English Common Law Requires Jus Sanguinis as Essential for Natural Born

Jack Maskell 'researched' only as far as suited Jack's partisan biased agenda of deception and misinformation.

Here's some researched information for ya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partus_sequitur_ventrem

http://medicolegal.tripod.com/stewartuos.htm#p10-english-view

So much for the "English common law" theory.

Here's an example of how OPPOSITE the US law was to English common law on only one instance and there are a myriad of other instances.

http://medicolegal.tripod.com/stewartuos.htm#p10-english-view

So the notion that US "adopted English common law" to such an extent that the eligibility requirement for an electable president of a republic was derived from a single court case in England (i.e. Calvin's case) is ABSURD in the extreme, especially in light of Vattel's profound influence on the framers of the USC and their imperative and duty to secure and protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim.

Here's some more on how English common law was not necessarily the be all end all.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/spring97/blackstone.html

One could spend hours upon hours & pages upon pages shooting holes in and exposing the OBVIOUS bias and deliberately deceptive GARBAGE concocted by Jack Maskell............... I really feel sorry and embarrassed for his family ........ how will they ever live-down his disgusting behavior.

Answer me this .............. how do you get from ............

"the various US states adopted the doctrine of the common law"

to.............

"therefore the framers of USC Article II used an English description for a born subject (not being a qualification for high office of any sort) as an eligibility requirement for an electable president of a republic, completely ignoring the guidance and principles of one their most popular and influential legal philosophers, and completely ignoring their duty and imperative to ensure security and protection of the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim"?

Is it something you smoke?

Btw, here's an interesting article ....

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/12/emer-de-vattel-adolf-hitler-americas.html


.

 

George Mason IV (December 11, 1725 – October 7, 1792) was an American Patriot, statesman and a delegate from Virginia to the U.S. Constitutional Convention.

Along with James Madison, he is called the "Father of the Bill of Rights."

For these reasons he is considered one of the "Founding Fathers" of the United States.[

Mr. GEORGE MASON. - THURSDAY, June 19, 1788.[1]

.

 

.....................

 

What pathetic whining. You have no idea what party Maskell belongs to, and the CRS itself is excruciatingly nonpartisan. It also peer reviews all reports.

With this report, Congress is lost to you completely. And since they are the only body Constitutionally empowered to remove a sitting president, it's over. Perhaps you need a new hobby. Collecting platypus spurs maybe?

 

From the CRS report:

"Those issues or “doubts” raised indictaby the Supreme Court in Happersett in 1875 were,however, answered by the Supreme Court in a later decision in 1898, inUnited States v. Wong Kim Ark , which clearly repudiated the narrow and exclusive “original-community-of-citizens”reasoning of the Court in Dred Scott based on lineage and parentage, in favor of interpreting theConstitution in light of the language and principles of the British common law from which theconcept was derived. The majority opinion of the Court clearly found, by any fair reading of itsreasoning, discussion, and holding, that every person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (that is, not the child of foreign diplomats or of troops in hostile occupation),regardless of the citizenship of one’s parents, is a “natural born” citizen, and that the FourteenthAmendment merelyaffirmed the common law and fundamental rule in this country that one bornon the soil of the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a “natural born” citizen"

Meanwhile it is always amusing to see how Birthers attack those who have the temerity to contradict Birther orthodoxies.

The CRS memo reflects what all Americans know- which is why the Court of Appeals of Indiana said the same thing, and why Chief Justice Roberts swore in President Obama.

Guess they taught it wrong in Australia Mike.

 

The single most delicious understatement from the CRS report:

"It would appear to be somewhat fanciful to contend that in employing terms in the U.S. Constitution the framers would disregard the specific and express meaning of those precise terms in British common law, the law in the American colonies, and subsequently in all of the states in the United States after independence, in favor of secretly using, without comment or explanation, a contrary, non-existent English translation of a phrase in a French-language treatise on international law."

 

Just shows that even government employees have a better sense of humor than Birthers.

 

The English common law definition of a 'natural born' has since at least as far back as 14th century ALWAYS been with regard to the 'subject' status of the parent father.

But 'honest' Jack Maskell doesn't want to go there.

Basically according to Lord Coke in his report of Calvin's case ............

father not a subject = child not a subject nor a natural born subject, even if born in England.

The citing of Calvin's case in WKA was selective in cherry-picking "child of alien, if born in England = 'natural born subject' ".

This error has been perpetuated in subsequent cases that have cited the cherry-picked half-baked definition that gives an impression of a completely different definition to 'natural born' than actually was expressed in the English common law.

It omits and fails to address statements by Coke that are crucial to the point being made, i.e.

As anyone can see, it is the subject/citizen status of the parent father that is the MOST crucial and essential criteria in determining the 'natural born' status of the child.

Hope your reading this Jack Maskell............... your pathetic partisan and desperate deception has been exposed.

English common law has ALWAYS held from at least 14th century that it is the 'subject' status of the parent father that is essential and paramount in determining 'natural born' status of the child.

Cite Jack and his cohorts garbage all you like, it only shows the extent of intellectual dishonesty these deceivers have indulged in.

Jack's garbage can easily be picked apart and shown for the absurd nonsense that it is.

Here is a list of links that will allow those who might be interested in the truth, see how Jack Maskell has engaged in deceiving and mis-informing the US Congress.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/06/27/without-partisan-bias/

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05...ibility-not-released-to-the-public-until-now/

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/31/presidential-eligibility-part-2/

www.thepostemail.com/2011/06/02/grand-finale-presidential-eligibility/



.

 

...................

 

You are flailing. As long as the child was born on British soil, the 'subject' status of the father was irrelevant. Outside of the tendentious and incompetent analyses that you personally expectorate all over the blogosphere, there is really no serious question regarding that simple fact. Not even among Birthers.

As Maskell notes...

"There appears to be little scholarly debate that the English common law at the time of independence included at least all persons born on the soil of England (jus soli, that is, 'law of the soil'), even to alien parents, as 'natural born' subjects (unless the alien parents were diplomatic personnel of a foreign nation, or foreign troops in hostile occupation). As noted by the Supreme Court of the United States, this 'same rule' was applicable in the colonies and 'in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution' with respect to 'natural born' U.S. citizenship."

Note again that even your fellow Birthers do not take your silly spinning seriously. You stand naked and alone in the bizarre and anomalous proposition that English common law actually agrees with the Birther position rather than refutes it. The rest of your brethren prefer the alternate impossibility of Vattelism; even they would prefer to violate the laws of physics rather than make the silly assertion that English common law says what you claim.

Again... we do not rely on the CRS report. The United States Congress does. Certainly you have noticed by now the Congress has never been particularly congenial to Birther fantasy. This most recent report (as exhaustively researched and referenced as it is regarding the Constitutional, judicial and legislative history of US citizenship law) is a final nail in the coffin of your aspirations for Congressional cooperation in your crusade.

And since the Congress is the only body on the planet with Constitutional authority to remove a sitting precedent, it is officially over.

 

Garbage!

According to Lord Coke in his report of Calvin's case ..... as you have been shown, it is the subject status of the parent father that is ESSENTIAL in determining the 'natural born' status of the child born in England.

But since you are the 'expert', it should be easy for you to explain that Coke meant other than that.

Here are some excerpts from Calvin's case, what does 'nature and birthright' mean?

If the 'natural born' owes ligeance by 'birthright', then what is the 'nature' part about?

What is the 'procreation' part about?

Could the 'nature' and 'procreation' parts mean, by the Law of Nature, by way of the parent father's 'subject' status?

The status of the parent does REALLY matter, contrary to your whining and bleating in denial.

So, now you explain how the parent father was irrelevant.

.

 

maybe one day, you'll actually get around to addressing this little inconvenient tid bit............

 

I'm not the guy you have to convince of that. And the people you do have to convince already know that you have your head firmly in rectal defilade.

Sea shells. Maybe you should collect sea shells.

 

So, now you have had your little desperate attempt at diversion from the point at hand...................

YOU explain how the parent father was irrelevant.

Let's see if you can back-up your claim that the parent father's status is irrelevant, with some worthwhile evidence...... at least try, even though we both know you were belching hot air when you made that false claim.

Waiting......




Maybe you could get 'honest' Jack Maskell to 'invent' a case for you.

.

 

Michael, what particular benefit is to be found in slaying again the already slain? You have completely and authoritatively lost this argument. This has been true for months, and you have had your arguments eviscerated on at least a half dozen different web forums where I have watched you appear, spin and flee. This was true even before the Congressional Research Service published its most recent scholarly review of US citizenship law.

There is a point at which the coffin cannot possibly bear any additional nails.

So no... just because you have returned with a long discredited argument does not obligate anybody to AGAIN demonstrate its vacuous insufficiency. You may never get tired of repeating yourself, but more reasonable people do.

Perhaps fossil collecting? I hear marsupial bones are a hot commodity.

 

Evidence? President Barack Obama- whose father's status was irrelevant when he was elected, confirmed by Congress and sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts.

Evidence? Actual legal experts-The Appeals Court of Indiana- not an anonymous poster from Australia- have stated their opinion that the decision in Wong confirms that the father's citizenship status is irrelevant.

Evidence? The Congressional Research Service provided Congress with a complete summary of the evidence. And in case Australia never taught you this, Congress is the only body that counts when it comes to determining whether to confirm a President's election, or when it comes to removing a President.

Evidence? Frankly, you don't care about evidence. You made up your mind long ago, and believe your own theories, and are completely removed by what American's know and understand.

And just one more time-

Evidence: President Barack Obama.

 

That's really pathetically lame and a whole lot of garbage.

Translation of your feeble excuse = You can't back-up your false claim, so you spew the same 'ol default comment that some phantoms already made the case for you and 'discredited' my argument so no need for you to make your case.

The fact of the matter is that you can't back-up your false claim, simply because it is not true ................ it's a LIE.

My point is proven fact, i.e. the parent father must be a 'subject' for his child, if born in 17th century England, to be a 'natural born subject'.

Ergo: if the parent father was not a 'subject', then his child, even if born in England, cannot be a 'subject' nor a 'natural born subject' because (as Coke states) the child would NOT be "born under the ligeance of a subject".

It must really suck when your LIE has been shown for what it is.

You are so desperate to protect from exposure & perpetuate the Obama fraud that you sell-out to the dark-side and shroud yourself and hide in lies and deceit.

You have a problem.

.

 

Michael.. why dont you just break down and read US LAW?

 

Another one who can't address the point being made and makes all kid of feeble excuses, wiggling and squirming to avoid the truth that has been pointed-out.

Maybe YOU would care to show how the status of the parent father is "irrelevant"?

Waiting................


.

 

What I found in "US LAW" can be seen at the bottom of all my posts.



.

 

You don't seem to know anything at all about US law. There is no controversy about Obama except for ignorant people..

Anyone can read the law unless they are dumb as a brick.

 

Here's the LIE.

Originally Posted by WongKimArk

Here's what is found in English common law - Lord Coke - Calvin's case - which exposes the blabber of WongKimArk as a LIE.

There has not been one argument that supports and proves the FALSE notion that the status of the parent is irrelevant ........ not one!

Brace yourselves, due to lack of any substance and in desperation to perpetuate the fraud .............................. incoming fallacy soon to be flung.

 

Sorry.. I am embarrassed for you... I can't tell you how embarrassed I am.

 

I am not the one trying desperately to defend long debunked lies from the other side of the planet.

We won, Mike. You lost. We know it. You don't.

It is clear that "pathetically lame and a whole lot of garbage" is a better reflection of your sad state than ours. Not that it matters.

Ankeny v. Daniels

 

By applying the 17th century English common law to US we can see how it all works.

The 17th century English 'natural born subject' is such via ..........

The "birthright" part is explained via.......

But what about the "nature" and/or "procreation" that Lord Coke speaks of?

What do you suppose it means?

I say it means by being born to a parent father who is a "subject".

Use of the word "procreation" confirms this.

So we have 17th century English common law definition of a "natural born subject" as one who is born in the realm & qualified by TWO ESSENTIAL elements, i.e. by procreation via a subject father and by being born in the realm.

Then we look at the USC Article II term "natural born Citizen" and we have one who is born to a citizen parent father and in the US.

Then we look at SCOTUS case of Minor v Happersett and we can see that it all works-out just fine.

Then we can look at several and various other court cases, that confirm that it's all good............ born in the land to subject/citizen parent father is what makes a 'natural born' subject/citizen.

Thanks to Mario Appuzo, here is a list of those cases taken from a very informative article authored by Mario Appuzo, which can be read here.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/12/emer-de-vattel-adolf-hitler-americas.html

But wait for it! ......... there's gonna be a tantrum infested barrage of hot air like.................................. "it's not so, because I or someone else that I mined-up said so" LOL

.