nations...”
“Upon the whole, upon the point of alienage as presented in the case, the following are my opinions under the various postures of the facts.
1. That if the demandant was born before 4 July, 1776, he was born a British subject.
2. That if he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776, he was born an American citizen, and that it makes no difference in this respect whether or not parents had at the time of his birth elected to become citizens of the State of New York by manifesting an intention of becoming permanently members thereof in the sense which I have endeavored to explain.
3. That if the demandant was born after 15 September, 1776, when the British took possession of New York, and while his parents were there residing under the protection of and adhering to the British Crown as subjects, de facto he was born a British subject, even though his parents had previously become citizens of the State of New York.
4. That if the demandant was born after 15 September, 1776, and could be deemed (as I cannot admit) a citizen of the State of New York in virtue of his parents having, before the time of his birth, elected to become citizens of that state, still his national character was derivative from his parents, and was under the peculiar circumstances of this case, liable to be changed during the Revolutionary War, and that if his parents reverted to their original character as British subjects and adhered to the British Crown, his allegiance was finally fixed with theirs by the treaty of peace.”
This was a case concerning someone born in NY, but the time was important, since NY was a part of the US at times during the Revolutionary War, and at times subject to Britain. Again, it was the time & location of birth that mattered.
Had Vattel mattered, it would be irrelevant, since he would automatically follow his parent’s citizenship.
“The quotes you provided are trumped by Minor v. Happersett which recognized that the longstanding and exclusive definition of NBC = all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. The definition was upheld and affirmed by Gray in the WKA decision. “
Believe that drivel if you will. You and the WND freaks have at it. But there is not a court, a state DA or anyone with legal responsibility who agrees with you. None. Zero. Zilch.
Minor agreed that someone born in the USA of citizen parents was a NBC. It did NOT attempt to limit the definition to that. It is like reading that a poodle is a dog, and deciding all dogs must be poodles.
This is a falsehood. It is not said at all, much less "clearly stated." The citation for how NBC is defined comes DIRECTLY from the Minor decision which is a near verbatim match of Vattel. Notice how the Minor decision is the FIRST case cited in the first paragraph you C&Pd. The U.S. v. Rhodes decision is, like I mentioned earlier, acknowledge British subjects that can be born on U.S. soil, which completely disproves your assertion. The part you quoted from Inglis is still dependent on allegiance in that the parents had to claim "an intention of becoming permanent members" in the state of NY, a state, unlike the U.S. as a whole, that had citizenship laws more closely aligned with British common law. This still ignores that the opinion of the court said: "If such a person had been born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776, when the British troops took possession of the City of New York and the adjacent places, his infancy incapacitated him from making an election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his father, ..."
Sorry, but the definition is self-limiting. "These were the natives, or natural-born citizens, as DISTINGUISHED from aliens or foreigners."
OK. They spent half the decision discussing something that had no relevance at all to anything they were deciding.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“This still ignores that the opinion of the court said: “If such a person had been born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776, when the British troops took possession of the City of New York and the adjacent places, his infancy incapacitated him from making an election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his father, ...”
And why was that?
According to the decision:
“The resolutions of the convention of New York of 16 July, 1776, have been relied upon as asserting a claim to the allegiance of all persons residing within the state. But it may well be doubted whether these resolutions reached the case of Charles Inglis. The language is
“that all persons abiding within the State of New York, and deriving protection from the laws of the same, owe allegiance to the said laws, and are members of the state.”
Charles Inglis was not, within the reasonable interpretation of this resolution, abiding in the state and owing protection to the laws of the same. He was within the British lines, and under the protection of the British army, manifesting a full determination to continue a British subject.”
The decision accepts that during a civil war, a person may not be a citizen of a new country, even if the new country tries to claim him. The two concurring opinions said the child would be a citizen during those months, because the new state COULD claim him.
During a civil war, with control sweeping back and forth, there was doubt about the obligations of someone living in the disputed territory. That condition only exists during a civil war. If Hawaii had been involved in a civil war, with England claiming Honolulu at different times, then the question would be murky.
However, Hawaii was NOT in a civil war against England during the 1960s. The control was absolute under the US, and anyone born in the USA would, without exception, owe subjection to the US.
"Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," [n7] and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
Minor makes no attempt to decide if a person born of alien parents was a NBC, because the person in the case undoubtedly did have citizen parents.
Thus WKA, years later, had to wrestle with the question. They used NBS as equivalent to NBC, and said yes.
Justice Daniel directly quoted and referenced Vattel, citing chapter 19 and page 101....
” Thus Vattel, in the preliminary chapter to his Treatise on the Law of Nations, says: “.......”
“By this same writer it is also said: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages.
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”
Again: “I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.” (Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.)”
add Chief Justice Marshall, Chief Justice Fuller and Chief Justice Waite.
Vattel has never applied to US citizenship. If he did, our citizenship would be based on our parents, not our birthplace.
So - when you go for a passport, do they ask you for a birth certificate, or a genealogy?
This:
““I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
has never been US law.
The Sates of this Union, as States are subject to all voluntary and customary (Vattel’s) law of nations Webster )
For the decision of any question, the proper rule is to be found in the (Vattel’s) law of nations
Do I really need to post more of Websters words..
Vattel..according to several Justices of the Supreme Court:
Natural born citizens are born to citizen parents.
You cannot escape this truth.
“there is nothing so high as to be beyond the reach of its power, nothing so low as to be beneath its care” Webster means Vattel’s law of nations.
What make you think that would be any sort of a change for him?
Guess you want to tell us you have more knowledge on this subject than Daniel Webster.
“Vattel has never applied to US citizenship.”
The Supreme Court case where Justice Daniel referenced and quoted Vattel was about US citizenship.
Please note...Justice Daniel referenced chapter 19, page 101.
Do you know what edition of Vattel has chapter 19 on page 101?
You must be a lawyer. I have found over the years that lawyers are nearly incapable of understanding the simple jurisdictional issues, and because of that the Constitution often baffles them. Lawyers are trained to make money using the law. Taking on a corrupt legal system doesn’t generally create cash flow, therefore they simply go with the flow. To the instant case however... Your comprehension skills are not strengthened when you cut and paste from lib blogs. To the contrary, you lose a simple and easy to understand concept in a morass of legalese. Native-born has NOTHING to do with citizenship. Natives can be citizens, or they can be denied citizenship because of parentage or tribal affiliation or because they are slaves etc. and so on. Citizenship historically had NOTHING to do with DIRT. This is a NEW concept. The Constitution is OLD. You are a TOOL. Goodbye.
Mr Rogers told us numerous times, in many threads, Vattel is limited to Swiss law.
Webster and several Justices of the Supreme Court disagree.
“It pervades the courts of law of the highest character, and the court of pie poundre; ay, even the constable’s court”
Personally I don't see any family resemblance to any of his relatives on the “black” side of his family tree. This is unusual because most men generally have a strong resemblance to their genetic fathers. Obama looks a lot more like Malcolm X or Frank Marshal Davis than any of the actual members of the Obama family presented to the public. We don't know who this character really is.
Most of his official life narrative has been proved repeatedly to be fiction. If his “long form” is somehow proved to be a fraud as well I think that there will be enough blood in the water that the sharks in his own party will turn on him. He is already losing their support.
Mr Rogers it is time to saddle one of them ponys in your corral..and ride off into the sunset..
His longform is without question a fraud. As to whether his real father is BO senior... probably not. But as I have pointed out on earlier posts, that would be a plus to him if he wanted to keep the issue in flux. I don’t want Obama to crash and burn at this point, Hillary would be a much tougher nut to crack. But this cannot keep us from speaking the truth as we know it.
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.