Posted on 05/22/2012 7:56:20 AM PDT by Brown Deer
Yeah, yeah, yeah, shouda, coulda, wouda. PROOF man!
Things that were “self evident” as you put it came from English common law, not Vattel. Vattel’s book was originally published in 1758. How many colonists knew his work to make it “common” knowledge? Are you for real?
Are you seriously posing that Vattel was “self evident” during the revolution? That’s 18 years for pete’s sake yet all colonists took this guy’s theories to heart. THIS IS INSANITY!!!!!!!
As for the other dicta you cite; that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
As I said, NBC is a status afford by the nature of one's birth, and cannot be altered or modified by any Sovereign, government or law.
If your theory were to be correct, my father would have been a NBC of Imperial Germany.
Thankfully, considering the way WWI was proceeding for Germany, he was not - otherwise, he'd never survived to get to the US in 1927 & I wouldn't be here!
BTW, my Dad (& London-born Mom) both became citizens in the 1930s, so I was a NBC when I was born in 1943!
I think it’s important to know why dozens of nations, including the U.S., have “Natural Born Citizen” as an eligibility standard for their highest elective office. No nation wants a situation where, once elected, someone legally abandons their citizenship in the country they were elected and legally claims citizenship in a foreign country to which they are legally entitled to citizenship. Because of his father’s British citizenship at the time of Pres. Obama’s birth, it is understood that Pres. Obama could legally drop his U.S. citizenship and legally claim British citizenship. I don’t think anyone wants a situation where, once elected, our president could legally abandon their U.S. citizenship and legally adopt foreign citizenship.
To reply to your earlier post, The flaw in the argument can be found in the structure of the English language. Just as to “immunize” is to make one immune, so is “naturalize” the process that makes one “natural.” Anyone who has been naturalized is accorded all the rights and privileges of a natural citizen. This does not make him a natural-born citizen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You understand! A naturalized citizen IS accorded all the rights and priveleges of a natural born citizen except that he cannot run for President as stipulated in the Constitution. A naturalized citizen is not born in this country - not “natural” born - thus ineligible for the office. That is the distinction.
Since as long as I can remember, if you are born in the U.S you get a U.S. birth certificate. That is not naturalization - that is natural born.
Regarding Franklin, in 1775 he wrote to Charles Dumas, an editor and journalist in the Netherlands, and thanked him for sending Franklin 3 copies of the newest edition of Vattel (published in French). Franklin commented to Dumas that his personal copy was in heavy demand by the other delegates to the Continental Congress meeting in 1775.
To quote: "I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author."
If they were consulting it in 1775, don't you think they might have thought about it in 1787?
Also, Washington himself set a world record for overdue library books, by checking out a copy of Vattel from the NY Public Library, which was not returned for 220 years! He must have thought it worth keeping for reference.
I have the overwhelming desire to point out the Supreme Court finding in Minor vs Haperset (SP) which sets or establishes precedent.
Ark is dicta that means it is nice to know but not a part of the finding.
Finding meaning a lawful definition
Precedent meaning an establishment of law
Minor gave a definition of natural born which was found to be a finding which established precedent and all of that set in concrete “born with both parents US citizens” as natural born.
several years ago I skimmed an essay that went into detail about how and why English common law was not in the constitution nor was it really a part of our body of law. Then with in the last week maybe two weeks reference was made to that essay either here or another forum dealing with NBC questions. that reminded me of that essay’s conclusions. English common law has to do with the relationship between a man and his king. That way of thinking will not fit a free man in a new republic which is throwing the entire concept of monarchy in the dirt.
The only commonality between our body of law and English common law is both are written in English and use a lot of latin words.
Quoting the 1898 Supreme Court Case US v Wong Kim Ark:
“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.”
“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 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 was a ‘subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.’”
The Court in the brief passage above also made the following CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENT:
“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.”
It appears that this Supreme Court decision sets two precedents:
1. English common law was in effect and not Vattel
2. NBC is actually defined.
The source for the above can be found here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
All remarks that are outside of the core reasoning for a case are considered to be one or another form of “side comments.” Such side comments may not be as thoroughly researched as the core reasoning. They are not part of the holding in a case, and they do not carry the same authority. For this reason, such statements simply do not – immediately, at least — create precedents. There’s a Latin term for this: dictum. And it simply means “something said.” The plural of “dictum” is “dicta,” which is the more commonly used term. And the most common kind of dicta is “obiter dicta,” which means “things said in passing.”
“An obiter dictum is a remark or observation made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court’s opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court’s decision. In a court opinion, obiter dicta include, but are not limited to, words “introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument.”
Unlike the rationes decidendi, obiter dicta are not the subject of the judicial decision, even if they happen to be correct statements of law. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, statements constituting obiter dicta are therefore not binding, although in some jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, they can be strongly persuasive. (Source: Wikipedia)
The paragraph you attribute to the definition of NBC reads:
“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 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. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”
The above statement is considered orbiter dicta – non binding, non precedent setting. If it WAS ratio decidendi it would prove to you something else that you refuse to acknowledge.
The paragraph just prior to the one above reads:
“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 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,” 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 Court here admits only two kinds of citizens: Those who are born citizens, and those who are created by naturalization. And they don’t subdivide those who are born citizens into “natural born citizens” and “persons who are merely born citizens, but are not ‘natural born.’” The fact is, no significant legal authority has ever, in the past history of the United States, claimed that such a division exists.
Now… where in Happersett does it say that two citizen parents are required in order to make a natural born citizen? It doesn’t.
It says that “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.”
Yes, it identifies those who are born in a country of two citizen parents as natural born citizens but nowhere does the Court say that those who are born in a country, but don’t have two citizen parents, are not natural born citizens.
There was not, and never had been, any fictional third category of native-born citizens who were born citizens, but who were not “natural-born.” Such a third category appears NOWHERE — not in Minor v. Happersett. Not in US v. Wong Kim Ark. And not in any other case in the entire history of American jurisprudence that anybody has ever produced.
The birther movement claims that the Supreme Court actually did address — in one or two sentences — the issue of whether such people were natural born, even though they didn’t address the issue of whether they were citizens.
When the Supreme Court addresses a matter,they address it. They don’t write just one or two sentences on a matter. They go extensively into the pros and cons.
The Court spent 6 entire pages on whether or not Virginia Minor was a citizen — when it had already been conceded by everybody that she was!
And the Court told us themselves, in Minor v Happersett, that they weren’t going to get into citizenship issues regarding the children born on US soil of non-citizen parents.
How much space would it take for the Supreme Court to actually explore the issue? Would one or two sentences do? It turns out that we know the answer to that question: It would take the Supreme Court more than 50 pages to explore that particular issue. Not two sentences.
And we know that, for a fact, because that’s exactly how much space it did take them, when they finally explored — and answered — that EXACT question. The case was United States v Wong Kim Ark.
Finally, in March 2012, the Arizona Superior Court, Pima County very specifically ruled that Minor v Happersett quite simply does not say what the birthers claim it says. Here’s what that court said:
“[Supreme Court] precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark… Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.“,
Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
At least NINE federal and state courts — not even counting US v Wong Kim Ark — have either found or stated that citizen parents are NOT required to make a natural born citizen, or have given examples of people who were “natural born citizens,” who clearly did NOT have two US citizen parents. These cases include:
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974)
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)
Tisdale v. Obama (US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, 2012)
Lynch v. Clarke (New York, 1844)
Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind. Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)
Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell v Obama (Georgia, 2012)
Allen v Democratic Party (AZ Superior Court, Pima Co., 2012)
Purpura & Moran v. Obama (New Jersey, 2012)
At the same time, no court has ever ruled that two citizen parents are required.
I won’t even get into US v Wong Kim Ark because it would take up too much verbiage but it IS the 800 pound gorilla in the room that totally slaps down the birther movement with a giant bat and it DOES SET precedent.
Hey Junkie, give it up! Paine was at best a secondary authority and that’s really a stretch. His opinion, like yours, and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at a Starbucks.
Perhaps you should dig into US v Wong Kim Ark if you really want to know the truth. It sets a precedent that no present or future court will overturn. Why do you think your buds Donofrio and Apuzzo keep running into walls?
There are two things you should never do. One is pull on Superman’s cape and two is what you are doing.
Read my post #250; it might help.
I have a lot of books in my library too but that proves nothing. I tell you what I’m pretty sure the framers all had at their disposal and that was a dictionary.
From Webster’s 1828 dictionary:
native, a: 1. Produced by nature; original; born with the being; natural; not acquired; as native genius; native affections; a native talent or disposition; native cheerfulness; native simplicity.
2. Produced by nature; not factitious or artificial; as native ore; native color.
3. Conferred by birth; as native rights and privileges.
4. Pertaining to the place of birth; as native soil; native country; native graves.
5. Original; that of which any thing is made; as mans native dust.
6. Born with; congenial.
Every single definition of “native” from the authoritative dictionary of the early 1800s gives the word “native” the sense of “natural” or “original” or “born with.”
There is nothing in Webster’s 1828 dictionary to contradict that “native” carried a meaning of “natural” or “at birth.”
If there had been any real distinction between a “native-born” citizen and a “natural-born” one, surely someone would have clarified the distinction. But no. Apparently, EVERYBODY understood that (with the sole exception that children born abroad to US citizens were also “natural born”) the terms meant essentially the same thing.
Minor v. Happersett references the common law, but never mentions the Swiss philosopher Vattel, who you claim gave our Founding Fathers the concept of natural-born citizenship.
Never mind the fact that at the time the Founding Fathers established the country, there really was not and could not have been very much at all in the way of “American common law” (Apuzzo and Donofrio postulate this theory) separate from the common law of the country that all of the Colonies were a part of — England - that had been handed down for centuries.
Never mind the fact, either, that Blackstone’s treatise on English common law was the fundamental text of the law school at William & Mary — our nation’s first law school.
Never mind the fact that Blackstone was quoted by the Founding Fathers some 16 times more frequently than Vattel. Source: http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/influences.html
In spite of overwhelming evidence that the Founding Fathers looked to the English common law far more often than to Vattel, and in spite of the fact that the phrase “natural born” is known to have come from the English common law, you birthers still insists that it was Vattel that the Founding Fathers looked to, and not the English common law.
That is just not logical.
However, this all becomes moot when one considers the forged birth certificates, the forged Selective Service registration and the use of multiple Social Security numbers (including, at present, one that fails E-Verify.)
Any one of these is a felony; not having registered with Selective Service is a bar to serving in any Federal office, including US Senator. Regardless of the status of his parents, this alone bars Mr. Obama from the Presidency.
I got my driver’s license in Huntsville many moons ago.....I know EXACTLY what you mean. :)
It is so good to have an intelligent conversation without name calling.
The English common law was absolutely Christian, and their entire system of Government was based upon their unique view of natural law being issued directly from Jesus Christ as enforced by the English monarch.
And that in fact is where the phrase “natural born subject” originally came from — it came from a Christian view of natural law. And in that Christian view of natural law (see Romans 13:1) God himself had established a natural order for the world. In that order, kingdoms and authorities were ordained by God himself. Kings derived their power from God and from the natural order that he had set up.
And if you were born under an authority, you had a duty to obey that authority as far as good conscience would allow you to. If the King said taxes were due, as a good citizen, you were to pay your taxes. (“Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s.”)
In that view, all persons born within a kingdom were natural, born subjects of that Kingdom.
And THAT view of natural law — not the clumsy idea, devoid of any actual historical or theological substance, that “it takes two leopards to make a leopard,” is where the term “natural born subject” — and by extension, “natural born citizen” — historically derived from.
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.