Posted on 02/22/2012 10:09:16 AM PST by jdirt
“II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King...
...It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
They spent half the decision showing he met the requirement for an NBC...
What are the requirements for an NBC?
A requirement is a list of specific items.
List America's requirements for an NBC.
“Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the “general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives,” says:
Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . . To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, and children born in the armies of a State, while [p665] abroad and occupying a foreign country, are deemed to be born in the allegiance of the sovereign to whom the army belongs. It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that, during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects de facto, their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered.
2 Kent Com. (6th ed.) 39, 42. And he elsewhere says:
And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
They spent half the decision showing he met the requirement for an NBC...
What are the requirements for an NBC?
A requirement is a list of specific items.
List America's requirements for an NBC.
Oh my, I just realized something. You no more know the requirements for an NBC than you know what was used in the formulation of our laws as you showed in @Mr Rogers and his Epic Fail.
You're just trying to keep up a mummer's farce hoping I'll eventually just give up and go away.
Sounds to me like you are saying Obama is King and you are his subject. I am a citizen not a subject.
See 264 and 266. He’s probably naturalized himself.
The Pro-life argument is that life (citizenship) is inherent. The Pro-Abortion argument is that birth (on soil) is necessary. (to grant rights of personhood\citizenship)
If you believe that one only becomes a person at birth, the Jus Soli argument is for you. If on the other hand, you believe that a child inherits it's life and it's citizenship from it's parents at the moment of conception, the Jus Sanguinus argument is a better fit.
I don't believe that I've ever seen this stated in such a manner. Scintillating!
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
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.”
“The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:
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. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
so no anchor babies according to you!
Correct. Illegal aliens are not here “in amity” with the government, and most closely approximate an invading foreign army. The children of illegal aliens should NOT be citizens - according to the WKA decision.
Judges ignoring or imagining provisions of our constitution are nothing new, and serve to prove only that the judiciary needs to be constantly under the review of the people, and subject to removal.
The improperly constituted judiciary is the crux of all of our problems.
We are citizens.
A King dictates all that occurs on his land.
Citizens are an exclusive group, as compared to subjects that are merely collected like cattle.
One is naturally subjugated at moment of birth, by grave misfortune of jurisdiction or birth to a slave, by nature of tyranny.
The other becomes majesty of his destiny at birth, naturally by gift of inheritance of freedom. One is a yoke, one is a pair of wings.
The nature of the two are incomparable, and trying to paint that adjective as similar for both is simply an act of butchery.
>> “They spent half the decision showing he met the requirement for an NBC, then they show that is the same requirement the 14th uses.” <<
.
Only in your over-active imagination.
Updated info here.
It may be quixotic, but I don't think that makes it "bogus".
Thanks for the link, HTN.
Many thanks for the link to the update.
What worries me is the length of time its taken to find the right category of challenger, folks that have standing to bring the complaint to court.
I wish this case, the georgia case, and any other elector-plaintiff cases had been brought up before the 08 election.
0 has done tremendous harm to this nation.
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.