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

Oh seriously. The brand of crazy you are peddling is just too crazy for me to even attempt to debate. I won't even say you are wrong, because your statements are so out there that wrong is like saying a black hole is sort of dark. Have this conversation with Michael or with yourself.

 

I couldn't give a rats chuff about this subject. I am interested in the principle of jus solis and am not going to frame my conclusions on any prejudice as to whether I politicaly favour Obama's claim to the post of POTUS.

I repeat:

Sigh.

I believe the principles of jus solis are applicable to the fourteenth amendment

It is my contention that this 14th Amendment, though it does not use the term "natural born" is based on Coke's definition of natural born subject. This is not "nonsense". Your rudeness is inappropriate.

BUT LET"S NOT GO THERE YET...once we have established what Coke meant, we can then tackle this next question as to whether my assertion can follow.

BEFORE we get distracted into exchanging abuse (high handed and arrogant dismissals of "nonsense" tend to have this effect), I suggest that we confine the discussion to what Lord Coke meant, if you please. After this we can proceed to its implications, even that of the POTUS, if you wish.

Please confirm that what is in bold, in my post above, is your position, so we can begin. Unless each side can fairly state the other's position, constructive debate is not possible. This is what I am attempting to do. This is a serious discussion on legal areas (Calvin case) which lawyers acknowledge to be highly complex. Rigour, structure and discipline are vital if such discussions are to be of any value.

The thing is that if we take the three sentences in bold that I am saying are your argument, I think the third sentence is easiest for me to refute. After that I think that the two "for sake of argument" premises, that once the third sentence is refuted I would then need to establish, are more difficult for me to prove. The applicability of common law, Coke and the analogy of the terms "subject" and "citizen" is more problematic.

It is your interpretation of what you say Lord Coke meant that I find to be the most illogical. And that is the title of this thread, so forgive me if I ask us to focus on it.

 

Margot; I'm reasonably sure you understand the 14th A was written/ratified to protect the newly freed slaves and their children, not necessarily for people born in 1961...

http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html#Am14

http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/improvi...s/parliamentary/defending-the-indefensible/15

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

Without getting involved with another thread on this issue, your welcome to read over the above information and judge for yourself whether a child born to Obama Sr., was or was not a British Subject. It would be my judgement, jurisdiction was in force for the British, then both Senior and then Junior were subjects regardless where Jr. was born. I believe you or someone mentioned a requirement for registration, which IMO was not necessary. Remember it's the time of birth, the law at that point were concerned with. If Obama Jr, born a Subject never applied for Citizenship any citizenship imposed by other National Law would not disqualify his British Subject status.

 

Try reading the statues.. Doesn't say a thing about slaves.

British law does NOT apply in the US.... It really is that SIMPLE.

You should understand that if you are living or working in Italy or Germany or anywhere else.. you are subject to their jurisdiction.

 

Margot, that explanation you seem to disagree with is the explanation found on the most used link to the US Constitution. Your welcome to argue with them, but I'm satisfied they correctly explained the INTENT....

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec2

Actually 48 States follow British Common Law principles, two French, but the point is, in 1961 Obama was born a British Subject, whether he knew it or not and whether the US recognized their definition. I believe the US did, in law and at the time.

Yes, your subject to their laws, but you also fall under several treaties, international law and agreements affording you additional rights. Jurisdiction simply means "the right/power/authority to speak for" and any Nation a person comes from has certain rights, even if in the US. Additionally you DON'T necessarily have equal rights to the citizens of that Nation, voting, holding office, tax obligation and so forth...

 

Which definition are you on about?

The general (arguable) definition or in the context of US Constitution Article II?

I am concerned with the latter, and also with addressing the absurd notion that the framers of USC Article II sourced the term and it's definition from English common law i.e. Lord Coke - Calvin's case.

I am concerned further with addressing the absurd notion that a study of Calvin's case can only bring one to the conclusion that a 'natural born subject' is determined solely by jus soli, the common mantra being a child of an alien, if born in England, is a 'natural born subject', when in fact this is not completely true........ it has been conveniently cherry-picked to suit an agenda.

The 14th Amendment, makes no mention of 'natural born Citizen' nor of anything to do with presidential eligibility, it was not an amendment to alter Article II presidential eligibility clause, it was to address issues with the citizenship of freed slaves.

'Natural born Citizen' is ONLY mentioned once in USC and it is an eligibility requirement solely for the office of POTUS ............. of course there is an element or quality of jus soli in this eligibility requirement, but even the jus soli quality DOES NOT necessarily have its origins in English common law.

Vattel 212 comes to mind, so even though the quality of jus soli may be found in both English common law and in Vattel 212, it does not follow that the framers of the USC sourced the principle from English common law.

This thread is not about 14th Amendment.

It is about what Coke really stated in Calvin's case as to what essential qualities are required to make a 'natural born subject' as opposed to the cherry-picked half-truth notion that jus soli was all that was required tp make a 'natural born subject'.

Good idea.

.

 

The key passages are as follows:

The case concerns primarily the rights of Robert Calvin:

The question of this case as to matter in law was, whether Robert Calvin the Plaintiff (being born in Scotland since the Crown of England descended to His Majesty) be an alien born, and consequently disabled to bring any real or personal action for any lands within the realm of England.

and it describes the status of Calvin's father versus Calvin himself:

There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita, and this originally is due by nature and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia

...the third is ligeantia localis 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

Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of the subject’s part. And this appeareth in (the case of) Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum; for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject: a fortiori he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which as it hath been said, is alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to be a natural born subject; for localis ligeantia est ligeantia infima et minima, et maxime incerta. And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum, 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.

This is the case law under which Lord Coke established the principle of a "natural born subject". It has been termed "jus solis", despite the last sentence which describes the status as deriving from ligentia and obedientia, because, apart from the children of persons coming to the King's "soyl" in acts of war, due to natural "ligentia and obedentia", any child of a person who comes to the King's "realm" in "amity", "born upon his soyl and under his meridian" is a "natural born subject".

Although this seems to practically establishes the principle of jus solis, at least as far as the status of a "natural born subject' is concerned, the question has arisen (from MichaelN) as to whether this also affirms the principle of jus sanguinis.

A natural born subject was not an alien, despite the fact that his father may have been an alien. MichaelN however contends that, as this judgement states that an alien visiting in amity may also be a "natural subject" as one owing a local obedience or ligeance to the King, this also establishes an element of jus sanguinis in that a "natural born subject" has to be born from a parent who is also a subject.

Michael's position on this point, it has to be said, seems logical. However my (new) position (after research) is that this is to mistake Coke's intention to assert either jus solis or jus sanguinis, neither of which were terms known prior to the nineteenth century, jus being a "right". Coke said "nec coelum, nec solum", and this should not be overriden but equally he may also have said nec sanguinis, or anything else other than what he did say which was "by ligentia and obendentia"; this is what he meant. The critical factors for someone to be a "native born citizen" are that their parents owe a local allegiance to the King and that the child is born in the King's dominions, the act of birth conferring alta ligentia upon the child. Both sun and blood are irrelevant to Coke. The key requirement is "allegiance".

The essence of a "natural born citizen" is that he owes allegiance by birth, ie naturally, as he is born under a local allegiance. "subject" here means allegiance and obedience, it does not infer nationality (a more modern notion). Indeed it is clear that the parents remain aliens, despite temporary local allegiance, and therefore quite different from any modern connotations of subject or citizen, which exclude aliens from both categories.

This difference between local and permanent allegiance, is strongly stated in the description of local allegiance as localis ligeantia est ligeantia infima et minima, et maxime incerta - local allegiance is at least minor and at most uncertain. Just as local allegiance does not infer nationality, neither does the status as "natural subject" through ligentia localis, infer the rights, or jus of natural born subjects. Aliens come in amity could not own land. The key distinction was between aliens born and subjects born:

Every man is either Alienigena, an Alien born, or subditus, a subject born. Every Alien is either a friend that is in league, &c. or an enemy that is in open war. &c. ...Every subject is either natus, born, or datus, given or made: And of these briefly in their order. An alien friend, as at this time, a German, a Frenchman, a Spaniard, ... may by the Common Law have, require, and get within this Realm, by gift, trade, or other lawfull means, any treasure, or goods personal whatsoever, as well as any Englishman, and may maintain any action for the same: But Lands within this Realm, or houses (but for their necessary habitation onely) Alien friends cannot acquire, or get, nor maintain any action real or personal, for any land or house, unless the house be for their necessary habitation.

The judgement is that:

Whosoever is born within the King’s power or protection, is no Alien: But Calvin was born under the King’s power and protection; ergo he is no Alien.

And so Calvin is a natural born subject, as well as the child of an alien.

To use this case to derive any conclusion for modern nationality, it is necessary to do three things:

1. To establish the relevance of common law, and the judgements of Lord Coke in general, to American jurisdiction. This is likely to be a political/historical argument, rather than one based on legal arguments, following the American Revolution. Ie: did the Republic choose this legal method to govern it?

2. Establish precedent based on the nature of ligentia et obidentia, both alta and localis, being the substance of the ruling, to birthright judgements in modern times.

3. It is also necessary to establish precedent that links discussion of the nature of a "natural born subject" to a "natural born citizen".

 

@ Heroclitus.

I will respond to your prior posting, in the interim ...............

Here's something that might interest you, where it appears a 'natural born subject' can be made by the English parliament.

What is notable that it is implied that a 'natural born subject' is one born of "English Parents, within the said Realm of England."

Another thing to note is the term 'natural free-born subject' that is used to describe the one who the parliament deems as a 'natural born subject'...............i.e. of no great significance, but still another term used to describe a 'natural born subject'.

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=32871&strquery=natural born


.

 

It appears that 'citizen' had a different meaning to 17th century English than to what it meant to 18th century US republican framers.

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=36672&strquery=natural born

A reminder ................

In the context of the US Constitution, its language and meanings there is no precedent to be found in English common law relating to a 'citizen' nor presidential eligibility in a constitutional republic.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that the framers of USC relied on English common law when composing Article II of USC.


.

 

Coke made no reference to "citizen". Lets focus on Coke. To him the difference was between alien born and subject born. We can talk about citizens and the US law when we have clarified the meaning of Coke.

 

You have repeatedly made reference to 'citizen' interchanging the term with 'subject' ............ check back over your posts.

The difference between alien born and subject born is not what this is about, it is about what Coke meant when he said there are two or more qualities that are essential in making a 'natural born subject' i.e. 'nature and birthright' and 'procreation and birthright' and this is also about Coke's saying that it was the 'subject' status of a parent father that was critical in determining whether or not a child born to said father was a 'subject'.



.

 

Per the Congressional Research Service:

"The constitutional history, the nearly unanimous consensus of legal and constitutional scholars, and the consistent, relevant case law thus indicate that every child born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (that is, not children of diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation or military troops in hostile occupation), is a native born U.S. citizen and thus a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be President under the qualifications clause of the Constitution, regardless of the nationality or citizenship of one’s parents. The legal issues regarding “natural born” citizenship and birth within the United States, without regard to lineage or ancestral bloodline, have been well settled in this country for more than a century, and such concepts date back to, and even pre-date, the founding of the nation."

 

I did. You are right. Last major post (the one I am still waiting for you to answer). I'm still waiting for your comment on the jus solis/sanguinis assertion by me, as my conclusion is based on a close reading of Coke and research that could not find this term prior to the 19th century; it may be that there is more refinement to this position needed, but I am now convinced that Coke asserts neither jus solis, nor jus sanguinis:

You are right. I made a mistake. The two instances above are where I should have written "subject" rather than "citizen".

Michael, the whole of the Calvin case was to determine if Calvin was an alien born or a subject born. It was determined that he was a subject born, and no alien. You may wish to make a different point, but that this is the main point of Calvins case, cannot be denied.

What do you imply by this? I must say that the only place I can find discussion of this narrow term on the web is by you.

"Nature" is clear in its meaning - it refers to natural law and differentiates from a status which is acquired, asserted or conferred. It requires no assertion or action by anyone. It's automatic.

"Birthright" relates to the concept again of nature that an Englishman had rights due to him from natural law.

"Procreation" meant "birth", rather than conception, being the meaning of the word at that time.

Not so. "Subject status" means very little. Apart from enemies, everyone in England was a subject (where the meaning had nothing to do with the modern meaning of the word which implies nationality and citizenship), be they alien or Englishman. Coke makes it clear that there are three "statuses" that could apply to someone in England: alien born, denizen and natural born subject. Calvin's parents may have been temporarily "natural subjects in ligentia localis" but as far as these three key "subject statuses" go they were always aliens.

"Subject" meant (and means) many different things depending on how the term is qualified or contextualized. Take the fourteenth amendment today, for example, as a sentence where the word "subject" is used (whether you agree that this is related or not, take this as a linguistic example). There is a dispute is as to whether the phrase means "subject to the (1.complete or 2.partial) jurisdiction thereof". No matter which side is right, a person is clearly "subject" in each interpretation. But they are subject in a completely different way. You are either subject to jurisdiction in the way a foreigner is, or you are subject to jurisdiction in the way a citizen is". "Subject" is a word with a very "subjective" meaning, even today!

So the word subject - even today - is not enough by itself to convey the real meaning without qualification. And it was even less so in the seventeenth century. What matters is what this usage in Coke meant. And Coke is clear. He tells us. So we don't need to speculate. It was about allegiance.

What was critical was that the father was in ligeance or not, with ligeance localis - ligeantia infima et minima, et maxime incerta - being sufficient.

It is very clear that an alien come in amity automatically (ie naturally) owes "ligeance localis" to the monarch.

As if have extensively elucidated, this was a temporary and minimum allegiance. This would be sufficient to establish the natural ligeance absoluta of the child as it would determine that the child was not born of a foreign army nor of a foreign minister (diplomat) where clearly the allegiance would be to a different monarch.

The words "natural subject" are used to summarize that this ligeance localis did exist in any alien come in amity. "Natural" means that the alien does not have to assert allegiance to owe it. "Subject" means that the person was subject to this temporary allegiance.

That "natural" allegiance would be clear if the alien was not part of a foreign army. "Natural" refers to the "lack of choice" the person has in the matter. It doesn't refer to parentage in any way.

Coke certainly does not imply that aliens in ligentia localis are Englishmen, in any way whatsoever. And of course they never were after Coke either. A Frenchman who steps foot in England today is still an alien.

 

I'd be a little careful with "no evidence" since English Law (No Constitution), the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the framers referred to the Magna Carter 1215 (originally called "Charter of Liberties). Not understanding both your arguments, lets just say this is offered as FYI, if not already mentioned..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Magna_Carta.jpg

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Virginia+Declaration+of+Rights

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/citizenship_british_politics.htm

 

PART 1 of 2

I think you are mistaken; the definition/principle of ‘natural born subject’ had been established well before Calvin’s case, it’s just that Coke applied the principle to Robert Calvin based on qualities are were essentially required. (i.e. ‘nature and birthright’ and ‘procreation and birthright’)
Calvin’s case merely established that Robert Calvin’s parent was a ‘subject’ and because he was a ‘subject’ then Robert Calvin was a ‘natural born subject’, because Robert was born in the realm and ‘under the ligeance of a subject’.

Why do you persist in beating around the bush?
Nowhere in the report of Calvin’s case does Coke use the term ‘jus soli’.
Nowhere in the report of Calvin’s case does Coke imply that a child born in England to a non-subject, can be a ‘subject’ let alone a ‘natural born subject’.
Coke clearly and plainly states that the ‘subject’ status of the parent father is the paramount essential quality required to make a ‘natural born subject’.
It’s plain and simple .................................. to be a ‘natural born subject’ one had to be born both in the realm and ‘under the ligeance of a subject’.
It is completely IRRELEVANT as to how or why the parent father qualified as a ‘subject’.

It doesn’t “seem” to establish any such thing, it says what it says .............. jus sanguinis was MORE IMPORTANT than jus soli and this is evidenced by the fact that children born outside of England, but under ligeance/obedience of the English sovereign were still considered to be ‘natural born subjects’ ALL BECAUSE OF THE PARENT’S ‘subject’ status.
Soli the minor quality required to make a ‘natural born subject’.

True.

He said what he said, you are trying to re-invent or re-write Coke’s report.
The point is that Coke DID say “sanguinis” and barely anything else.
It was the status of the parent that mattered .................... sanguinis.
Coke meant “by ligentia and obedientia” by which one became a ‘subject’, by which one could become a ‘natural born subject’.

There were no English ‘native born citizen’ s ............ do you mean subject?
I have already pointed-out that ‘citizen’ was only used in England to describe a civic member of a city, or town.
What was relevant to Coke was ligeance of a subject, under which one can be born a ‘natural born subject’.

You are mixing-up ‘citizen’ and ‘subject’ again .............. you do mean ‘subject’? ............ right?
I am responding as if you meant ‘subject’.
The essence of a ‘natural born subject’ is that he owes allegiance from birth, due by ‘nature and birthright’ .............. TWO essential qualities ................... what is meant by these two qualities?
Coke goes on to state that Robert Calvin was ‘naturalized by ‘procreation and birthright’, this terminology giving weight to the notion that ‘nature’ and ‘procreation’ meant the same.
Now we all know what ‘procreation’ means don’t we?
Procreate
v. pro•cre•at•ed, pro•cre•at•ing, pro•cre•ates
v.tr.
1. To beget and conceive (offspring).
2. To produce or create; originate.
v.intr.
To beget and conceive offspring; reproduce.

So it appears that ‘nature’ meant naturally, as he was born under the ligeance/obedience of a ‘natural subject’ parent, which leaves ‘birthright’ to mean a political/civil right due to being born in the realm.

(cont'd)

.

 

PART 2 of 2

So who’s talking about nationality?
It’s all about the ‘subject’ status of the parent father, when it comes to determining whether or not a child born in the realm to an alien is a ‘natural born subject’ or no ‘subject’.
The rest of this paragraph of yours I will leave in the ‘garbage’ category.

This was not a ‘judgement’ it was a ‘conclusion’, the ‘judgement’ reads nothing like this.
You missed out this part, which was the paragraph stating another ‘conclusion’ preceding the quote you used.

This paragraph is saying, that any person born under the ligeance/obedience of a subject, said subject being such by the Law of Nature is a natural born subject.
Here’s Coke’s description of the essential qualities that made Robert Calvin a natural born subject.
Quoting Lord Coke:

Correct.
Calvin’s parent father (the alien that you mention here), was also a subject and as such his child was a natural born subject, because the child was born ‘under the ligeance of a subject’.
The subject status of the parent father was essential.

4. Establish if the framers of US Constitution relied on English common law or any definitions determined or implied therein to arrive at the term ‘natural born Citizen’.
5. Establish if there was any precedent in English common law that related to election and eligibility qualifications for the office of president of a constitutional republic.
6. Establish that Emerich Vattel’s literature particularly the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758, in book one chapter 19, § 212. Of the citizens and natives. Had a profound affect and was a major influence on the framers of the US Constitution.
http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html

7. Establish that there was a duty and imperative on the part of the framers of the USC to secure and protect the office of president from any foreign influence and claim and that the term ‘natural born Citizen’ was chosen to describe one who would have the highest possible faith and allegiance to the new found republic and its sovereign citizens.
The list could go on and on.
Getting back to Coke and Calvin’s case. (even though there is no evidence whatsoever that the framers of the USC relied on Coke or English common law to define a USC Article II ‘natural born Citizen)
No matter how you try to twist and turn and play with words, the fact remains that Lord Coke stated that in the case of an alien-born in England, it was the ‘subject’ status of this alien-born, as a parent father that was paramount and essential in making a child of that alien-born, a ‘natural born subject’ if born in the realm.
Without the parent being a ‘subject’, then a child of that non-‘subject’ cannot be a ‘subject’ let alone a ‘natural born subject’.
It is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT as to how or why the parent father was a ‘subject’.


.

 

Of course the Congressional Research Service addressed this in its very fine analysis

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/11/new-congressional-report-on-presidential-eligibility/

It may be noted that some have argued that the relevant common meaning of natural born citizen
that was prevalent in 18th century America should not be the one that was actually applicable in
the American colonies during that time from British statutory and common law, and which was
adopted specifically by the states after independence in 1776 (and which, as noted by Justice
Story, formed the “foundation” for American jurisprudence), but rather should be recognized as
one derived from what has been described as a “philosophical treatise”98 on the law of nations by
a Swiss legal philosopher in the mid-1700s.99 This particular treatise, however, in the editions
available at the time of the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, did not actually use, either in the
original French or in English interpretations at that time, the specific term “natural born
citizens.” It was not until after the adoption of the Constitution in the United States did a
translator interpret the French in Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations to include, in English, the
term “natural born citizens” for the first time, and thus that particular interpretation and creative
translation of the French, to which the Vattel enthusiasts cite, could not possibly have influenced
the framing of the Constitution in 1787.Furthermore, and on a more basic level, the influence of the work of Vattel on the framers in
employing the term “natural born” in relation to domestic citizenship within the Constitution is
highly speculative at best, is without any direct historical evidence, and is contrary to the
mainstream principles of constitutional interpretation and analysis within American
jurisprudence. Although it appears that there is one single reference by one delegate at the Federal
Convention of 1787 to Vattel (in reference to several works of different authors to support an
argument for equal voting representation of the states in the proposed Congress), there is no
other reference to the work in the entire notes of any of the framers published on the proceedings
of the Federal Convention of 1787, and specifically there is no reference or discussion of the
work at all in relation to citizenship at the Convention, in the Federalist Papers, or in any of the
state ratifying conventions.

 

I don't think you read post number 88 at all, did you, where I corrected this "mixing up" at your request?

Why do you have post such ********y churlishness? I am making a significant attempt to understand and discuss your views (which seem to be no-one else's that I can find anywhere by the way) and you just respond with "garbage" and churlishness. Most people ignore you on the web. Do you want a discussion or do you just like the sight of your own repetitive obsession coming back at you?

The post you responded to was largely where I was trying to clarify your position. It was an "on the one hand" "on the other hand" post which needed to be taken in its entirety, but you decided to deal with it in fragments, taking issue with points that I don't agree with (not only is there no mention of solis (aprt from "soyl" of course), which I clearly say, but there is no mention of your imagined "sanguinis" either, in all of Coke, even in the vernacular). I have concluded that Coke meant neither solis nor sanguinis, which, though not core to my position, I invite you to comment on - if you read my post again and see what I am saying. It is a change to my earlier position. To me this is now a case about ligentia alone.

Look at post 88.

This is just not true. The "paramount essential quality" is that he is born owing allegiance (ligentia et obedentia) to the monarch. This cannot be made clearer in Coke.

"Natural subject" is merely a descriptor for the ligentia localis (a term which you refer to as garbage and seem disinclined to discuss, despite it being at the core of Calvin's ruling) by which the allegiance, under which the subject is born, is owed. This is just plain logic when you analyze the text.

"Subject" is a loose word in meaning which is defined by its context, in every case, from Coke to the present day, including in the fourteenth amendment or its use in modern Britain/USA. The word "subject", even "natural subject" means little unless it is described or qualified. In Coke this is done by defining "natural subject", in this scenario, as one that owes ligentia localis. The substance is that a NBS can be born from a parent under "ligentia localis" to the King, a parent who is also an alien. That is the substance of the ruling.

I've answered your procreation, birthright etc. stuff in post 88.

Read post 88.

But actually I am now clear that the key to my position is the emboldened underlined text in this paragraph. Unless you can show clearly (without abuse) where such reason is flawed, I will assume my point to be made and move on to the next stage of the argument to link this ruling to US law today. If you wish to refute, please do so by directly addressing my reasoning, and try to avoid pointlessly repeating yourself, doing so without abuse, if you can.

 

To you it may be ................... but reality is that Calvin's case was about Calvin's rights to maintain is property in England, where Lord Coke ruled Robert Calvin as a 'natural born subject', due by at least two qualities i.e. 'nature and birthright' and also by 'procreation and birthright'.

You are still trying to twist and distort the very basic and clear facts of the matter, apparently just so you can 'win' and argument ....................you can see that soli is useless, so to avoid acknowledging jus sanguinis, you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and argue about the soap, rather than to simply face and acknowledge the truth of the matter............. it is really simple, the 'subject' status of the parent father was paramount and essential in making his child a 'natural born subject'.

The child is not born owing ligeance .............. the child is born "under the ligeance of a subject"............ this is what jus sanguinis is.

It is because of the parent father's status as a 'subject', that the child, if born in the realm, is a 'natural born subject'.

'natural subject' is apparently a descriptor for most if not ALL 'subjects', not only for those with local ligeance..................... so what?

You haven't addressed the added "things" that I added to your list of three.

Getting back to basics .... you do acknowledge that according to Lord Coke in his report of Calvin's case.............. to be an English 'natural born subject' (of the born in England variety) one must be born to a 'subject' .............. right? ..................... yes? or no?

Now you must appreciate that it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT as to how or why a parent of a 'natural born subject' is a 'subject'.


.

 

In fact the status of the parent as a 'subject' was so important and essential that it was the only criteria that was a constant and common in all cases in determining 'natural born subject' status.

All who were born in any place that was under the actual obedience of the king and born under the ligeance of a 'subject' in that place, were 'natural born subjects'.

Ergo: The subject status of the parent father was essential in determining the child to be a 'natural born subject'.


.

 

Dealt with and my response is hereby ignored by you.

Now you are being absurd. You are the one who is utterly obsessed by this subject so much that you can be found echoing into many, many different forums on this subject. You just can't face the argument so you resort to insults like this one to go with all your "garbages".

Despite the fact that many legal commentators cite Coke as the foundation for jus solis, and despite the fact that earlier in this thread YOU argued that BOTH solis and sanguinis were necessary:

I carefully considered the point that you were making, and acknowledged that neither solis NOR sanguinis is mentioned. It is undisputable that sanguinis is not mentioned, either in Latin or English. You are the only person I can find who argues that jus sanguinis is the argument of Coke. It is such clear nonsense, but you then act in an outraged and personally abusive fashion when anyone disagrees with you. Incredible!

Now that is garbage. There is no "jus sanguinis" argument. Calvin's father was an alien. Calvin's citizenship does not derive from his father's blood but from his fathers allegiance, as distinct from the lack of allegiance of a soldier come in war.

This is your just sophistry. What is critical is the nature of that subject "status", which is that the parent was in ligentia localis. This is clear logic. Your refusal to look beyond a word (subject) that has at least twenty meanings, and is ALWAYS defined by its context, just underlines the intellectual poverty (or flagrant dishonesty) of your position. It is this context which is critical to understanding Coke's relevance to future cases. As with all common law issues, jurists will go behind the words to look at the meaning of the words, and the meaning of the words here is clear.

You have misunderstood the core of Coke here. The child is born as a natural born subject and so by definition owes allegiance and obediance to the monarch. This is the whole essence of what Coke was saying. This statement of yours here just removes any slight credibility you may have still has in this matter.

You don't even understand what jus sanguinis is.

You think if you say it enough, what you say it means will suddenly be applicable?

So the word has to be understood by its context. Not only is this the way law works, but also language. Always.

I'm concentrating on the clear flaw in your argument regarding what Coke meant. You are alone here. The applicability of Coke is a whole different subject where there are many arguments against me. On this issue of what Coke meant though, there is only your sophistry. No-one else of any significance goes along with your drivel.

To be a NBS you had to be a human. Your childish sophistry is very silly.

This is where your carefully constructed facade comes crumbling down. This sentence is so manifestly absurd that it is unbelievable. Thank you for knocking it down yourself. To state that x is y, but it doesn't matter what "y" means is really about as blind as you can get to the illogical, partial and skewed nature of your own argument.

To argue that a word's meaning - as defined by it context, or the clear definition of the word given in that context - irrelevant, is utterly laughable. This is where you defeat yourself, and why it is that there is not a single other person who makes this ludicrous argument anywhere. Not those who deny the applicability of common law to the definition of NBC. Not those who deny the applicability of Coke to the fourteenth amendment. Not even the minority opinion in Wong Kim Ark. Your nonsense, your garbage, your insults, condescension and rudeness, are all out there by themselves, floating like turds down a seventeenth century street sewer. Forget babies and bathwater. Here we have to throw out the turd which is your ludicrous piece of pedantry, before we can discuss the next question.

But thanks for prompting me into doing my research. I learned a lot. A pity that discussion and debate doesn't do the same for you.

 

Michael. The kernel of your error is here:

You got yourself into stating such a complete load of bollocks because you couldn't accept that this is about "ligentia" and not "subject status", which is merely a descriptor that applies to many types of "ligentia".

Coke was very clear that a natural born subject owed a ligentia naturalis, "alta ligentia", which of course arose from birth. He is born owing an "alta ligentia":

An alien parent however, may be in ligentia localis:

It is being born of a parent under 'local obedience" which means that the alta ligentia applies to the child, who has natural, pure and indefinite ligentia from birth.

and just to be sure you got it Michael, Coke repeats:

So for the third time you can see that the plaintiff - ie Calvin, the child in this case - was born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King...not the ligeance of his father. That's what the text above says "under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King, as the plaintiff ...was". This cannot be confused (even by you Michael) with anything to do with Calvin's father who was NOT under such an alta ligentia, being an alien whose ligentia was only "localis".

And it is this sentence in bold which is the key to Calvin's status as "no alien" who could inherit the property in this case.

The type of ligentia is critical, because alta ligentia, the ligentia owed by a natural born subject from birth, as Calvin was resolved to be, is required for a person to inherit, whilst ligentia localis is only the ligentia owed by an alien, as Calvin's father was resolved to be.

 

For Robert Calvin to be a 'natural born subject', he had to be born in the realm and "under the ligeance of a subject", in his case, that was a father was with local ligeance.

That 'subject' parent father was already "under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King" but if he was not as such, then the father would be no subject and the child would not be able to be "born under the ligeance of a subject".

Ergo: The 'subject' status of the parent father was essential.

According to Coke, the 'natural born subject' child is such by 'nature' and 'birthright', it appears that the 'birthright' is owed at birth to his sovereign and is a two-way street where the sovereign owes his ligeance to the subject.

Coke:

So what do you suppose 'nature' meant? (in the above context)

Could it mean by the nature of the parent father's 'subject' status?

What about "procreation and birthright"? ............. which is how Coke described Robert Calvin's path to 'natural born subject' status.

Could 'procreation' mean via the parents father's 'subject' status?

I think it does.

Coke makes it abundantly clear that there were AT LEAST TWO essential qualities REQUIRED to make a 'natural born subject' he describes them as "nature and birthright" and as "procreation and birthright", and it appears that "birthright" means a right at birth because of being born in the realm and the other quality would then mean in relation to the parent father, due to Cokes mention of "procreation" in lieu of what he had previously stated was "nature".

I say that the two qualities relate to what I have been describing as soli and sanguinis, but to avoid petty argument, let's just say the two qualities are:-

born in the realm (by birthright)

to a subject of the realm (by nature or procreation)

Getting back to "under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King"

You say that the child was not born under the ligeance of his father, but Coke said that he was, when he said "under the ligeance of a subject"

Coke also said that such a child is also born "under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King"

You say it's one or the other, I say it's BOTH.

It should be considered that "under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King" may well mean the natural and absolute ligeance of the King in his reciprocal duty of ligeance toward the child of one of his subjects.

Coke:

Fact remains, that according to Lord Coke, if the father is not a subject, then the child cannot be a subject, even if the child is born in the realm.

I will get back to you on some other points as time permits.


.

 

Looks like Heroclitus can't accept the truth and has run away.

 

Looks to me like Heroclitus finally realized- after I warned him at the beginning- that it didn't matter how many times he proved you wrong, or patiently tried to explain things to you- you would still cling to your own twisted interpretation of Coke.

I have watched your performances before, and it is always the same- Michael saying the sky is green when everyone else looks up and sees Blue.