'natural Born' English common law cited in SCOTUS, but what did Coke really mean?

Discussion in 'Political Science' started by MichaelN, Nov 12, 2011.

  1. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=...itle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27

    It appears that it has become generally accepted per English common law that a child born in England to an alien father = a natural born subject.

    But is that the whole truth?

    Has this notion been cherry-picked to suit an agenda?

    Here's what Lord Coke (Calvin's case) said on the matter, where it appears that it was the 'subject' (ka - 'citizen' in USA) status of the parent father, that was the primary, essential quality required to make a child of said parent father, an English 'natural born subject'.

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

    Note that their were two essential qualities required to make one a 'natural born subject'.

    (****Calvin was held to be a 'natural born subject')

    Note that their were two essential qualities required to make one a 'natural born subject'.

    Note that if the alien-born, parent father was not a 'subject' (due to lacking ligeance/obedience) then his child, even if born in England could not be a 'subject' let alone a 'natural born subject'.

    The word 'ligeance' may be expressed as 'obedience'.

    So it appears that for a child, who is born in England, to be a 'natural born subject', the parent father of said child must be a 'subject', for that child to be 'born under the ligeance of a subject'.

    Born in the land, without any consideration of the parent father's subject/citizen status, is NOT sufficient to make a 'natural born' subject/citizen.

    .
     
  2. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    37,006
    Likes Received:
    920
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the voters, the electoral college, the ENTIRE congress and the ENTIRE judiciary disagree with you.

    what does that tell you?
     
  3. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,086
    Likes Received:
    325
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What does English Common law have to do with US law? Our laws concerning natural born citizenship are spelled out very clearly in Title 8 of the US Code.

     
  4. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    English common law was cited in SCOTUS Wong Kim Ark case, this is the source of the DeceptObots absurd erroneous notion that born in the land is sufficient to make a 'natural born', which is absolute garbage.

    The lie has been going on for so long now that most believe it to be true.

    “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed”. Adolf Hitler quotes (German Chancellor, leader of the Nazi party, 1889-1945)

    As you can see the absurd notion that born in the land, without consideration of the parent father's subject/citizen status, would be sufficient to make a 'natural born', is not to be found in English common law, i.e. Lord Coke's report of Calvin's case at all.

    It's a big fat lie!

    According to Lord Coke, the parent father must a subject/citizen, for his child, if born in the land, to be a natural born subject/citizen, i.e. the child must be born under the ligeance of a subject/citizen.


    .
     
  5. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It tells me that you have nothing to refute what I have posted, so you rely on the same old fallacious mantra that you keep preaching ad nauseum.

    What voters, etc.............. i.e.third parties might or might or might not agree with is completely irrelevant to the subject matter.

    Now you have had your boring say, kindly butt-out, if you have nothing to contribute, and don't spoil the discussion with the kind of garbage that you have been proliferating the other threads with.

    If you can't address the subject matter of the thread, then butt-out!

    Thanks in advance.
    .
     
  6. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    37,006
    Likes Received:
    920
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lol, your argument was addressed and refuted in the other thread.

    Now, answer the question. what does it tell you that the voters, the electoral college, the ENTIRE congress and the ENTIRE judiciary say you're definition is wrong?
     
  7. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,804
    Likes Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lets not forget the Indiana Court of Appeals, who state very clearly that Wong Kim Ark leads to the conclusion that anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen.

    But feel free to continue arguing what Coke really means. Because I don't care what Coke meant. The concensus opinion of what the definition is for natural born citizen in the United States is and has been clear to all of us raised here.
     
  8. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,694
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    All my instincts tell me that the OP is wrong. But the adolescent thuggery which characterize the replies are truly pathetic. For the OP to be wrong it must be demonstrated why these judgements have no force in US (or English) law. As common law is the system of law in the USA and cases prior to the 1776 from England are part of that system, then the points need to be answered. I am sure a competent legal commentator can do this. I am also sure that none has, as posters here seem to prefer abuse to argument, and lazy thinking to research.

    I would be interested in any rulings (such as the one cited) and why they rule in favor of freeborn birthrights. It is, as far as I am aware, also the case in England that freeborn rights exist. This extends to other common law jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong. Conversely, countries based on code Napoleon systems, like Germany, deny this right. I suspect that it is one of the strengths of common law that it guarantees these freeborn rights.
     
  9. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    37,006
    Likes Received:
    920
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He's posted this same argument in several birther threads in the conspiracy forum. Its been debunked over and over. That's why he ran away and posted this nonsense here. Go to the conspiracy forum
     
  10. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,086
    Likes Received:
    325
    Trophy Points:
    0
    TRY US LAW, Mike.

    Natural-born citizen

    Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

    The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

    Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

    * Anyone born inside the United States *
    * Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
    * Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
    * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
    * Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
    * Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
    * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
    * A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

    * There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

    http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
     
  11. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It hasn't been debunked, no one has come up with an alternative explanation for what Lord Coke said, including YOU!

    Give it a try ............... instead of fence-sitting the topic, slinging garbage.

    If you really need to discuss the poster, then go to your messages forum, try to grow some respect for the thread which not for general discussion about the posters on the thread.

    .
     
  12. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Margot.

    What has this to do with Article II "natural born Citizen" ??????

    You start with the title 'Natural-born citizen' (with a hyphen) and then proceed to cite a US Code that is ONLY about qualifying to be a 'citizen', with NOTHING to do with an Article II "natural born Citizen" (without a hyphen).

    You might need to read my opening post again.


    .
     
  13. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Indiana state court opinions take no precedence over nor carry any legal weight to supersede SCOTUS in Minor v Happerset, where the holding was that two US citizen parents were required to make a child, if born in US, an Article II "natural born Citizen".

    I know you wish that it were otherwise, but you will just have to live with the reality, that wishing just doesn't make things the way you want them to be.

    I am still waiting for an alternative explanation as to what Lord Coke was talking about, why don't you have a go SFJEFF?

    .
     
  14. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    37,006
    Likes Received:
    920
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  15. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    37,006
    Likes Received:
    920
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  16. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,804
    Likes Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nor have I said that it did Micheal. Lets stay on track shall we?

    I pointed out that the Indiana Court of Appeals- a body of actual legal experts- explained that Wong Kim Ark made it clear that anyone born in the United States is a Natural Born Citizen.

    Your opinion has no legal weight- and no legal expertise. The Indiana Court of Appeals however does have gravitas- they are legal experts, using their expertise to explain why the law says that any person born in the United States is a Natural Born Citizen.

    You can complain all you want about their opinion, but their opinion is not only that of legal experts, it reflects the reality of the votes cast by the voters, the election of Obama by the Electoral College, the confirmation of Obama by Congress, the swearing in of Obama by Chief Justice Roberts, and the opinions of former Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, Senator Lindsey Graham, etc, etc.

    What you are arguing is an obscure, and novel interpretation of Natural Born Citizen that is not accepted by anyone but yourself.

    And that is frankly just an outright lie, Michael. Minor at no point defines Natural Born Citizen as requiring two U.S. Citizen parents. Minor specifically says that anyone born in the U.S. might be a Natural Born citizen, and that Minor was not going to be deciding that.

    Exactly. The reality is that anyone born in the United States is considered a natural born citizen. This is the reality which allowed the election of Barack Obama, and is the reality that virtually every American understands.

    I have had this conversation with you before Michael- just like you, I am no expert on English law. I frankly don't care about English law. However, I have read Minor, and Wong Kim and Ankeny. I remember my civics lessons from growing up. And the concensus opinion in the United States- both among the general population and within the legal community is that anyone born in the U.S., other than the children of diplomats and invading armies, is a natural born citizen.

    I don't care what Lord Coke said. And I have seen enough lawyers who do understand Lord Coke, destroy your analysis, only to have you refuse to accept the actual words themselves, to realize that there is no point in engaging with you on this issue that I neither care about, and that you will refuse to accept any contradictions.
     
  17. kshRox01

    kshRox01 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    847
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That our system is totally corrupt and supported by eunichs who pander instead of question authority.
     
  18. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    37,006
    Likes Received:
    920
    Trophy Points:
    113
    so EVERYONE is in on the conspiracy, and only you and a few other birthers know the truth?
     
  19. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,804
    Likes Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Shhhhh...you aren't supposed to let them know....
     
  20. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,694
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Your conclusion is flawed. But this comment is bizarre:

    My interest in this question is specifically concerning the issue of English common law and its applicability to other common law jurisdictions. Common law, as opposed to Roman law or codified systems not based on common law, from my perspective represents the evolution of common rights, and a limitation of the arbitrary power of the executive, or in ancient times, King. Common law therefore represents an ancient common wisdom, that of the common people, which though not universal in itself – as time slowly shapes this wisdom – is a strong indicator of the universality of rights, their innate common sense, and therefore a sound basis for the arrangement of the affairs of society where the power of the executive, and as it later developed, the legislature, is checked by the principles of law which protect the individual against the tyranny of the majority.

    It is on this basis that the United States of America adopted common law as the basis of its legal system – explicitly in the constitutions and or legal codes of certain US states, and implicitly by its de facto use as the legal system of the USA. As in England, some offences in the USA in some states are not actually contrary to any statute (murder for example) but are simply contrary to common law, which is simply precedent and tradition that goes back to ancient times, beyond any monarch or legislature, to what is simply innately understood by the common man to constitute an unlawful act - natural law.

    The principles of common law do come under attack though in US politics, usually in a completely unprincipled way in order to defend or promote some tyrannical policy that is contrary to common law. Here the OP does not take this opportunistic approach. The OP makes a principled legal argument, which needs to be dealt with in a serious way without denigrating or dismissing the authority of common law, as has been done by some, merely to win an argument or score a point.

    The arguments largely put by some on the xenophobic right are quite simply that common law was never intended to be adopted by the Founding Fathers and that it is a liberal plot to impose British tyrannical laws on freedom loving Americans. All the quotes as to the principles of allegiance and obligation in the OP are specifically characterized as hated British principles of tyrannical oppression which the legally educated (apparently) American colonials (despite a third of them being Crown loyalists) hated with a vengeance. The argument even goes so far to suggest that saying the USA adopted common law, was as absurd as to suggest that the victims of Nazi Germany become Nazis. Therefore, goes this xenophobic argument in its quest to deny the rights of jus solis to newborn Mexican babies born in America, the principle of a freeborn birthright is an un-American principle derived from English tyranny.

    It is a shame, but not a surprise, to see so called “liberals” make common cause with such a reactionary position regarding the common law.

    It is not an accusation that can be leveled at the OP though. The question to me surrounds three levels of law: the codified statute, the Constitutional position (another codified statute) and the common law tradition in itself. Clearly the codified statute determines that “anchor babies” are Americans. But the question is not that, but surrounds the constitutionality (a higher statute that trumps any law made in an ordinary way) of any new attempt to codify these rights and to limit jus solis. To this extent the Constitution has to be interpreted, namely the fourteenth amendment. Under common law, which is the system of law in the United States whatever the far right or misguided left now say, statutes contain principles and precedent is used to interpret these principles and apply them to specific situations.

    So in the interpretation of the constitution of the USA it is perfectly legitimate to look at not just US cases such as Wong Kim Ark but also the cases that those cases also saw as precedent, which takes us to the cases judged by Lord Coke. These cases are highly relevant in determining the principles of common law, jus solis, and their applicability today. Not because we fetishize some anachronistic legal principle, but because we recognize that in the common law lies the wisdom of the common people, over time, tried and tested, which affords the individual a civilized protection against the tyranny of the majority.

    This is why the principles of allegiance to a monarch are not inimical with the USA, but are directly applicable as allegiance to the Republic, and represent the conferring of rights in exchange for duties in exactly the same way the common law prescribed for Englishmen.

    It seems very clear that the principle laid down by Lord Coke are the principles adopted by the US Constitution, and that his references to children of persons at war with the monarch cannot be seen as extending to the children of illegal aliens. An illegal alien is not the same as a person at war with the USA. A child born to a soldier at war with the USA clearly does not owe his allegiance to the USA, but to the Head of State of the country on whose behalf his parents fight the war. This is entirely different to a child of an illegal immigrant, and in no army or expedition on behalf of a foreign prince, and so the event of birth establishes an immediate loyalty to and right of protection from, the country of birth.

    The principle is even clearly quoted by Michael:

    In so far as an illegal alien is not at war with the USA, he comes in amity, and as such is subject to the laws, and the protection of the USA. He is entitled for example to be protected against assault, robbery or murder, in spite of his legal status.

    It is clear that the principles described by Lord Coke, of jus solis, apply both to Wong Kim Ark, determined by SCOTUS and to the fourteenth amendment of the US Constitution, which make any law retracting jus solis, unconstitutional.

    Michael quotes the essence of the case which guarantees the application of jus solis in the case of the children of illegal aliens born in the USA:

    In the case of an illegal immigrant the parents are clearly under the obedience of the US government. If they commit murder, they commit a crime and their entitlement to protection has been established above.

    The USA is within the dominion of the government of the USA.

    At the time of the babies birth, the USA is within the dominion of the government of the USA. This refers to the ruling that those born in Scotland, before the Act of Union, were not subject to the King of England's authority, but that those born after the Act of Union were so subject. This has no bearing on the case of Mexican illegal immigrants.

    Not so. The parents can be aliens who owe obedience, as any foreigner in a country does, to the government or monarch of that country, to the extent that they will follow his laws in return for his protection, as foreigners who visit the USA do. They do not need to be "subjects".

    This is the exception to the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof, which is the phrase from the US Constitition. Someone is not subject to the jurisdiction of the King if they are engaged in acts of war, or by extension, are diplomats or in the service of another King and therefore protected by diplomatic immunity against any ligeance to the King. This clearly does not include Mexican illegal immigrants who are neither members of a Mexican Army at war with the USA, and owing ligeance to the Mexican President, or diplomats in the service of Mexico and subject to diplomatic immunity. They are subject to US law and protection and their children are therefore the same, and so entitled, if born in the USA, to US citizenship under the principles of common law, jus solis, the US Constitution and US statute law. Any law which was not amendment to the US Constitution will be struck down by the SCOTUS as inimical to the US Constitution and the common law principles that the US Constitution explicitly upholds.
     

Share This Page