English Common Law Requires Jus Sanguinis as Essential for Natural Born

How long has MichaelN been doing this deceptive and dishonest editing of Calvin's case? Wasn't he nailed doing this on Politijab 3 years ago? I know he was caught on John Woodman's blog.

 

He started off on Politijab by declaring that there was nothing in English common law which made Jus Soli, and challenging people to show. him anything. Someone shoved Calvin's case in his face.

 

Basically Michael declares that rain is not wet and then challenges everyone to prove him wrong.

Then regardless of what anyone says, he will post page after page of things that essentially say that rain is water and water is wet and Michael will declare victory once again.

Michael is fairly impervious to logic or facts, though sometimes if he is rigorously confronted with the facts, he will change topics or go to another venue.

 

Local ligeance on the part of an alien born visitor made the alien born visitor a subject, as such his native-born child would be born under the ligeance of a subject and the child would be a natural born subject.

In the event of the alien-born visitor not being a subject, then the native-born child would not be a subject and would be alien born.

Lord Coke was very clear on this point, as I have shown with the verbatim quotes fromCalvin's case.

"1. Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign."

"2. There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances"

"The third is ligeantia localis46 wrought by the law, and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is there, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other."

"And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born:"

Game, set and match.

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

 

"And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King."

What difference does it make and what relevance is there as to why or how a person is a subject?

 

Since ECL ruled that native birth was NOT SUFFICIENT to make a NBS, and that to be a NBS a native born child was REQUIRED to be born under the ligeance of a subject, IF the framers followed the ECL, then for a US native born child to be a natural born citizen, that child would be required to be born under the allegiance of a US citizen.
Game, set and match!

 

"The basis of jus soli citizenship has always been allegiance"

Wrong!

Jus soli US citizenship was/is based on native birth, see 14th Amendment.

There is NOTHING in the 14th about allegiance.

Subject to jurisdiction of municipal law in US is not equal to the allegiance of a US citizen.

"Subject to the jurisdiction" per 14th was with regard to the native born child, NOT the parents.

In ECL the allegiance of the father was THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT to make a NBS, native birth was not enough, as Lord Coke clearly held when he stated on SEVERAL occasions in Calvin's case.....

"And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: "

 

This is an assertion so blindingly stupid that it can only be attempted by the same inveterate liar who is too cretinous to realize that when he edits well known court cases to say something they do not say he will be easily caught.

Go away little boy.

 

I'm sure in the 202 cases that birthers have clogged the court with MichealNs arguments have carried the day every time.

What? They haven't?

But that means that they are completely worthless. Damn

 

While the US Supreme Court reviews many sources for law the case of Kim Wong Ark was based upon the 14th Amendment that establishes natural born citizenship based upon Jus Soli.

In the United State Congress established citizenship based upon Jus Sanguinis under the staturtory "naturalization" authority granted to it by Article I Section 8. A person granted citizenship based upon Jus Sanguinis is a naturalized citizen of the United States and not a natural born citizen which is a Right established by the 14th Amendment that is exclusively based upon Jus Soli (i.e. "born in the United States... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof).

English common law never overrides the Constitutional definitions.

 

There is actually a difference between native born citizenship and natural born citizenship. Native born citizenship merely establishes that a person is granted citizenship "at birth" but not necessarily because of birth. For example a statutory law that grants citizenship based upon Jus Sanguinis can estalbish citizenship "at birth" based upon the citizenship of the parent(s). Natural born citizenship is established "by birth" of the individual and it is the natural (inalienable) Right of the Person unrelated to any other person (e.g. the parents) and it is established by the "right of soil" (i.e. Jus Soli) of the person. It is also established "at birth" but is not based upon statutory laws and statutory laws cannot, under the US Constitution, infringe upon this Right of the Person.
.
It truth, dispite what Congress has said about it, John McCain was not a natural born citizen of the United States because he was born in Panama and not in any of the United States. McCain was a "natural born citizen" of Panama and a "native born citizen" of the United States based upon statutory law. John McCain was granted "native born citizenship" under the statutory laws passed by Congress and was a naturalized citizen based upon those laws. The Congress cannot create natural born citizenship as that is a Right established by the 14th Amendment.

Technically a person born in a US territory isn't a natural born citizen of the United State either although they would be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The 14th Amendment requires compliance with both conditions which are: 1) born in a State that is a part of the United States, and; 2) subject to the jurisdiction of the United States government. Both conditions must be met to be a natural born citizen of the United States.

 

Actually, Shiva, that's a little like saying Constitutional definitions never override themselves.

When the Constitution was framed and ratified, there was no significant corpus of colonial American law separate or different from that of the English common law from which American law was derived. So much of the language of the Constitution consists of concepts and specific terms of English common law (things like "sovereign immunity," "habeas corpus," essentially all of the 5th Amendment...) that Supreme Court Justice Matthews was led to opine that, "There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England, as adopted by the several states each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes" (Smith v. State of Alabama, 1888, emphasis added). He went on to observe that "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" (emphasis added).

Especially with explicit common law terms like "natural-born citizen," to assert that they mean in the Constitution something completely different from their prior usage over at least three centuries is to beg an image of the Framers as rather stupid men, something of which they have heretofore never been accused. It asserts that they decided to used a specific term-of-art, change its meaning to a contradictory one, and then never bother tell anybody of their decision to do so. It would be as if they had introduced an article on elephants, but chosen to call them horses instead... all the while still meaning elephants but never letting anybody know that, and never even mentioning it in their notes, memoirs, correspondence or accounts. It is an idiotic assertion.

Mike's problem is not a conflict of definitions between the Constitution and the English common law from which it derives. His problem is that neither of them say what he so deeply wishes they did, so he is forced to maliciously and dishonestly bowdlerize both.

 

I beg to differ here as well.

The distinction is that one is merely a more inclusive category than the other. Native born citizens are anyone born on US territory and under its jurisdiction. Natural born citizens also include all other persons who are citizens at birth, but not necessarily native born. John McCain and Ted Cruz would be two obvious examples of natural born US citizens who are not native born.

While there is a tendency to use the terms interchangeably, it must be noted that US law, regulation and court decision never does so when discussing circumstances of non-native natural birth. They only do so when the terms actually are interchangeable without a discriminating effect in the circumstances being discussed.

 

That was true in 1776 and, at that time, the term "natural born citizen" was contained in the US Constitution and it was based upon the "common law" of England which established that any person born on British soil was a "subject" of Britain. The US didn't have "subjects" but instead had "citizens" but the comparison was appropriate at the time.

The lack of "statutory" definition of natural born citizen was established in the United States with the ratification of the 14th Amendment and so, with the 14th Amendment, we had a legal definition of natural born citizen in the United States. Definition under the law always supersedes "common law" definitions which are establushed by court precedent when a statutory definition doesn't exist.

We still rely on "common law" in much of our legal system when it is undefined by statutory laws either passed by Congress or when incorporated into the US Constitution. US Supreme Court decisions often create the "common law" in the United States. Examples exist like Brown v Board of Education, Loving v Virginia, and Roe v Wade. In some cases the "common law" is later incorporated under the statutory laws of the nation and then the statutory law takes precedent over the prior common law that existed.

The 14th Amendment established two explicit criteria that must be met for a person to be a "natural born citizen" of the United States. First and foremost they had to be born in a State (i.e. Born in the United States) and second they must be subject to the authority and laws of the United States (subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The first criteria is easy to establish in fact. Where was the person physically born? The second condition accepted the fact that persons born in one of the States might not be subject to the authority and laws of the United States. Two cases exist that were addressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Kim Wong Ark v United States. First were foreign diplomats which are excluded from US authority under the statutory laws of the United States. Second are members of a hostile military occupying the territory of a State during a time of war. They are subject to the laws and authority of their government and not to the authority or laws of the United States.

The definition of "natural born citizenship" in the United States was based exclusively on Jus Soli as it established a Right of the Person to Citizenship that could not be infringed upon by the statutory laws of the United States. As with any inalienable Right, and the Right of Citizenship is an inalienable Right, it must be something inherent in the person and not dependant upon any other person. Jus sanguinis is citizenship based upon the parents and does not represent an inalienable Right as a Right cannot be dependant upon another person.

Once agian the US Congress, under the powers granted to it to establish the "naturalization laws" of the United States does afford citizenship based upon jus sanguinis but that is, by definition, naturalized citizenship and not natural born citizenship. It can also be noted that a person must file for citizenship based upon jus sanguinis but does not have to do so as a natural born citizen. We can also note that a person born of US parents based upon jus sanguinis can also be denied citizenship for numerous reasons but a natural born citizen can never be denied their Right of Citizenship under the laws of the United States.

 

Sorry, Shiva, but the 14th Amendment does not establish "the" definition of natural born citizen. It certainly eliminates a vast amount of ambiguity today in the light of the unforeseeable abomination that it birtherism, but its purpose was not to clarify natural born citizenship at all... merely extend the status to a class of persons who heretofore had not been considered persons at all, but instead property.

At the time of its proposal, the author of the 14th's citizenship clause, Senator Jacob Howard, asserted, "This amendment which I have offered is merely declaratory of what I consider the law of the land already." He certainly did not believe that he was redefining anything.

And as to the understanding of the Framers themselves, the first Congress (consisted primarily of constitutional framers and exclusively of them and their contemporaries) demonstrated a more comprehensive understanding of natural born citizenship when, in the Naturalization Act of 1790, they declared 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." Certainly, they can not be accused of being unaware of their own definition.

Clearly, jus sanguinis citizenship is not naturalization under the US Constitution, since its framers rather explicitly said so.

 

Well let's see how WRONG you are....

Nothing about allegiance there, and it's the same no matter where one may look.

So the LIE stated here has been shown for the LIE that it is.

Here is WongKimArk's LIE.....

Now here is the truth which was pointed out to WongKimArk...

Here is the 14th Amendment in pertinent part.

There is NOTHING in the 14th about allegiance.

Subject to jurisdiction of municipal law in US is not equal to the allegiance of a US citizen, that's why there is an oath of allegiance required to be sworn by those who are naturalizing, ding-dong!

"Subject to the jurisdiction" per 14th was with regard to the native born child, NOT the parents. i.e. the person being born was the one who had to also be "subject to the jurisdiction".

In ECL the allegiance of the father was THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT to make a NBS, native birth was not enough, as Lord Coke clearly held when he stated on SEVERAL occasions in Calvin's case.....

"And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: "

Now save your silly childish ad hominem, it's just not going to get you anywhere.

You are simply WRONG!

You are delusional.

 

Well you may think he is wrong and you may think he is delusional- but he is the one who the courts, the voters and Congress all agree with.

You are the Aussie telling everyone- everyone in the United States that we all have it wrong.

Now that is delusional.

 

Wrong!

The 14th Amendment does NOT establish natural born citizenship.

It is true jus soli is the basis used, but it merely establishes "citizen of the United States" by birthright, which equates to a born citizen.

The simple fact is that there two types of born citizens.

One is via native birth only, and is described by the 14th Amendment, which is the instrument which establishes the native birthright citizenship, and is called "citizen of the United States", the very same term used in the original US Constitution, to make the general US citizenry distinct from those who were known as Article II "natural born Citizen".

14th Amendment was a means to US citizenship via native birthright, for those of the born variety, they were not considered as natural born citizens and there was no mention of natural born citizen in the 14th Amendment.

The other type of born citizen is the "natural born citizen", i.e. one who is a native birthright citizen AND a natural birthright citizen, as defined in the US Supreme Court case of Minor V Happersett, where Virginia Minor was found to be a natural born citizen without resort to the 14th Amendment and without resort to any definition found anywhere in the US Constitution, the SCOTUS in Minor clearly stating that the definition was not to be found in the US Constitution, which INCLUDED the 14th Amendment, which shows that contrary to your absurd claim, that the 14th Amendment, like the rest of the US Constitution, does not define "natural born citizen".

In the US Supreme Court case, i.e. Minor V Happersett the justices relied on a "common law" which provided for a natural born citizen to be one native-born to citizen parents, and at the same time doubted that native-birth to alien parents sufficed to make one even a birthright "citizen of the United States".

It is without doubt that the US Supreme Court in the Minor case did NOT RECOGNIZE native-birth as sufficient to make a natural born citizen.

So what common law was it which the Minor court referred to?

Article II "natural born Citizen" was not the eligibility requirement for birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment was.

Article II NBC was eligibility requirement for person who was a born "citizen of the United States" to qualify for presidential office, i.e. the eligible person had to already be a born US citizen, but they had to have that bit extra, aimed at ensuring the maximum allegiance possible, so common sense should tell you that the best way to achieve the best possible allegiance, with the minimum of foreign persuasion, allegiance, coercion, influence and claim was to require those who were already born citizens of the United States to be also born under the allegiance of US citizen parents, this was the highest possible allegiance for such a high office, which need to be protected from any foreign allegiance conflict.

 

If that were true, then for a native-born child of US to be a natural born citizen, then the child would have to be "born under the ligeance" of a US citizen.

Here is the relevant part as an excerpt from Lord Coke's report of Calvin's case

Clearly the English law EXPRESSLY REJECTED native-birth as sufficient to make a natural born subject.

Putting aside the fact that the English law rejected native-birth as sufficient to make a natural born subject.

What "common law" was it which the US Supreme Court referred to in the Minor v Happersett court, where it was held (without any resort to the 14th Amendment, nor any definition to be found at all in the US Constitution as a whole) that native-birth in the US to US citizen parents made a US natural born citizen, yet gave the US Supreme judiciary cause to give merit to doubts that native-birth to alien parents would even give US citizenship at all?

What "common law" was it?

 

That is nonsense.

The 14th Amendment was the instrument by which the means to establish "citizen of the United States" was provided for those born in US and for those born alien who naturalized.

It had nothing to do with eligibility for the office of POTUS and furthermore "natural born citizen" was not mentioned nor implied.

On the other hand, Article II "natural born Citizen" was eligibility for POTUS, for a born "citizen of the United States", it was not for eligibility for US citizenship.

i.e. to be eligible for the office of POTUS, one had be a born citizen of the United States and be a natural one at that.

The "natural" was an additional measure to achieve the highest possible allegiance for a born citizen of the United States to take the high office of POTUS.

 

The simple fact is that you are wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

The simple fact is that you are wrong.

 

"This message is hidden because SFJEFF is on your ignore list."

Without reading any of SFJEFF's posts, I would most likely to be correct in saying that his/her posts are riddled, as is usual, with useless ad hominem nonsense garbage.

Why can no one show where precisely in an English law case that it was (allegedly) held that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject?

Why is it so hard?

It should be easy, if you reckon it exists.

Quote the precise text, verbatim.

And why is it so hard to say which "common law" the US Supreme Court was referring to in the Minor v Happersett case, where native-birth was clearly rejected as being sufficient to make a natural born citizen of the US, and not only that, but the Supreme Court judiciary even doubted if native-birth alone was even sufficient to make a citizen at all?

By virtue of this holding of the Supreme Court judiciary in the Minor court (as described above) it is clear that, given that native-birth was the only thing common between the two entities being discussed by the court, that being born to US citizen parents is what made ALL THE DIFFERENCE between what the court held was a natural born citizen and what the court held was probably not a citizen at all.

What "common law" was it, the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar, that doubted if native-birth was sufficient to even make a citizen at all?

 

I read your post four times. I'm still looking.

So what? Jus soli citizenship has still always been based on allegiance. The territorial limits merely define where that automatic allegiance begins and where it ends.

Seriously. What idiot would ever imagine it actually had something to do with dirt?

Of course there isn't. That was covered under the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause.

Don't be stupid. Better yet, go read the Wong Kim Ark decision again. Justice Gray explains it in detail. Even better... go read Calvin's case again. And don't cut out the parts that screw up your failed argument this time.

 

Again? Seriously, Mike. How many times do we have to do that?

One more time, from Calvin's case with feeling: