Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MamaTexan

I don’t guess it would matter to you at all that the supreme court disagrees with you on law and history:

“[t]he Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States,’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States…the Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words….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…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.”

...

“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, and 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. 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.”

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,658 (1898)


39 posted on 07/31/2012 3:39:31 PM PDT by Blackyce (President Jacques Chirac: "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: Blackyce

That silly dicta in WKA was about English common law that is a English regulation and not natural law. The English law of Natural born subjects had no distinction between naturalized subjects and natural subjects. Naturalized citizens can become president sport? Nope.


44 posted on 07/31/2012 3:46:20 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: Blackyce
I don’t guess it would matter to you at all that the supreme court disagrees with you on law and history:

You might want to read down to the pertinent part:

The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]

The 'incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute' is talking about naturalized citizens. This is made clear by the end of the following statement; 'is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen' . He said Wong Kim was native born and just as much a citizen AS A natural-born citizen. The decision doesn't say that the court found Wong Kim was natural-born.

------

Saying someone is 'just as much a citizen' as a natural-born one is like saying a car is just as much a vehicle as a truck.

They may both be *vehicles* but it doesn't turn a car INTO a truck.

Nor does merely being born in the country make anyone natural-born.

61 posted on 07/31/2012 4:20:45 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as Created by the Laws of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: Blackyce
I don’t guess it would matter to you at all that the supreme court disagrees with you on law and history:

“[t]he Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States,’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States…the Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words….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…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.”

History disagrees with you more. The very act of rebelling against the crown and declaring an independent nation is contrary to English Common law. The principles which founded this nation are complete rejections and rebukes of English common law. It requires a special kind of fool to believe that on the issue most central to our freedom, that we should attach it back to the writ of servitude which is the English Common law.

No, the founders broke decisively with English Subjectude law. Our very existence as a nation is testament to the fact that we don't recognize it as governing our Citizens.

We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states. I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire. --George Mason-- At the Virginia U.S. Constitution Ratifying Assembly.

And another example:

The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions 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. The Constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The "revisal of the laws" by a Committee of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. --James Madison Letter to George Washington.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,658 (1898)

And Wong Kim Ark is a decision constantly cited by idiots. Firstly, it wasn't addressing the qualifications for the Presidency as outlined in article II, Secondly it never uses the term "Natural born citizen", And Thirdly it was applied to those people who's parents had set up a permanent domicile within this nation. It was never meant to apply to transients such as "anchor babies." Fourthly, it is entirely contradicted by the debates in the congress during the voting on and ratification of the 14th amendment, which is the only thing which grants it any legitimacy at all.

As I said, Wong Kim Ark is the favored decision of Ignorant idiots. Look up Minor v Happersett. It expressly states that a "natural citizen" is the child of two citizen parents. It specifically and explicitly rejects 14th amendment claims for "natural born citizen" status.

183 posted on 08/01/2012 10:32:18 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson