English Common Law Requires Jus Sanguinis as Essential for Natural Born

meanwhile, barrack obama was elected and sworn into office twice. actual legal experts, in a court of law(the US supreme court)have repeatedly called michaels made up definition of NBC to be bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

it continues to suck to be a birther, but it especially sucks to be michael

 

so what does it all mean ?

 

There is only one kind of citizen mentioned there. There are certainly two kinds of children, but as Binney explicitly says, one "is as much a citizen" as the other. Their citizenship is the same.

And that would be analogous to Binney's statement regarding the children, not their citizenship.

Of course you didn't. It would have been too inconvenient for your impossible theory. That's why I had to.

No. It was not. Not a single Framer can be shown to have ever once even commented favorably on Vattel's opinion of citizenship.

Further, in terms of their alleged "high regard" for him, the US Constitution directly contradicts Vattel's Law of Nations no less than four times in it's first two Amendments.

Another lie from MichealN. Almost none of the Framers could speak a word of French. Franklin's was notoriously bad, even though he lived there for many years. The only Founder who was arguably fluent was Jefferson, and he wasn't a Framer. The historical record shows that the Founders and Framers were no more competent in languages other than English than are most non-Hispanic Americans today.

Too bad the article is about the Declaration of Independence (where Vattel actually was influential) and not the Constitution which rejects Vattel wholesale. But we have a better place to go and find the real level of Vattel's influence on the Framers and Founders. That would be the research don by Professor Donald S. Lutz, and published in "The Relative Importance of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought," American Political Science Review 189 (1984), 189-97.

They looked at the 40 most influential writers on the Framers and Founders. Vattel comes in an anemic 30th place.He was not even their most influential author regarding the Law of Nations. Those would be Pufendorf (at #10) and Grotius (at #15).

Blackstone, by the way, came in 3rd.

http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/influences.html

 

Vattel of course had no problem calling the people in England Citizens

So Vattel calls people under the rule of a king citizens. Who knew? By the way he consistently does this through the law of Nations, not that you (Micheal) have ever actually read the thing.

Nor does he actually agree with your definition of soverenity

One of the pleasures of this whole Birther nuttyness is that I actually got a chance to read Vattel, who I actually quite like. There pretty much nothing in it that could be called influential in American law though, TOTALLY different mindset and concepts of freedom.

 

Yes, I'm bored, Heres some more Vattel fun

Wow, that means they are subject to local allegiance according to Vattel.

And he says that the children of foreigners settled in other states become its indignes, From Book 1 part 215

Which will be noted is the Vatell definition of "Naturel ou Indegnes."

 

Regarding Mike's assertion that "Most if not all of the Framers could read and speak fluent French."

From the biography Patrick Henry, by Moses Coit Tyler:

From The American Scholar regarding Benjamin Franklin and John Adams:

James Madison, considered by many to be "The Father of Our Constitution" spoke English, Greek, Latin and Hebrew... but not French.
George Washington spoke no language other than English. Samuel Adams and John Hancock did not speak any foreign languages.

 

so where else is natural born used besides president and vice president ??

 

Yeah. I have to laugh at the birther meme that "George Washington kept Vattel's book for 200years so therefore he loved it" Washington famously could not speak a word of french, a fact that made working with his French allies more than a little awkward. Which means that he got the book out, found it was in french and tossed it aside... and quite possibly FORGOT ABOUT IT.

Of course, the Birthers always forget to mention the OTHER book that he forgot to return, because they keep trying to say that Washington et al completly rejected all English law and everything English.

The other book of course was Vol. 12 of the "Commons Debates," which contained transcripts of debates from Britain's House of Commons. Which means that according to the birther meme Washington was studying closely and was heavily influenced by the debates of the English Parliament.

Its fun mocking these people.

 

[video=youtube;atbSbx4g-JA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atbSbx4g-JA[/video]

 

The best you have is some nit-picky issue about Vattel not having actually said the words "natural born citizen", how pathetic your argument is.

The point is that the Framers were VERY familiar with Vattel's writings, whether they spoke French or not, and they certainly were clear on the principles as mentioned in the following quote from Vattel's Law of Nations.

"§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.

“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. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

"Please note that the correct title of Vattel's Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines "natural born citizens" in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word "indigenes" for natives along with "Les naturels" in that sentence. He used the word "naturels" to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel's use of the word "natives" in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212, here in the original French if you have any doubts. Please do not simply look at the title as some have suggested that is all you need to do. Vattel makes it quite clear he is not speaking of natives in this context as someone simply born in a country, but of natural born citizens, those born in the country of two citizens of the country. Our founding Fathers were men of high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period. Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of “Le droit des gens,” which the deferred to as the authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate.".
http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

"Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to the others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well. And yes, even though most could not speak French, most read French (except, notably, Washington who would defer to Jefferson when such interpretation was needed).

From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):
Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"
To English: "Citizens and natural"

French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
-------------------
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: linked to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they participate with equality has its advantages."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
-------------------
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"

John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this:

commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2512143/posts

TWO TYPES OF BORN US CITIZENS.

Per the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Justice Horace Gray and the majority of the court, these two types of born US citizens were/are (in the words of Horace Binney whom Justice Gray quoted favorably and without any objection in the court):

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

2) "the natural born child of a citizen"

Subsequently the SCOTUS affirmed that Wong was born a "citizen of the United States" by way of the 14th Amendment, this ruling makes it obvious that the WKA court, did not believe Wong to qualify as a "natural born Citizen", even after all the careful and exhaustive discussion and weighing of opinions on that matter, Wong was merely "the child of an alien, if born in the country" and NOT "the natural born child of a citizen", i.e. Wong was "not born under the ligeance" of US citizen parents.

 

Nitpicky? The fact that the words never once can be shown to have even passed his lips or his pen is "nitpicky?"

That's like saying it's "nitpicky" to assert George Washington never partied in Las Vegas "just because he never said he didn't."

They were very familiar with Blackstone's too. In fact they were far more familiar with Blackstone (#3 on the listof authors most frequently cited by the founders of the United States) than Vattel (#30). And of course... we all know that unlike Vattel, Blackstone actually did define natural born citizen, and he defined it exactly the same way the Wong Kim Ark decision did. To whit:

Anyone born on national soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation is a natural-born citizen.

You also appear to have your eyes covered regarding the other stuff commented on regarding Vattel and the Framers. There is a long time on-line birther blog by a guy who goes by the handle NoBarack08 who back in November of '09 published an impressive list of references to Vattel by Framer and Founders. I actually consider it the single best example of real scholarship by any birther ever. He managed to find 79 different references to Vattel, some in very obscure sources. And this is what is relevant about them:

Not a single reference to Vattel from a single Framer or Founder ever had anything whatsoever to do with citizenship. It is among the subjects that they gave Vattel zero credit for. And even for his single most important area of contribution, international law, they put him in a measly 3rd place of importance behind Pufendorf and Grotius..

And again (that you ignored this is a pretty solid demonstration of your fundamental dishonesty) for all the familiarity with Vattel you attribute to the Founders and Framers, you ignore the demonstration that on so many issues they thought he was full of (*)(*)(*)(*). As I already pointed out, they rejected his ideas four times in just the first two Amendments to the Constitution.

Vattel opposed Freedom of Speech and of the Press:

Vattel opposed Freedom of Religion:

Vattel opposed the Right to Bear Arms:

I mean seriously... how influential could Vattel have been if the Framers were willing to throw him under the bus four times in just two amendments?

 

Excluding the fact that the Kim Wong Ark case estabhished he was a natural born citizen who was exempt from statutory laws that would have denied him citizenship and that the Supreme Court in that case not only confirmed that the 14th Amendment established natural born citizenship based upon jus soli but that historically natural born citizenship was always based upon jus soli in the United States I must admit to not researching Calvin's Case because it was only referenced in the Kim Wong Ark case and US common law was not the same as English common law.

I've now done that although in only superficial manner but surprise, surprise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin's_Case

So Calvin's case can be referred to in the context of eventual adoption of natural born citizenship based upon jus soli in the United States but not based upon jus sanguinis.

Two relevant points again. First of all the US doesn't use English common laws. Secondly, since the inception of the United States natural born citizenship has always been based upon jus soli and never on jus sanguinis according to the Supreme Court decision in the United States v Kim Wong Ark. Calvin's case was used in reference to the definition of natural born citizenship based upon jus soli and not jus sanguinis in the Kim Wong Ark decision and it was a historical reference and not legal precedent in the United States.

The US Supreme Court often refers to history in explaining its decisions such as the historical fact that the "preborn" were never considered to be "persons" by any major society throughout recorded history. It is historical context and not legal precedent that is being presented.

 

Anticipating this pathetic birther assertion, the three judges in the Ankeny case declared:

There is no such thing as jus sanguinis under English common law.







http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=...itle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27[/QUOTE]

 

this thread has 12 thousand views and 57 pages.

a "dead issue" i guess dead is the new sixty five.

 

Racism has a way of driving people to keep pushing a dead issue. People are still refusing to admit that the south lost the civil war nor that the war was about slavery.

 

Racists continue to deny that the Confederate States were involved in an unlawfull insurrection against the lawful government of the United States in violation of their "voluntarily contracted" responsibilities as a State under the US Constitution. The secession of the Confederate States was illegal and Pres Lincoln, under the authority of the US government to suppress insurrections under Article I Section 8 (which the Confederate States had agreed to) was lawfully carrying out the US Constitutional responsibilites of office to suppress the illegal actions of the Confederate States.

Of note this is one reason I've called Ron Paul a "racist" because he has pandered to "Confederate" racists in stating that Lincoln didn't have a Constitutional responsibility to suppress the insurrection of the Confederate States during his presidential 2012 campaign.

Back to the point of this thread, it's already been well established that English Common Law did not apply to the United States. Natural born citizenship has always been based upon jus soli from the very creation of the United States under the US Constitution. The 14th Amendment merely enumerated the criteria for jus soli as the basis for natural born citizenship which had always been the criteria for natural born citizenship. Natural born citizenship based upon jus soli has always been an inalienable Right of the Person in the United States. It is not a privilege and cannot be infringed upon by statutory law (as documented in the United States v Kim Wong Ark decision).

This is no different than the 14th Amendment's enumeration of "equal protection under the law" which is an inalienable Right of the Person that was also enumerated in the 14th Amendment.

Constitutional Amendments, such as the 14th Amendment, become necessary when the government is violating the inalienable Rights of the Person that are protected by the 9th Amendment but are still being violated nonetheless.

Once again, if anyone wasn't a "natural born citizen" of the United States it was John McCain because he was born in Panama and became a citizen based upon statutory law and not because he meet the criteria of jus soli necessary to be a natural born citizen. Congress passed a resolution stating he was a "natural born citizen" but Congress does not have statutory authority related to natural born citizenship. The Congressional resolution had no meaning under the US Constitution based upon the Supreme Court decision in the United States v Kim Wong Ark.

 

[video=youtube;cc6aNuFLFDQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cc6aNuFLFDQ#![/video]

 

Whether for or against an issue we must note that statements made about an issue by a Supreme Court Justice really have no actual bearing on an issue. Only when the Court is presented with the legal/constitutional issues related to a specific case can an actual decision be reached that establishes the common law of the United States under the Constitution. An opinion before a case is heard and after the facts and evidence are presented before the Supreme Court are two completely different issues.

 

Didn't that happen back in 2011? Talk about recycling old news, AND trhere was a Presidential election since. But it saves Scott there the effort of actually making any ridiculous arguments himself.

Anyway, some contrary opinions

Oral Arguments in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071

Senate hearings, 2004 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg96813/pdf/CHRG-108shrg96813.pdf

Cyclopedia of American Government, p.496:

And finally the opinion of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner.

So your video is outvoted, son.

 

You know the stupid thing? The unedited quote from that exchange shows that he wasn't actually being outvoted at all

Gosh, who knew.

 

someone tell me again about the statute whereby stanley ann had to have lived in the u.s. for six years before the age of eighteen, but missed the requirement.
i guess my question is, that law is irrelevant as transcended by constitutional definition (article two) right ?

Since Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born in 1961, this newly discovered law involves Dunham’s age because she was only 18 at time of delivery!

The law says: ”When one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other a foreign national, the U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to birth of the child with FIVE of the years after the age of 14.” Stanley Ann Dunham did not meet requisite status according to blog discovery.

 

Yes, I'm sorry that you birthers are going after Senator Cruz now

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...-born-senator-ted-cruz-running-for-president/

 

from the fountain of doctor goldcoiner:

The New York Daily News reports that the amount of legal sanctions to be imposed on persistent New York litigator Christopher-Earl : Strunk is $177,000, by far the largest birther penalty imposed to date. Strunk is also barred at suing a long list of individuals in the New York Court System.




just don't pay it... (*)(*)(*)(*) the government.

 

The link is long so I don't know who made these comments but they certainly reflect Constitutional ignorance which is not surprising to me.

First of all the 14th Amendment limits natural born citizenship to those born in the United States (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) and US territories are not the United States. They are lands under the adminstrative authority and protection of the US government but are not a part of the United States that is a criteria for natural born citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

We have a perfect example to demonstrate that today. Puerto Rico is on the edge of either becoming a State or becoming an independent nation. People born in Puerto Rico are natural born citizens of Puerto Rico. If Puerto Rico becomes a State then they will be natural born citizens of the United States because they are natural born citizens of Puerto Rico. If Puerto Rico becomes an independent nation then they will not be natural born citizens of the United States.

The 14th Amendment does not establish any citizenship based upon the parents of the child. Natural born citizenship as established by the 14th Amendment exclusively relates to where a person is born (and subject to the laws - jurisdiction) and if the child is not born in one of the 50 States then they are not a natural born citizen based upon the 14th Amendment regardless of who their parents are answering the question of whether a child born to someone in the military serving overseas is a natural born citizen because they are not a natural born citizen because they weren't born in the United States. Natural born citizenship is a Right of the Person which cannot be dependent upon other persons (e.g. the parent/parents)

Children born to US citizens outside of the United States can become US citizens based upon the naturalization laws passed by Congress as addressed by Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter III › Part I › § 1401. While I won't quote all of the criteria I will cite the first one:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

Criteria (a) is merely an acknowledgement of the 14th Amendment's criteria for natural born citizenship and Congress cannot change or infringe upon the natural born citizenship of a person under statutory law. It this criteria was ignored or didn't even exist in statutory law a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof would still be a natural born citizen of the United States.

All of the remaining classifications and criteria cited in this law relate to naturalized citizenship under the statutory authority of Congress to establish uniform laws of naturalization delegated to Congress in Article I Section 8. Anyone that becomes a citizen under the criteria of (b) thru (h) is a naturalized citizen of the United States based upon statutory laws of naturalization by Congress. The criteria of (b) though (h) could never exist or can be changed or repealed at anytime but natural born citizenship based upon the 14th Amendment is beyond the authority of Congress to grant or deny under statutory law.

None of this is "unclear" because the 14th Amendment is very clear. For this to change it would require a Constitutional Amendment that would need ratification by 3/4ths of the States but in doing so it would deviate from the Natural Right of Citizenship of the Individual that can only be based upon Jus Soli.

 

I like the criteria used in the Old West. Pay the fine or spend 177,000 nights in jail (485 years in prison).

Frivolous "brither" lawsuits have cost the taxpayers millions of dollars and these idiots need to be god-smacked.