English Common Law Requires Jus Sanguinis as Essential for Natural Born

I have no idea what point scott e is trying to make but I am familiar with the case of Hassan v FEC (DDC). This is not a Birther case. Abdul Karim Hassan filed several cases trying to get the court or the FEC to declare him eligible to run for president even though he is admittedly naturalized. Hassan is a Guyana native and a naturalized American citizen. The FEC issued an advisory opinion that he was not eligible. His claim is that the 14th amendment's equal protection clause in effect repealed the Article II requirement that the president must be a natural born citizen. I believe he has had multiple cases in different districts dismissed on standing and/or jurisdiction issues. His cases have nothing to do with Obama's eligibility.

 

Well that ruling was correct in that case. Hassan was not actually eligible.

Oh and Branch V Smith was a case about redistricting. I looked it up last night. Nothing about citizenship.

 

The founders of the United States were highly articulate and very well educated and they knew the difference between "citizen" and "subject" in the creation of the United States. The statement, "If "subject" and "citizen" were understood to mean the same thing in 1787" attempts to establish a false foundation because "subject" and "citizen" did not mean the same thing in 1787.

The founders used the word "citizen" based upon it's historical usage in ancient Greece which was a democracy although they rejected democracy and instead selected a republican form of government.

As can also be noted the foundation of government was based upon the Declaration of Independence where the protections of the inalienable Rights of the People was the very reason for government. The founders were far more knowledgeable about inalienable Rights than the common citizens of the United States that were not scholars. When using the phrase "natural born citizen" they were referring to citizenship that is an inalienable Right of the Person and that cannot be based upon jus sanguisis which is dependent upon another person and can only be afforded under statutory law. They also knew the the foundation for a "natural born subject" in Britian which was based upon jus soli.

Jus sanguisis citizenship can never be an inalienable Right of the Person because it is dependent upon the nationality of the parent(s) and is granted under statutory law.

Jus soli citizenship is an inalienable Right as it does not depend upon any other person (i.e. the parent or parents) and is based exclusively on where the child is born that corresponded to the definition of "natural born subject" in England.

Claims that the founders where inarticulate, that they didn't have historical knowledge, or that they didn't understand inalienable Rights is really an insult to those that were responsible for the creation of the United States under the US Constitution. Sorry, but those that believe they are smarter than the founders of the United States are going to lose almost any argument as that is highly unlikely.

A natural born citizen of the United States was always considered to be an inalienable Right of the Person based upon Jus Soli in the United States. The 14th Amendment did not change this fact and merely enumerated it as the Supreme Court expressed in it's decision in the United States v Kim Wong Ark.

Jus sanguisis is citizenship established by statutory law under the authority of Article I Section 8 for Congress to create uniform laws of naturalization. It is not a Right and it reflects naturalization in the United States. This is so easy to prove that it's almost absurd. If Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter III › Part I › § 1401 was never passed into law then John McCain would not be a US citizen because it's only under the provisions of this law that John McCain became a citizen. President Obama would be a natural born citizen based upon the provisions of the 14th Amendment because he was "born in the United States" (Hawaii in 1961) and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (i.e. his parents were not subjects or citizens of a foreign nation in military occupation US terroritory or diplomats exempted from US law by treaty).

McCain's citizenship was directly based upon statutory law and not the US Constitution.

Obama's citizenship was directly based upon the US Constitution and not on statutory law.

 

Tehnically true because the Supreme Court decision in the United States v Kim Wong Ark only addressed the criteria for "natural born citizen" which was "jus soli" under the US Constitution from the very beginning of the United States and which was enumerated in the 14th Amendment.

We missed an opportunity for this issue to be addressed by the Supreme Court because the court refused to hear lawsuits that were filed challenging the "natural born citizenship" of John McCain because he was not born in the United States. The US Supreme Court has no obligation to review legal challenges and left this question unanswered. What is at question, from what I've read, is whether the plaintiff in the lawsuit had standing for challenging McCain's citizenship. If the plaintiff doesn't have standing then the lawsuit is properly dismissed by the courts. We do know that Docket #08A407 was submitted to the US Supreme Court and the Court denied the petition for review of McCain's citizenship. The reasons are not given for this denial and the reasons for denial rarely are provided by the Supreme Court.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08a407.htm

The US Supreme Court is known for often refusing to address many Constitutional issues. If has, for example, successfully dodged wars by the US where Congress has not issued a declaration of war since WW II.

But we do know what the criteria is for a natural born citizen as that was established in the United States v Kim Wong Ark by the Supreme Court.

 

For what it is worth the attorney representing Birther Linda Jordan and a former justice on the Washington State Supreme Court, Richard B. Sanders, confirmed on my show last night that he thinks that President Obama was born in Hawaii and that makes him eligible. He also specifically said the two citizen parent definition for NBC is wrong. But what does an attorney of 40 years experience and 15 years on the bench of a state supreme court know?

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/rcr/2013/03/13/rc-radio

 

They also knew the difference between, "born citizen", "native-born citizen" and "natural born citizen".

They also knew that it was a high priority imperative to protect the presidential office from the least amount of foreign allegiance, loyalty, coercion, persuasion and claim, as possible.

They also knew the best way to do this was to restrict eligibility for the office of president to those with the highest possible allegiance to the United States which can only bee one who is born in the country to parents who are citizens of that country.

They also used Vattel's Law of Nations as a guide in their nation building and Vattel's writings were very popular amongst the Framers and other players in the framing period.

Wrong!

In the benchmark English common law case , i.e. Calvin's case, Lord Coke clearly rejected native-birth as sufficient to make a natural born subject and emphasized this point by stating that if a child was native- born to a father who was not a subject then the child could not be a subject, be cause "he was not born under the ligeance of a subject"

A "natural born subject" in 17th century England merely defined a person as a member of the subjects of the king who had property rights, inheritable rights, etc, it was not qualification for high office as leader of a national republic.

A USC Article II "natural born Citizen" was eligibility for highest office of a national republic as leader and commander in chief and it was not an eligibility requirement for citizenship nor to qualify for property and inheritance rights.

"natural born Citizen" describes a native-born citizen with the extra quality of being born to citizen parents; it is not a means to US citizenship, it is a means for a born citizen to qualify for the high office of president with the highest possible allegiance as being the imperative.

 

meanwhile, obama was ruled a natural born citizen in a court of law, elected and sworn into office twice.

 

He also said that it is the burden of the challengers to bring evidence capable of casting doubt on the legitimacy of Barack Obama, and to date they have not met that burden.

 

Wrong again.

The criteria for a natural born citizen was recognized by the US Supreme Court in the Minor v Happersett case, way before the Wong Kim Ark case and was established prior to adoption of the US Constitution.

The Wong Kim Ark case cited to the Minor v Happersett case without any objection to the opinion in the Minor v Happersett case, and further added the comment from Horace Binney, again without objection, where Binney pointed out the difference between TWO types of born citizens, one being "the child of an alien, if born in the country" and the other being "the natural born child of a citizen".

The SCOTUS in the Minor v Happersett case were not so generous, where they virtually rejected the notion that native-birth to an alien sufficed to make a citizen at all, and thus such a child would be alien-born until that matter was resolved.

It was the Wong Kim Ark case which solved the doubts mentioned and given merit in the Minor v Happersett case, i.e. if native-birth sufficed the make a "citizen of the United States", the matter of highest allegiance, "natural born citizen" had already been recognized in the prior Minor v Happersett case and was left unchanged.

Therefore it is impossible for the SCOTUS in the Minor v Happersett case to have believed that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born citizen.

The Wong Kim Ark case made no objection and did not overrule the Minor v Happersett case and it's decision was consistent with the Minor v Happersett court's opinion on the principle of natural born citizen, where Wong was ruled to be a citizen and NOT a natural born citizen, obviously because he was NOT(as Horace Binney put it) "the natural born child of a citizen", rather he was The child of an alien, if born in the country " as he was clearly not "born under the ligeance" of a US citizen.

It's really simple stuff.

 

yep, it really is simple stuff.

here are actual legal experts calling bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on your made up idiocy........

it continues to suck to be a birther

 

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/03/american-thinker-pushes-leftist-myth.html

 

lol, birthers

 

You keep saying that. And a couple of days ago you even promised a quotation from the Wong Kim Ark decision to that effect.

Where is it?

I have (in contrast) provided two from that decision that are explicit that "citizen" and "subject" mean the same thing. You have carefully avoided even commenting on them.

Why is that?

Oh.. that's badly garbled,'

For starters, the equivalent Greek word was kosmopolites. The English word "citizen" has no etymological connection to the Greek whatsoever. So no... they cannot have used the word "based upon it's historical usage in ancient Greece" since it had exactly zero historical usage in ancient Greece.

Second, it is a little wacky to assert that "ancient Greece... was a democracy." Ancient Greece was not a single nation state, but a collection of independent city states that only rarely confederated. And most of them were not democracies at all, but oligarchies. Others were ruled by τύραννος ("Tyrants" a word that unlike "citizen" actually did come down to us from ancient Greece). Certainly Athens was a democracy for about two centuries. But not Sparta. Or Syracuse. And Corinthian Democracy is a football team.

The "citizens" and the "republic" to which the founders looked for an example was not Greek, but the Roman "cives."

But all that said... the words "citizen" and "subject" were understood by the Founding Fathers to be so identical in meaning that it was the word Jefferson used in his earliest drafts of the Declaration of Independence. And let us not forget... when the Declaration was written there was no decision yet what sort of government the "United States" might eventually have. A republic didn't come out as the end result for another eleven years.

You seem to have completely detached yourself from any obligation for historical evidence or support. You are now frankly writing complete fiction. They cannot possible have considered natural born citizenship an unalienable right for the simple reason that it's not one. Repeatedly in this exchange you have been asked to justify how it could be possible for a right to be both "inalienable" and at the same time denied to so many? The unalienable rights enumerated in the constitution are universal. Natural born citizenship is parochial and particular.

And again... the same men who framed the Constitution were explicit just three years later in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that " the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens."

Please... explain to us all how that sentence is not an explicit assertion by the Framers of the Constitution that natural born citizenship can be based on jus sanguinis.

Straw man. Nobody here has claimed that the founders were inarticulate.

The rest of your post is merely the obtuse repetition of claims that have been addressed again and again... and again in this very response. Until you are finally willing to address head on the two primary issues I have repeatedly raised, our discussion is essentially done.

 

1. Minor v. Happersett was not a citizenship case. The issue of Virginia Minor's citizenship was never before the court.

2. The court refused explicitly to settle on an inclusive definition of natural born citizen.

3. Unlike Wing Kim Ark, Minor has never once been cited a precedential for the definition of natural born citizen by any subsequent court.

4. Your acknowledgement that Wong came later than Minor is the nail in your rhetorical coffin. That makes Wong precedential, and Minor not.

No need to slay again your insane belief that Horace Binney meant the exact opposite of what he actually said.

 

[video=youtube;9hxhnHreoAg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hxhnHreoAg&feature=player_embedded#![/video]

 

"Furlough some folks" means corral them from certain areas of the White House. That's not the same as stopping the tours entirely.

Birthers caught in yet another lie.

 

The US Supreme Court in the Minor v Happersett decision addessed women's suffrage under the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment and not natural born citizenship. There were no questions related to the fact than Mrs. Minor was a citizen of the United States in the case.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162

Her citizenship was never questioned and was not the issue of the lawsuit.

It can be noted that the Court ruled against Mrs. Minor, reflecting gender discrimination violating the inalienable Rights of Mrs. Minor allowed at the time under the Constitution and laws of the United States and, similiar to the issue of "natural born citizenship" which were being violated resulting in the 14th Amendment, the 19th Amendment rectified this violation of the Rights of the Person. That is the true purpose of Constitutional amendments which should predominately be about extending the protections of our inalienable Rights.

The 14th Amendment did not change the definition of "natural born citizenship" but instead enumerated the criteria for it as the inalienable Right of Citizenship had been violated. The same was the case of Mrs, Minor where eventually the 19th Amendment was passed to rectify the violations of the Rights of Women who had been denied suffrage which prevented them from their Right to Vote in elections as a citizen of the United States.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment19/amendment.html

 

There was no conflict between Minor v Happersett which addressed the equal protection clause as it related to women's suffrage and the United States v Kim Wong Ark that addressed citizenship. Two completely different issues were addressed by the Court.

The 14th Amendment establishes only two forms of citizenship. Either a "citizen" was born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof and they are a natural born citizen or they became a citizen based upon the statutory laws of Congress and are naturalized citizens. There are no other classifications of "citizen" in the United States and a "citizen" is either one or the other.

The 14th Amendment does not establish the criteria of ""born under the ligeance" for natural born citizenship but instead establishes "jurisdiction" as the criteria for a person born on US soil. Jurisdiction simple relates to being subject to the laws of the nation and a "natural born citizen" is not required to have "ligeance" to the United States. Their citizenship does not hinge on whether they are loyal to the United States government but they are subjected to the authority of the laws of the United States. This was cited as the criteria for "natural born subjects" that were children of foreign parents born on British soil under the common laws of England. The child did not swear allegance to the King but was subject to the authority of the King from birth and was therefore a "natural born subject" of the King.

Of note, under our naturalization laws there are requirements for swearing allegence to the United States and the Constitution but that criteria has never existed for a natural born citizen. As I previously noted the "natural born citizen" is the "master" and not the "subject" of our government. The "master" does not swear allegence to the "subject" under any circumstance.

Bottom line there are only two forms of citizenship in the United States. Either a citizen is a "natural born citizen" or they are a "naturalized citizen" under the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment doesn't establish any other form of citizenship.

 

The logic required to deduce that the Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen is so simple that to deny it one has to be either completely dense or dishonest:

The court has always recognized that there are two types of citizens, naturalized and natural born (citizen at birth). These together make up the body of "citizens of the United States" referred to in various portions of the Constitution, esp. the 14th and 15th Amendments. This is clear in Gray's opinion in WKA. Wong could not naturalize. It was against the law. As a matter of fact if Wong were not a citizen at birth he was to be deported to China. Gray said as much:

Therefore, the case was about whether or not Wong was a natural born citizen. That is why Gray began with English common law and the history of who were natural born subjects. Then he concluded that the meaning of the terms like "citizen" and "natural born citizen" had to be understood by referring to English common law. Gray then spent the entirety of the opinion deriving just who are natural born citizens. Gray concluded that he didn't even have to use the 14th Amendment to declare that Wong was a natural born citizen:

The 14th Amendment only affirmed what was already the law and fixed the problem that denied citizenship by birth to Negroes who were children of slaves.

Everyone involved knew that Wong was ruled to be a natural born citizen. Fuller knew it when he wrote in his dissent:

This is what one of the most renowned practitioners in constitutional law, William Damon Guthrie, who had argued cases successfully before this very court said:

I have confronted Mario Apuzzo with this quote and challenged him to provide any contemporary legal article that came to a conclusion that Wong was not an NBC or that Minor clearly defined NBC as MichaelN and Mario claim. He came up empty and just says that Guthrie was wrong.

 

where is natural born used ??

 

Humans come in two sexes, male and female. Together they make up humanity. Mary is not male and is human. She is therefore a ___________.

It is that simple. Are you dense or dishonest?

 

Yes, in one case a person who was native-born to US citizen parents was found to be a natural born citizen and the native-born to alien parents was not considered as a citizen at all until the doubts were resolved.

In the other case a person who was native-born to permanently domiciled parents, who were also carrying out business in the US was ruled to be a "citizen" and NOT to be a natural born citizen.

In the case which was specifically about eligibility for citizenship under the 14th Amendment, it was made clear to the court via Horace Binney's comment that there were TWO types of born citizens.

One being "the child of an alien, if born in the country" and the other being "the natural born child of a citizen"................... there was no opposition to this.

Wrong!

The 14th Amendment speaks of "citizen of the United States", nowhere does it speak of eligibility for POTUS nor does it speak of "natural born citizen"; the 14th Amendment was not to establish eligibility for POTUS, nor was it to amend Article II of the USC.

Article II "natural born Citizen" describes the highest possible allegiance of a US citizen, it is eligibility criteria for a born citizen to qualify for POTUS and has it's basis in aiming to achieving security for the office of POTUS from foreign influence, which was a high priority imperative on the part of the Founding Fathers and Framers.

As we have already established, that the Framers were highly intelligent and educated people and given the imperative to protect the office of POTUS from foreign influence, they were careful with their choice of words, i.e. if they intended for a mere native-born to be eligible for POTUS, then they would have said "native born citizen" or "born citizen"...................... but they didn't.

Garbage, you are making things up, there is nothing in the 14th Amendment that says all born US citizens are "natural born citizen" s

Better said that there are two means to US citizenship.

One is by native-birth and the other is by naturalization of the alien-born.

Of the native-born, there are two types, one being (as Binney put it and quoted by Chief Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark case) "the child of an alien, if born in the country" and the other type of born citizen being (as Binney put it) "the natural born child of a citizen".

The "natural born child of a citizen" was called such, BECAUSE of the US citizen status of the PARENT, the "child of an alien, if born in the land" was not called "natural born", and if Binney had believed that such a child was a "natural born", then he would have said something like "the natural born child of an alien", ...................but he didn't, just like the Framers didn't use "born citizen" or "native-born citizen' in Article II, and just like Justice Gray and his court in the Wong Kim Ark case didn't call Wong a "natural born Citizen", all these people were intelligent and highly educated and you expect us to believe that in such important matters as these, that they got sloppy and indifferent as to the words they used?

GET REAL!

It's clear from BOTH the Minor and WKA cases that native-birth was not sufficient to make a natural born citizen, and in the latter case the court accepted the distinction made by Binney, that there were TWO TYPES OF BORN CITIZENS.

i.e.

1) "the child of an alien, if born in the country"

2) "the natural born child of a citizen"

The word "natural" was TIED TO THE PARENT and NOT to the PLACE.

This is consistent not only with the English law where native-birth was rejected as sufficient to make a natural born subject, but consistent also with the principles written of by Vattel whose works were highly revered and used as reference guiding the Framers, law-makers, jurists, etc in the Framing period.

You should read this ..........................

TWO TYPES OF BORN CITIZENS according to the Wong Kim Ark case

1) "the child of an alien, if born in the country"

2) "the natural born child of a citizen"

 

Attention to detail remains your Achilles heel. Virginia Minor was not found to be a natural born citizen. She was never called anything other than "a citizen" at any time in the entire decision. In fact, the citizenship status of her parents is also never even mentioned a single time in the entire decision.

Justice Waite apparently did not consider it a salient detail.

In identical fashion to Virginia Minor, Wong Kim Ark was called "a citizen." There is no difference in that detail between the two cases.

What is different between the two cases (well... among the many differences) is that Justice Waite explicitly declined to offer a definition of natural born citizen, while Justice Gray did not. And of course, this is why Wong Kim Ark remains the only Supreme Court decision that has every been cited by any subsequent court as holding precedent on that definition.

No such statement from Binney exists. The one you repeatedly quote declares the exact opposite of your assertion. I guess things really do run backwards in Australia after all.

As to Vattel... once again (as you did the other day when you idiotically asserted that Binney's quotation was based on a Constitutional amendment that didn't exist yet), you are claiming the Constitution's use of the phrase "natural-born citizen" was based on a translation of Vattel that did not exist until ten years too late.

Birthers must watch a lot of "Dr. Who." But I have bad news. There's no such thing as a Tardis.

 

You wish, as you relentlessly maintain your denial and continue to lie.

How desperate you are.

Anyway, here's the quote from Binney again, where it shows that Binney recognized TWO TYPES OF BORN CITIZENS.

Binney...

A red apple is as much an apple as a green apple. i.e. two different types of apples.

WRONG!

I didn't say anything about any translations of Vattel's writings.

You are making stuff up again, but that's what people who lie do, so no surprises here.

Getting back to reality and the truth of the matter......

The principle of citizenship adopted by the Framers was that which was found in Vattel's Law of Nations.

Most if not all of the Framers could read and speak fluent French, which is the language Vattel's work was written in.

Vattel.....

Here's an image copy of the French version...


So we can see that it is completely irrelevant as to when any translation(s) from the French took place, because it was the principle of native-birth combined with citizen parents that Vattel was speaking of and that which the Framers embraced, as can be see by the example given by Binney in the Wong Kim Ark case and confirmed by the SCOTUS in that case where "the child of an alien, if born in the country" only got ruled to be a "citizen" and not a natural born citizen, BECAUSE Wong was NOT "the natural born child of a citizen", he was "not born under the ligeance" of US citizen parents.

It's really simple stuff.

It is only those who wish this wasn't true who are in denial of these proven facts; their incessant bigotry is such because they have a political agenda which drives them to mislead and deceive at every opportunity.

Here's some more from the article which shows how popular and influential Vattel's writings were on the Framers and others in the Framing period.

http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html

TWO TYPES OF BORN US CITIZENS.

1) "the child of an alien, if born in the country"

2) "the natural born child of a citizen"

The word "natural" was tied to PARENTS and NOT to place.

The US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case agreed with this clear distinction and the decision of the court reflected this, when Wong was ruled to be a "citizen" only and NOT "natural born", this was BECAUSE Wong was (as Binney put it, and accepted by the court) Wong was "the child of an alien, if born in the country", he was NOT "the natural born child of a citizen".

The US Supreme Court in the earlier case of Minor v Happersett also agreed with the same distinction (albeit with less grace given to the alien's child) which was made between "the child of an alien, if born in the land" and "the natural born child of a citizen".