You handled it admirably.
Posted on 02/06/2012 4:32:19 PM PST by Para-Ord.45
The quote under the Gustafson v. Alloyd Co is from the above link. It is the Gustafson v. Alloyd Co that is the defines textual interpretation and redundancy. Sorry for any confusion.
Wrong. We are referring to a law which is designed to grant rights based on birth in a country. The rights of “subject” or “citizen” were much greater than the rights of an alien. Again, your theory is bizarre.
Ha ha ha ha ha... We've already established that certain personages in history were confused as to the nature of what is citizenship in this nation,
Your contention, as you sometimes contend that those who you disagree with were “ignorant” or “silly bastards.” Rather, there was disagreement about this, among many, some championing the right of expatriation in any situation, others who agreed that with the Revolution, inhabitants were free to choose American or England, but that in other circumstances it took mutual consent for expatriation. Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists opposed expatriation from a nation, while Jefferson felt it was any man’s right. John Marshall was known to look favorably on “perpetual allegiance.” From Inglees v. Snug Harbor
He continued to reside in New Jersey after the passage of this law and until sometime in the year 1777, thereby making his election to become a member of the new government, and the doctrine of allegiance became applicable to his case, which rests on the ground of a mutual compact between the government and the citizen or subject, which it is said cannot be dissolved by either party without the concurrence of the other. It is the tie which binds the governed to their government, in return for the protection which the government affords them.Marshall, it may be noted, did not absolutely pronounce, reflecting the disagreements of the age in the absence of definitive law. In Murray v Charming Betsey he said
Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.,Joseph Story in Shanks v Dupont
The general doctrine is, that no persons can, by any act of their own, without the consent of the government, put off their allegiance and become aliens.This was a topic of debate, only finally settled with the Expatriation law. The Founders and early American legal thinkers did not conflate the doctrine of perpetual allegiance with jus soli the way your bizarre theory does.
I agree with this. Adherents of various religions often use the religion as an excuse, even if they may fervently believe they are helping the victims.
To distinguish from "naturalized," of course.
Wrong. We are referring to a law which is designed to grant rights based on birth in a country. The rights of “subject” or “citizen” were much greater than the rights of an alien. Again, your theory is bizarre.
Ha ha ha ha ha... We've already established that certain personages in history were confused as to the nature of what is citizenship in this nation,
Your contention, as you sometimes contend that those who you disagree with were “ignorant” or “silly bastards.” Rather, there was disagreement about this, among many, some championing the right of expatriation in any situation, others who agreed that with the Revolution, inhabitants were free to choose American or England, but that in other circumstances it took mutual consent for expatriation. Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists opposed expatriation from a nation, while Jefferson felt it was any man’s right. John Marshall was known to look favorably on “perpetual allegiance.” From Inglees v. Snug Harbor
He continued to reside in New Jersey after the passage of this law and until sometime in the year 1777, thereby making his election to become a member of the new government, and the doctrine of allegiance became applicable to his case, which rests on the ground of a mutual compact between the government and the citizen or subject, which it is said cannot be dissolved by either party without the concurrence of the other. It is the tie which binds the governed to their government, in return for the protection which the government affords them.Marshall, it may be noted, did not absolutely pronounce, reflecting the disagreements of the age in the absence of definitive law. In Murray v Charming Betsey he said
Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.,Joseph Story in Shanks v Dupont
The general doctrine is, that no persons can, by any act of their own, without the consent of the government, put off their allegiance and become aliens.This was a topic of debate, only finally settled with the Expatriation law. The Founders and early American legal thinkers did not conflate the doctrine of perpetual allegiance with jus soli the way your bizarre theory does.
It was the RIGHTS under the common law which we wanted, not the common law itself, and we discovered that these RIGHTS could better be protected through the exclusion of the Monarchy. It isn't the common law we wished, it was the rights guaranteed by it that was our desire
Had England given the colonists all the common law rights, it’s possible (though not what I would have wanted) that the Revolution would not have occurred. You are absolutely correct that we wanted common law rights - which happened to be guaranteed by common law. Much of which was specifically incorporated into our Contsitution. Do you think the Founders incorporated so much common law because they hated common law?
" Which is why there are so many quotes posted from early historians and jurists pointing out that where common law was not changed by the Constitution or by statute, it is still used in courts. Do I need to post Justice Scalia's quotes on this again? Or do you consider him ignorant of the law as well?"
But this did not constitute an acceptance of common law ideas which were in conflict with the character of our new nation. Need I remind you of what James Madison said of the common law?
I notice the initial sentence left off. I’m adding it
What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions [of the several States] equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. [quotation shortened]Puts a slightly different complexion on it, doesn’t it? George Mason was worried there weren’t sufficient protection that those common law guarantees not changed by statute would continue. Madison obviously thinks they will despite not being specifically mentioned. You will also note that this letter is dated 1787, and that the Bill of Rights – guaranteeing many common law rights – was enacted in 1791.
Again, do you consider Justice Scalia ignorant? He has said he refers to the English common law of the time of the founders.
Whether a person born in the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law, is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide. The cases cited at bar and the arguments drawn from the general conduct of the United States on this interesting subject, seem completely to establish the principle, that an American citizen may acquire in a foreign country the commercial privileges attached to his domicil, and be exempted from the operation of an act expressed in such general terms as that now under consideration. Indeed the very expressions of the act would seem to exclude a person under the circumstances of Jared Shattuck.
The general doctrine is that no person can, by any act of their own, without the consent of the government, put off their allegiance and become aliens.
The subsequent removal of Ann Shanks to England, with her husband, operates as a virtual dissolution of her allegiance, and fixed her future allegiance to the British Crown by the treaty of peace in 1783.
The Treaty of 1783 acted upon the state of things as it existed at that period. It took the actual state of things as its basis. All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; all those who then adhered to the British Crown were deemed and held subjects of that Crown. The treaty of peace was a treaty operating between states and the inhabitants thereof.
I would like to recommend to you the article “From Feudalism to Consent : Rethinking Birthright Citizenship” linked above in an effort of reconciliation for my comments upon your reply the other day.
my fav part of this case is:
If Ann Scott was of age before December, 1782, as she remained in South Carolina until that time, her birth and residence must be deemed to constitute her, by election, a citizen of South Carolina while she remained in that state. If she was not of age then, under the circumstances of this case, she might well be deemed to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his natural character as a citizen of that country
WHAT? Children follow the nationality of the FATHER? And I thought the unlearned said Story was for feudal law of subjectship known as jus soli? Again, the unlearned steps in it NECK deep! You'd think they would learn, but alas their brains were not programed for truth.
This will be my last example of his errors - I did not say children never followed the citizenship of the father, but rather answered his statement in #444 that "The fact is, the founders simply never ventured into the area of birth as it was common law of all nations(international law) set forth by God, that children follow the nationality of the father." My only comment there was not agreeing this poster was the one to decide what God has set forth.
He also seems to misread what he has posted, since his quote notes that the woman in question was "born in a country and under age in the family of the father." So she was born in that country, still under age, and living with the family of the father - no surprise she is a citizen of that country [United States], and would remain so after leaving the family.
You don't read very well. Story clearly said that once she married a Brit & went overseas, she became a Brit & remained so. Thus you are utterly wrong. Women didn't gain separate nationality from the husband for nationality purposes until the 1950’s. Might I suggest you check with library of congress on nationality. They are also quite clear on this subject. Thus you can cut & paste all you want from well know obot sites however, their chop & twist lies will be exposed everytime. Get the picture?
Library of Congress on Immigration & Naturalization(1840-1950) ~ Married women and children under the age of twenty-one derived citizenship from their husband or father respectively. Children of unsuccessful applicants could apply for citizenship in their own right, at the age of twenty-one.
The incapacities of femes covert provided by the common law apply to their civil rights and are for their protection and interest. But they do not reach their political rights nor prevent their acquiring or losing a national character. Those political rights do not stand upon the mere doctrines of municipal law applicable to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations.
This says the common law does not affect citizenship of women who are married to foreigners. It falls under the law of nations. So far as natural-born citizenship would have been understood, that meant that any woman who married a foreigner did not have her citizenship (or the citizenship of her child) established or protected by the common law. The law of nations would be the guide, meaning the citizenship of the child naturally follows that of the father, as Vattel said. The Minor court was being generous when it said "parents who were citizens" because the rule would still be guided by the citizenship of the father. The mother automatically follows the citizenship of her husband. This would also seem to be a guide on expatriation.
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.
