English Common Law Requires Jus Sanguinis as Essential for Natural Born

No, really none of us do.

Barack Obama was elected President, confirmed and sworn in.

Nothing you post here affects any of that.

Barack Obama remains President, and he will be on the ballot in 2012, as everyone in the United States will ignore what you think the Constitution says.

Americans know what the Constitutions says.

What problem?

 

One more time- just because I feel like responding, even though the truth has no more effect on you than a match on a glacier:

"There is only one court decision which squarely interprets the "natural born citizen" clause as applied to a candidate for president, which is Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Indiana Ct. App. 2009, ). The Ankeny court ruled that the citizenship of President Obama's father is irrelevant:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

I will note one more time, that the Indiana Court of Appeals is composed of actual recognized legal experts. And you are....well not one.

So let us recap one more time everyone who says Michael is wrong:

A) American Voters
B) The Electoral College
C) Congress
D) Chief Justice Roberts
E) The Indiana Court of Appeals
F) The Congressional Research Service
G) Senator Lindsey Graham (R)
H) Senator Orin Hatch (R)

Now a list of those who agree with Michael:
A) Kerchner
B) Apuzzo
C) Donofrio
D) Orly

Did I miss anyone?

From now on I will just keep reposting Ankeny v Daniels or CRS because it doesn't make any difference what we say to Aussie Mike. He will always be convinced that he is right, and everyone else is either wrong or corrupt.

 

where? your signature is from a case that had exactly nothing to do with citizenship.

 

Still no one can address the Lord Coke statements that VERY CLEARLY define a 'natural born' as one born in the land to a subject/citizen parent father.

No one ... not one of the vast array of "scholars" who have made and/or support the false claim that the parent's status is "irrelevant" in the making of a natural born.

And here we still have WongKimArk same ol, same ol, dancing around blowing hot air, ducking and weaving, attempting diversion and unable to back-up his LIE that the parents father's subject status is "irrelevant". lol

Give it a shot WKA ................ cat got ya tongue?

SFJEFF feverishly blabbering fallacious garbage about how many or who might disagree with the argument, attempting to evade the point being argued, still hasn't got the guts to argue the point.
rotflmfao

All these gymnastics is like circus entertainment .

.

 

What's his name wasted a week patiently trying to explain to you why you were wrong. His efforts were wasted. As are any efforts trying to convince you of anything. So I will point out once again:

Barack Obama is President. And will be on the 2012. Because no one believes the idiocy you promote.

So once again- real legal experts:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

I will note one more time, that the Indiana Court of Appeals is composed of actual recognized legal experts. And you are....well not one.

So let us recap one more time everyone who says Michael is wrong:

A) American Voters
B) The Electoral College
C) Congress
D) Chief Justice Roberts
E) The Indiana Court of Appeals
F) The Congressional Research Service
G) Senator Lindsey Graham (R)
H) Senator Orin Hatch (R)

Just Aussie Mike, trying to tell us Americans we are all wrong.

 

Here is how it all works:

This is the law of the United States of America.

 

No one needs to address it.

Just as in Minor v. Happersett, that is not the only way one can be a natural born citizen.

 

And still WongKimArk is unable to back-up his LIE with ANY evidence at all.

Hot air!

Now to deal with his side-step.

See the high-lighted parts.

The law of England applied to subjects of the English sovereign, who were in US....................... so what?

In fact there came a time when the English pushed it too hard and .....

Here's some more from the dicta of the Wong Kim Ark case you quoted from.

There is NO US law that all persons born within the US whilst subject to the jurisdiction of the US, are natural-born US subjects.

None! ...... in fact SCOTUS cases (see listing of cases in my prior post) say that a US "natural born Citizen" is one born in US of US Citizen parents.

Here's some more from the Wong Kim Ark (same case you quoted from)...

and more from Wong Kim Ark ........

As much a citizen, not as much a natural born citizen.

The CLEAR distinction between 'citizen' and 'natural born' citizen' and 'native-born citizen' was made on numeraous occasions throughout the Wong Kim Ark case................ the final ruling of the court confirms this........... Wong got ruled a 'citizen' by 14th Amendment, by birthright, but NOT 'natural born'.

It is OBVIOUS that the SCOTUS considered children born in US to alien parentage had birthright claim to US citizenship (nothing to do with natural born, but rather "native born").

As was cited In McCreery v. Somerville, (1824) 9 Wheat. 354,........ "children born in that State of an alien who was still living, and who had not been naturalized, were "native-born citizens of the United States,"

and here's some more from Wong Kim Ark case ....

And here's how it works, even after all the chit chat about 'natural born'........... Wong Kim Ark was ruled to be ONLY a "CITIZEN" and NOT "natural born".

This is the law of the United States of America.
----------------------------------------------------

Btw, still waiting for you to show using the report of Calvin's case that the parents were irrelevant.


.

 

Not according to every actual legal expert in the United States Michael.

Really- this is the law only in your mind.

 

From Lord Coke and Calvin's Case:

From Wong Kim Ark:

Perhaps you should start a eucalyptus leaf collection to fill your time.

 

A question. Did the case of Wong Kim Ark specifically defer to prior precedent regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen?

 

A question. Did the case of Wong Kim Ark specifically defer to prior precedent regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen?

 

A question. Did the case of Wong Kim Ark specifically defer to prior precedent regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen?

 

A question. Did the case of Wong Kim Ark specifically defer to prior precedent regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen?

 

Of course. It deferred to the prior precedent of 400 years of English common law.

 

The direct US Supreme Court precedent is stated in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). The Court noted that Mrs. Minor was born in the US to parents who were citizens. The Court stated that such persons were “natural-born citizens”. The Court also stated – as to such persons – that their “citizenship” was never in doubt. In doing so, the Court in Minor directly construed Article 2 Section 1 of the US Constitution, not the 14th Amendment. The Court in Wong Kim Ark took the question on directly as to who is a citizen under the 14th Amendment, but that case did not directly construe Article 2 Section 1, whereas Minor did. In order to avoid construing the 14th Amendment, the Court in Minor had to define those who fit into the class of “natural-born citizens”. Mrs. Minor fit into that class. Mr. Obama does not.

 

Minor had exactly nothing to do with citizenship.

I smell another sock

 

Real actual legal experts say otherwise:

The Court of Appeals of Indiana:
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”"

The Congressional Research Service:
"That the place of birth was the rule governing “natural born” citizenship under American jurisprudence, regardless of the status of one’s parents (except for children of official diplomatsor hostile armies), even before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, was explained by theSupreme Court inUnited States v. Wong Kim Ark,in 1898, which noted that the FourteenthAmendment “affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children born here of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within andduring a hostile occupation of part of our territory ....”213The Supreme Court inWong Kim Ark cited with approval those previous judicial rulings which held that every child born on the soil of the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are “natural born” citizens of this country,without regard to the nationality or citizenship status of their parents.214The Supreme Court, thistime using the term “native born citizen” again explained in that case: Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the FourteenthAmendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the CivilRights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, atleast, born within the sovereignty of the United States,whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreigngovernment,were native-born citizens of the United States"

And lets not forget the voters of the United States, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts who all declared through their actions that President Obama was eligible to serve.

I gotta love how Birthers still try to pull out Minor as supporting their cause...even when Minor says specifically that President Obama might be a natural born citizen- and that it wasn't answering that question.

Birthers- lol

 

There is no such precedent in Minor v. Happersett. The case was a suffrage case not a citizenship case, and Virginia Minor's citizenship was never an issue before the court. It cannot set precedent for an issue that is not before it.

In point of fact, the Minor decision never even mentions Virginia Minor's parents, and certainly never tells us that they were citizens.

Ignoring that this was mere dicta, it is also explicitly not a complete and exclusive definition. The court refused to settle the status of children born on US soil to alien parents, leaving that question for later courts. The Wong Kim Ark court took up that issue and settled it. It determined that the children of aliens (who are not of foreign diplomats or alien armies in hostile occupation) are also natural born US citizens.

Any distinction between citizenship under the 14th Amendment vs the Constitution as originally framed is non-existent as several courts have pointed out that the former is merely declarative of the latter.

See comment immediately above.

Both fit the class of natural born citizen, even though neither case ended up declaring either Wong Kim Ark or Virginia Minor to be "natural born citizens."

You know this stuff Darryl. Why do you keep coming back and pretending that you don't?

 

The Congressional Memo is flawed and just one mans opinion. The Minor case has been severely misconstrued in the Ankeny opinion issued by the Indiana Court of Appeals. That court quoted Minor’s natural-born citizen language, then stated:

“Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”

False. The Minor Court did not leave that question open. Nowhere in the Minor opinion does it state that the class of persons who are natural-born citizens is an open question. The Ankeny Court has it backwards. The Supreme Court in Minor stated that the “citizenship” of persons who were not natural born citizens was an open question. The “citizenship” of those born to non-citizen parents was a question that the Minor Court avoided. But they avoided that question by directly construing Article 2 Section 1. In doing so, the Supreme Court in Minor defined the class of persons who were born in the US to citizen parents as “natural-born citizens”. Since Minor, no Amendment has been adopted which changes that definition, and no other Supreme Court case has directly construed Article 2 Section 1.
The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark only construed the question of who was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, it did not construe Article 2 Section 1. Therefore, Minor and Wong Kim Ark do not compete with each other at all. Minor is the standing precedent for construction of the natural-born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1, and Wong Kim Ark is the standing precedent as to “citizenship” under the 14th Amendment

 

Actually, you are wrong yet again, Darryl. Maskell didn’t just write this up alone, have it printed, & then make it available for distribution. Before the report left the American Law Division in CRS, where he works, it had to be peer-reviewed at the section level (Maskell is in the ALD Courts Section) & then at the division level by the Assistant CRS Director who heads the division & her Deputy Assistant Director. From there it must go up to the CRS Director’s office for another separate review. If Maskell’s draft had not passed muster at any level, it would have gone back to him for revision & rewrite. The final published report reflects not just Makell’s 38 years of experience in CRS making sense of complex constitutional issues, but also the vetting of at least four other experienced colleagues.

What an odd assertion. The Minor court simply did not settle the issue of the citizenship status of US born children of aliens. Even had it not explicitly pointed out that such "doubts" were not necessary to settle for the purposes of the immediate case, it would have still been an open question because of their silence.

It is simple a fact that the Minor "definition" is not exclusive and makes no claim to exclusivity. It merely points out that at least one class of children are doubtlessly natural born, and defers any discussion of any other class of children.

It is one of the enduring mysteries of Birthism that the Ankeny decision was never appealed by the Birthers. It seems the perfect opportunity to get their allegedly desired Supreme Court review of the definition of natural born citizen... but instead they ran screaming from the field.

To what can that be attributed other than Birther fear?

 

Ah yes- The Congressional Research Service is wrong.

The Appeals Court of Indiana is wrong.

The voters were wrong.

The Electoral College was wrong.

Congress was wrong.

Chief Justice Roberts was wrong.

Senator Lindsey Graham is wrong.

Senator Orin Hatch is wrong.

This the Birther explanation of how virtually every legal expert disagrees with them, why the voters disagree with them, why Congress etc disagree with them.

Well anyone raised in the U.S. knows that anyone born in the U.S. can aspire to grow up and be President. The CRS and the Indiana Court of Appeals are merely affirming what we all know, and what Wong Kim Ark was affirming.

Oh and the CRS report is not just one man's opinion. It is the official position of the CRS- peer reviewed within the CRS, and reviewed and approved by his supervisor before being issued.

Birthers lol.

 

Originally Posted by Anonymous Politician
"The direct US Supreme Court precedent is stated in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)."

I don't need to add anything on this topic, but rather will leave this quote from..... http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/justiagate-say-it-aint-so-carl-malamud/

@ WongKimArk
Still waiting for an explanation of what Lord Coke meant by "nature and birthright" and "procreation and birthright" ........ do you have anymore "because I said so!" LIES in your arsenal to use as cover and duck this point?


.

 

It's not a question of need. It is a question of capacity. You have repeatedly proven that you don't have anything to add on this topic.

Re: The comment in Ex Parte Lockwood.

Virginia Minor's citizenship was never an issue before the court.

I have this, from which you have consistently run away every time:

 

Yes, in ENGLAND the local ligeance of the alien-born parent father is REQUIRED to make the child of said father, if born in the realm, a 'natural born subject'.

This supports the point I have made where Lord Coke stated that the 'subject' status of the parent father is ESSENTIAL in determining the subject status of the child.

If the alien-born parent father were to not be a 'subject', then his child, even if born in Engalnd, 'cannot be a subject'.

Try again................... your 'because I said so!' LIE is only hot air.

What do you suppose Lord Coke meant when referring to the essential qualities that make a 'natural born subject' when he said.....

"nature and birthright" & "procreation and birthright"

"Double" born on the soil? lol

Here's some information on the precedent of Minor v Happersett.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2739696/posts

On precedents generally.

.