All this proves that NBC is separate from "citizenship by birth" as defined by the 14th amendment. The majority made it very clear, the former was NOT defined by the latter:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.
The only common law used to define NBC was a verbatim match of Vattel ... and "citizenship by birth" was defined by the 14th amendment ONLY for resident aliens excluding "children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes." NBC are NOT excluded by the subject clause, but from the birth clause. And one more noteworthy tidbit, the majority cited a very specific case that was controlling and helped explain why children born of resident aliens were NOT citizens at birth prior to the 14th amendment:
The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens. The same rule must be applied to both races, and 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, and the colored people are not citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment, by the language, "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," was intended [p693] to bring all races, without distinction of color, within the rule which prior to that time pertained to the white race.
Is everyone understanding this?? The majority affirmed that the rule that applied to white people prior to the 14th amendment was that children born in the U.S. to resident aliens were NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This means they were foreigners or aliens, which helps put the Minor definition in much "Fuller" perspective (pun intended) when it distinguishes NBCs from the latter:
... 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.
The NBC definition is self-limiting because PRIOR to the 14th amendment, children born of resident aliens are themselves aliens or foreigners. While they would come to be recognized as citizens along with the recently freed slaves, they were not and could not be natural-born citizens unless they were born to citizen parents.
posted on 02/29/2012 2:58:14 PM PST
Obamma’s reply..... I sit in a Volt de utter day, it felt guud. Gonna git me one in 5 years or 5 months whichever comes furst.
posted on 02/29/2012 3:09:16 PM PST
( ÂPray for Obama. Psalm 109:8Â. Just doing my duty a Christian)
Blacks law. Definition of the time, you are a citizen of the country of your father, and it is still the true definition .
Two election cycles, four presidential candidates and two possible VP candidates, none of whom are Natural Born Citizens. Anyone who thinks this is a coincidence, get in the corner and wear that hat.
posted on 02/29/2012 3:18:38 PM PST
by W. W. SMITH
(Obama is Romney lite)
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."-- William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America (1828)
WKA is bizarre anyway. How can the Supreme Court assert that the US incorporates the British common law definition of who is a citizen. What was the War of 1812 fought over? Whether Britons could become Americans by naturalization. Obviously the US didn’t adopt the British common law definition of a subject.
posted on 02/29/2012 3:56:38 PM PST
(A trillion here, a trillion there, soon you're NOT talking real money)
p.s. If the German Weimer Constitution had a natural born citizenship clause like the superior American Constitution, then, maybe, Austrian born, Adolf Hitler, would not have become Reich Chancellor of Germany.
posted on 02/29/2012 4:08:49 PM PST
“The majority affirmed that the rule that applied to white people prior to the 14th amendment was that children born in the U.S. to resident aliens were NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
As usual, you are so full of crap that there is no hope of digging you out.
Anyone who doubts me can read the full decision here:
posted on 02/29/2012 5:35:19 PM PST
by Mr Rogers
("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
And Sr's intent was to get a degree and go back to Kenya. As I've said before...he never intended to become a citizen.
posted on 02/29/2012 5:55:28 PM PST
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: edge919; LucyT; rxsid; philman_36; Red Steel; DiogenesLamp; GregNH; Kenny Bunk; Danae; Spaulding
FYI, the latest filings by Barry’s defense team in GA and PA cite not just the Indiana Ankeny case but now also a recent federal 9th Circuit case (of course) that has what appears to be only dicta supporting a claim that an illegitimate child of a US citizen father and an alien mother born on foreign soil is a natural born citizen because the child is a “citizen at birth.”
United States v Marguet-Pillado 9th Cir. 2009
On page 10805 of the opinion it is stated:
“No one disputes that Marguet-Pillados requested
instruction was ‘an accurate statement of the law,’ in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968 is a natural-born United States citizen: (1) that the person was born in the United States or (2) born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met certain residency requirements.”
To: edge919; All; Las Vegas Ron; little jeremiah; MestaMachine; BuckeyeTexan; STARWISE; rxsid; ...
Ok, at first this seems a straight-forward response, but it really isn't Not unless you had spent the last 40 hours at Princeton's law Library, and a few others on the East coast... Look, you must have a deeper understanding of history... and Leo gives us that.
Yea, Fogbowers... suck it up. This is straight out of history, in books your liberal whipmasters have repressed by not telling you about them... Go look for yourselves. Leo has posted all the links here: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/the-objectively-gray-propaganda-of-masked-rascals/
Now, to the relevant materials (Thank you Leo!):
"According to the 1951 consular compact between the United States and the United Kingdom, President Obamas father also had the right to register Obama, Jr. as a citizen of the U.K. at a British consular office.
"President Obama has never informed the nation whether such registration happened. If it did, he would still retain British citizenship unless he took official steps to renounce that citizenship. Without direct registration by his parents, Obamas U.K. citizenship expired when he became a citizen of Kenya. My research indicates that he is not a British Overseas Citizen (BOC), as has been contended by some. I will go into more detail on this in the future." (Please refer to Leos published works! http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/the-objectively-gray-propaganda-of-masked-rascals/)
Supreme Court decisions specifically cite to all authorities relied upon. The Court in Minor chose not to rely upon the Dred Scott opinion, and they never mention the case. Maskell is just making stuff up and labeling it research. That our tax dollars have funded this deceptive propaganda is deplorable. Meanwhile, its Justice Gray who endorsed the Dred Scott opinion for his own purposes. But Maskell, of course, gives Justice Gray a pass, even where Justice Gray blatantly misled the nation:
"In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said: The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, a natural-born citizen. It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth. Id. 576. And to this extent no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 662 (1898). (Emphasis added.)
"First, Gray never mentions that hes quoting from the Curtis dissent. Its standard protocol to identify a dissenting opinion. Second, unless the reader is wary enough to correctly interpret, to this extent, he will come away from the passage believing all of the justices agreed that anyone born in the country was a natural-born citizen. This is utterly false. Justice Daniel cited to the Law of Nations rule, quoting Vattel directly:
" 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. Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476 (1856)"
***Now add to these revelations, THIS from Leo:***
"I never understood how Justice Gray, in Elk v. Wilkins, could define subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as being synonymous with owing no allegiance to any alien power, and then fail to apply that logic to the parents of WKA, while the parents were observed by Gray to have been subjects of the Chinese Emperor when their son was born. How did Gray determine that Ark owed no allegiance to China at birth? Justice Fields dissent zeroes in on this:
"If the act of 1866 had not contained the words and not subject to any foreign power, the children neither of public ministers nor of aliens in territory in hostile occupation would have been included within its terms on any proper construction, for their birth would not have subjected them to ties of allegiance, whether local and temporary, or general and permanent.
"There was no necessity as to them for the insertion of the words, although they were embraced by them.
"But there were others in respect of whom the exception was needed, namely, the children of aliens, whose parents owed local and temporary allegiance merely, remaining subject to a foreign power by virtue of the tie of permanenta llegiance, which they had not severed by formal abjuration or equivalent conduct, and some of whom were not permitted to do so if they would.
"And it was to prevent the acquisition of citizenship by the children of such aliens merely by birth within the geographical limits of the United States that the words were inserted. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 721.
"Generally, it is true that aliens owe only a local and temporary allegiance, but this was not the case as to the parents of Wong Kim Ark. Ark was born in 1873, when the Burlingame-Seward Treaty with China was in effect. Article 5 of that treaty states:
"ARTICLE V. The United States of America and the Emperor of China cordially recognize the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance, and also the mutual advantage of the free migration and emigration of their citizens and subjects respectively from the one country to the other, for purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent residents
"Article VI of the treaty provides that, [N]othing herein contained shall be held to confer naturalization upon citizens of the United States in China, nor upon the subjects of China in the United States, while Article V recognizes that subjects of China, when they change their home to the United States, and become permanent residents here, may also change their allegiance.
"Note that the treaty does not say that they may gain a second allegiance, or a dual allegiance. The Treaty recognizes their right to change their home and allegiance. This was a completely unique provision, the necessity of which was related to the law in China that called for the beheading of subjects who tried to throw off their allegiance:
"But of all the treaties of the year, the most remarkable in its declarations respecting expatriation was that with China, commonly known as the Burlingame treaty. According to the terms of her penal code, China had apparently treated the renunciation of her allegiance as a capital offense. By article 5 of the Burlingame treaty, it was declared in the very substance of the act of Congress: The United States of America and the Emperor of China cordially recognize the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance. This declaration was absolutely unqualified, going in this respect beyond the stipulations of any other treaty. The Nation, December 14, 1893, pg. 444. (Emphasis added.)
Now compare that passage to the following from Justice Gray in WKA:
Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 u.S. 649, 694. (Emphasis added.)
"But this is not necessarily true with regard to Chinese subjects who quit China for the U.S. while the Burlingame treaty was in force. According to the Burlingame treaty, Chinese subjects who were permanent residents here were absolved of owing allegiance to China. The treaty recognized their right to permanently change their home and allegiance.
"Title 8, § 1101, (a)(22), of the United States Code, states:
"(22) The term national of the United States means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
"This provision of the code was not in effect when Arks parents were born, but it does illustrate that there is a unique relationship recognized by the government which adheres to persons who, though not citizens, have a permanent allegiance to the United States.
"Additionally, Title 8, § 1101, (a)(3), recognizes that such persons are not aliens:
(3) The term alien means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
"Despite Justice Grays erroneous assertion that Arks parents were subject to the jurisdiction thereof, in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States, the truth is that they were completely and permanently subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., because the treaty allowed them to permanently change their home and allegiance. The ties that [bound] them to China had been severed by the treaty, and this distinguished their status from all other foreign subjects who were domiciled here."
Ok, Cliff notes version here
. There are several cases including Elk and WKA that actually clearly denote the fact that anyone born in the United States to parents who were its citizens were indeed Natural Born Citizens, and that those born to parents who were NOT citizens there was doubt about. That cannot be argued.
Couple this with the fact that CHINA had a treaty with the United States which stated IN FACT that those Chinese subjects who decided to become PERMANENTLY DOMICILED here had the right to change their allegiance to that of the United States, and the United States RECOGNIZED that Chinese citizens who had done so had a DIFFERENT status (than others of different nations is the TREATY itself) and thus their children, upon being born her had a more legitimate claim to citizenship than that given by the 14th Amendment! They werent born to aliens or foreigners, they were born to persons permanently domiciled here
not quite citizens, more like say modern day Samoans
America Samoa is NOT a state, BUT
it is a protectorate which gives Samoans a certain status LEGALLY in the United States, even if it does NOT give them the right to vote unless they become Naturalized
it is a simile, not a direct comparison
the point being
. Grey could have used THAT TREATY to say that WKAs parents were permanently domiciled and therefore their children born here were citizens
he could have used that instead of the tortured interpretation of the 14th Amendment
. Grey used the 14th to covertly protect the man who gave him his bench seat on SCOTUS.
It is a plausible explanation for the use of the 14th, which was by no means as good a fit as the treaty with China was. The Burlingame-Seward Treaty with China gave the children of Chinese subjects permanently domiciled in the United States Citizenship rights. Grey didnt need 40 pages to establish it. He only needed the treaty. He had an ulterior motive. Protect Chester Arthur.
WKA cannot be trusted to either prove or disprove rights of citizenship. The majority opinion was corrupted before it was ever published. Mostly Because Grey himself was corrupted with the need to protect his seat on SCOTUS, because Arthur has put him there.
Thats my take on it.
Thank you Leo! The hours you spent in real research are worth it!
To those of you at Fogbow
Pffffft. Yaall arent as well researched as you think you are. Go hang out at the Princeton Law Library in the restricted section for a few days. You need to learn how to so some REAL research. Come up with a real rebuttal instead of a mere dismissal.
posted on 02/29/2012 8:17:22 PM PST
(Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson