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

Yes I made my point. I am 100% clear now as to the meaning of Coke. The key point is that a natural born subject has to be born from a parent who is in ligentia to the King, with ligentia localis being the ligentia that applies to an alien come in amity. The key point is that a child born to an alien come in amity is a natural born subject. Michael's sophistry around the word 'subject" is a matter which only interests him. He totally misunderrstands the word "natural" which relates to the concept of natural law, not ehridity and he refuses to deal with clear arguments thinking that endlessly repeating his trite assertions will somehow do.

No-one really disputes my understanding here except Michael on his one man crusade as to what Coke means. Given the difficulty of arguing with Michael I have done a lot of research to see if I can see his argument better explained by anyone else. I have found no-one making his rather absurd case.

The next stage of the exercise is to see if this precedent has any application in US law, a subject that is much more difficult and where there are serious arguments against the contention that it does. After that I must explore what that precedent means. I will venture down that road when I have more time.

 

The point is, according to Coke (not MichaelN) that a 'parent who is in ligentia to the King' is a 'subject', and if that alien parent were not a 'subject', then his child can be no subject.

I didn't make this up, nor is it a misunderstanding of what Coke stated, it is plain and simple, as it is written.

"WongKimArk" has virtually admitted in the other thread on this topic, that the parent father must be a 'subject' and is a 'subject' merely by visiting England temporarily.

YOU are in denial.

An alien visiting republic of US does not have automated 'citizen' status, as does an alien visiting England have 'subject' status.

An alien visiting England in amity would be expected and bound to protect the sovereign.

An alien visiting US in amity would NOT be bound to protect the sovereign US government and/or sovereign citizens.

What the English took for granted from an alien as a duty of allegiance by mere presence on sovereign soil , the US require application, due process of law, an oath/pledge of allegiance and renunciation of any other allegiances for the alien in US to reach a comparable status of the alien in England.

Resort to fallacy does nothing to improve your failed case.

There is no precedent in English common law that deals with qualifications of an elected president of a constitutional republic and the definition of said qualifications, NONE!

If you must (desperately) look to English common law, then Coke already has explained that it is the 'subject' status of the parent father that is ESSENTIAL in determining 'natural born' status of his child if born in the realm.

Given that 'subject' and 'citizen' are in this instance seen to be interchangeable, then it follows that it is the US 'citizen' status of the parent father that is ESSENTIAL in determining 'natural born' status of the child if born in US of A.



.

 

the voters, the electoral college, the ENTIRE congress and the ENTIRE judiciary say you're wrong michael. what does that tell you?

 

Michael's babyish tone is very annoying ("resort to fallacy" gobbledegook). The charge that he alone in the universe takes this line on the "meaning of Coke" goes unanswered.

The cause of Michael's error is that he suggests that the terms "citizen" and "subject" here are equivalent. They are not. This is the root of his sophistry. Especially as he rejected this equivalence when we were arguing. They are not interchangeable. "Subject" is a very loose term that can apply to a lot of things. It can only be interchangeable if it is defined precisely. Otherwise the equivalence can be twisted to mean something other than what Coke meant.

The meaning of "subject" when applied to an alien in Coke is clearly different than the meaning of "subject" when applied to nationality in the term "British subject" for example, as it used today (which incorporates citizen rights that an alien visitor never has). To pretend otherwise is just deceitful. But this is Michael's deceit: to suggest that Coke conferred the status of "British subject", as that term is understood today, on all aliens come in amity to England. I think that the closest description of this line of argument is to call it a lie, so blatant is it in its craven dishonesty. This connotation of the word subject did not exist at the time, and Michael knows it (he has said so on more than one occasion).

He chooses this usage because it suggests the closest interchangability of the word. But even here he gets hoist on his own petard. According to this usage, ie how the term is understood today, no alien can be a "British subject", now or ever, nor do they have the rights of a "British subject". This is very clear. If an American lands in England today he is an alien. He is not a "British subject".

The word "subject" in Coke has a completely different meaning to the words "British subject" found on some passports today. Michael takes the point and twists it playing on the very many meanings in the English language of the word "subject". In fact the word "subject" in Coke is more analagous to the usage of the word used in the 14th amendment of the US constitution being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" than to any connotation of citizenship or rights and obligations thereof.

Coke makes it very clear that when he refers to the "natural subject" who is an alien, that he regards that person in ligentia localis. We don't need to debate what Coke means by the word "subject" because he clearly tells us. It is this that is key - the definition of the subject status of an alien, not the word "subject", ripped from one passage in Coke. Michael doesn't want to discuss the definition. He has his "subject" which he wants to rip out of context from Coke and then re-define (as "British subject", the term written on some modern day passports) it with a meaning it never had.

But there is no need to re-define it as Coke is clear. The parent must be in ligentia localis, that is the definition. For there to be a precedent then we need to show that to be a natural born citizen in the United States there should be a requirement for the parent to be in ligentia localis. That is the key. It is logic, no more no less.

Now what does Coke mean by ligentia localis? You see this is the proper way to discover what Coke meant, look at the text and follow Coke's definitions. Well he means someone NOT come in an invading army. That's about it. Everyone else visiting is in ligentia localis. They are still aliens. They still have no right to inherit property. But they are in obligation not to take up arms against the King.

Well it's pretty much the same in the United States. A child born of an alien come in amity is a citizen. The bit I need to research (because I have read that Wong Kim Ark denies him the status of NBC or omits to determine him so just awarding "citizenship" without the "born" bit) is whether he is accepted as a "natural born citizen", but if Coke were to apply then he clearly would be. The principle of ligentia localis is clearly used in US law to those who are born as the children of diplomats, which is completely analagous to those born as the children of invading armies, given that these groups are clearly not in ligentia localis to the US Republic. The parallel with Calvin's case is clear.

But there are other considerations, such as whether common law was superceded by other principles after Calvin, or by the statute law of the United States Constitution. I still need to research this. Common law is not fixed in stone, but it is clear that many of the principles laid down in Calvin have been adopted by US legal practice and the US Constitution.

The other case to be made is that common law should apply in the United States. I already made this case in my first post on this thread.

 

This is just not true. No alien can be or could ever be conscripted into the Sovereign's army.

An alien is forbidden to plot to overthrow the Soverign in England, just as aliens are not really allowed to plot the destruction of the Republic either.

Rubbish. An alien is obligated to obey the law and not to overthrow the government in England and the USA. To become a citizen in Britain and America a process of naturalization or denization needs to take place. Calvin's case was not about his subject status but whether or not he was an alien. The law here is alike in Britain and the USA. To cease to be an alien one must apply and pledge ligentia absoluta, not ligentia localis.

This is about the stupidest part of your post. It's juvenile. The Constitution of the United States refers to the concept of "natural born citizen". There is an argument that common law applies a precedent to the meaning of this term. You know that. No-one is saying that English common law before 1776 dealt with the qualifications of an elected President in a constitutional republic. But it did deal with the term "natural born", as you acknowledge, which is a term used in the Constitution. Your sophistry here is shrill and babyish.

 

I would suggest you start with reading the Congressional Research Service analysis, as it is an excellent breakdown of the issue, with citations, so you can go to the original materials. I would also suggest reading the decision of the Court of Appeals of Indiana, in Ankeny v Daniels, as the Court discusses the applicability of Wong Kim to Natural Born.

Both of course come to the conclusion that all Americans learned growing up- that anyone born in the United States is a Natural Born Citizen. (with the obvious exceptions noted so many times)

 

Correct! ............ a USC Article II US "natural born Citizen" is NOT equivalent to an English "natural born subject".

The US NBC is an invention of the framers, based on principles espoused by esteemed and highly respected authors, very popular to the framers of the USC, this term was used to describe a 'citizen' of a republic that (by the way, a 'subject' of no sovereign), who if endowed with an added quality, may be eligible for the office of elected president of a republic.

The English NBS is a description of a 'subject' to a sovereign of "highest ligeance", who can NEVER be eligible for the vaguely similar high office, unless by blood-line parentage, which is not an electable position.

Such a NBS of England would be more closely by circumstance the equivalent to a USC 14th Amendment birthright 'citizen' of an alien in US.

I absolutely agree that 'citizen' and 'subject' "are not interchangeable".

.

 

Then why did you say they were?

 

Mmm. Interesting that you said that. Do we agree on something?

 

I don't know about 'conscription' but the English used aliens in their armies.

http://www.progenealogists.com/germansengland.htm

Ahem.

.

 

And the USA uses alien volunteers too. But no alien can be compelled to join the US Army and no alien can be compelled to join the British army. You know that is the point. Why do you write such irrelevant twaddle?

 

Based on observation, yes, but I don't necessarily agree that the USC 14th Amendment has been interpreted correctly when it (allegedly) allows children of aliens, temporarily visiting US (i.e. anchor babies) to be US citizens.

'Subject to the jurisdiction' needs to be defined more clearly, but the weight of evidence is that it means the alien parent must be subject completely to the jurisdiction and not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty e.g. in the case of asylum seekers and others who may have demonstrated a loyalty and allegiance, such as Wong Kim Ark and his parents who were domiciled and in meaningful employment, contributing to the system of things in US.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html

Interesting to note, is that the term and definition 'natural born Citizen' was high in the minds of the judiciary, being discussed in dicta in numerous SCOTUS cases, yet WKA was ruled to be only a 'citizen' and NOT a 'natural born Citizen'.

Interesting also to note that in the same environment of 'natural born Citizen' being a hot topic amongst the judiciary, around the time that the 14th Amendment was framed, the term that was DELIBERATELY SELECTED and applied to 'NATIVE' born children born in US of parents who were considered as 'subject to the jurisdiction', was 'CITIZEN' ONLY and NOT 'natural born'.

In the case of WKA it appears the parents and WKA voluntarily subjected themselves more completely than was the US's actual positive legal right of subjugation or claim over them.

The voluntary local ligeance of the parents did not make the parents 'citizens' but was was sufficient, along with place of birth and length of domicile of the child (at least 17 years continuous and returning after a few visits off-shore) to make the child a 'citizen' but STILL NOT 'natural born'.

There was EVERY opportunity at this point, given the discussion that took place in the US supreme court, to rule WKA a 'natural born Citizen'; and also given that the scenario was almost identical to the scenario of the Frenchman with local ligeance in Calvin's case, where the child was described as a 'natural born', but WKA only got ruled a 'citizen' in the face of all this.

In fact by comparison the parents of WKA had a far greater degree of 'ligeance' to US by virtue of their dedication to US over at least some 17 years and running a business, than a casual, temporary Frenchman visiting England, so logically, if the US judiciary were of the opinion that such a low degree of ligeance (i.e. as the Frenchman in Calvin's case) was sufficient to make a 'natural born' and if it were true that the SCOTUS relied on the English common law (as has been suggested by the wish-hards), then...............

HOW COME & WHY do you suppose the SCOTUS did not rule WKA a 'natural born'?????

Do you think they just plain forgot? ............... I don't think so!

It is OBVIOUS that the SCOTUS considered there to be TWO types of born US citizens, those born in US to non-citizen parents (with demonstrated domicile and loyalty allegiance) being 14th Amendment born 'citizens' and those others also born in US, but to 'citizen' parents, who are the 'natural born Citizen' s.

Basically, under the prevailing circumstances of setting eligibility requirements for a president of a republic, requiring the highest allegiance imaginable, the US departed from English practice of accepting a parent father with only (extremely uncertain) local ligeance as sufficient to make a 'natural born', preferring a more certain and higher degree of ligeance, being that of a born citizen parent or a a naturalized citizen parent who would have sworn/pledged an oath of allegiance and renounced any other loyalties and allegiances.

It must be remembered that to the English a 'natural born' was not an eligibility requirement for an executive leader of the nation.



.

 

Finally- Michael finally admits that he disagrees with the interpretation of the Constitution.

"There was EVERY opportunity at this point, given the discussion that took place in the US supreme court, to rule WKA a 'natural born Citizen'; and also given that the scenario was almost identical to the scenario of the Frenchman with local ligeance in Calvin's case, where the child was described as a 'natural born', but WKA only got ruled a 'citizen' in the face of all this."

Since Wong was not attempting to run for President, there was no need for the Supreme Court to address whether he was a Natural Born Citizen. Regardless though, as the Appellete Court of Indiana noted, Wong Kim Arks ruling clearly leads to the conclusion that Wong was a natural born citizen.

"It is OBVIOUS that the SCOTUS considered there to be TWO types of born US citizens, those born in US to non-citizen parents (with demonstrated domicile and loyalty allegiance) being 14th Amendment born 'citizens' and those others also born in US, but to 'citizen' parents, who are the 'natural born Citizen' s."

Obvious based upon what Michael? The Supreme Court never said or implied such a thing, and no credible legal authority has interpreted the Supreme Court to have said such a thing. Who is this obvious to other than yourself?

However it is 'Obvious" to everyone that the Supreme Court considers anyone born in the United States to be a Natural Born Citizen- obvious because the voters, the Electoral College, Congress, Chief Justice Roberts, the Appeallete Court of Indian, the Congressional Research Service all agree it is obvious.

 

Here's an interesting article on that topic

http://yourdemocracy.newstatesman.com/parliament/foreigners-in-the-british-army/HAN35657

 

It is absurd to suggest the framers were derelict and careless in their imperative to secure the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim, to allow children of non-citizens to be on an equal level of allegiance, faith and loyalty as a home-grown child of a US citizen.

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#ref07

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...ult&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

The article goes on..............

So now it should become clear that "born a citizen" was not good enough for the framers to aptly describe what was required to be achieved in an appropriate description of one who would have absolute, complete and permanent allegiance, faith and loyalty to the nation and to the parents who made up the citizenry of that nation................... all this in light of the VERY PROFOUND influence of Vattel's principles of what makes a natural born Citizen'.

i.e.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that the framers were conversant with Vattel's principles and were guided by his principles ... NO DOUBT.

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

Read it all here .................

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm


.

 

More interesting points to note .......

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#ref07

and ..............

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#ref18

.

 

'Citizen' in 17th century England was one who was a citizen or burgess of a town-ship or city, etc ............ being a 'citizen' in 17th century England had NOTHING to do with being a 'subject'.

Nowhere in Calvin's case does the term 'citizen' relate to 'subject', on the most part Coke uses the term to describe citizens of Rome.

From Calvin's case, this quote should clarify for you .

Nothing to do with 'subject'.

This might help you further with your problem in understanding what a 17th century 'citizen' was in England.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=...itle=911&chapter=106359&layout=html&Itemid=27

Man, you like to perform your verbal gymnastics to squirm out of what is plain and clear.

If the Calvin's case was about 'whether or not he was an alien' and he was held to NOT be an alien, then Calvin was a 'subject', a 'natural born subject', by "nature and birthright" and by "procreation and birthright".

Coke virtually calls Calvin a 'subject' AND no alien.

It's about context, and the intended imperative as to what the term 'natural born Citizen' was to symbolize, in US it was to define a person with the highest possible & imaginable allegiance, loyalty and faith to ensure that no foreign influence or claim might influence the person in such a high office.

As we know the framers found guidance from the VERY POPULAR and WELL READ Vattel's principles which described and reasoned such high allegiance.

This is also demonstrated in Calvin's case when Coke stated this about those who were required to embody highest possible allegiance and be trusted.....

Why do you prefer the notion that the framers relied on English common law definition of 'natural born' and shun the more likely notion that they relied on Vattel's principles, considering the Vattel principle fitted with the imperative of the framers?

Answer = you are commited to a stance and have a political bias.


.



.

 

That perfectly describes you Michael.

You are completely unable to deal with the fact that here in the United States, Americans know who is a natural born citizen, and we have always known that. We learn it in school. Every American knows that anyone born in the United States can aspire to grow up and be President.

That is why the majority of voters voted for Barack Obama, because they knew that he was a natural born citizen since he was born in Hawaii.

That is why the Electoral College elected him.

That is why Congress confirmed his election without a single objection.

And it is why Chief Justice Roberts didn't refuse to swear in Barack Obama.

We all know he is eligible.

That is why when the Appeals Court of Indiana was just reiterating what we all know.

That is why the Congressional Research Service was just putting down on paper what all Americans know.

That is why John McCain didn't object and why the Republican National Party didn't object.

It is why Hillary Clinton didn't try to get Obama disqualified- she would have been a laughing stock to even make the claim.

It is why there is not a credible person in the United States who makes this claim- only a few clearly politically biased legal hacks. We Americans know that if we are born here, we are eligible to be President, and know that those who claim otherwise are doing so for their own political purposes.

Describes you to a tee.

 

Today, 02:43 AM

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



.

 

Nothing is so painful as having to read ones lies refuted.

I understand why you have me on ignore Michael. The truth hurts.

 

This is for all the dummies who claim the Wong Kim Ark courts decision virtually 'defined' "natural born Citizen"

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#ref13

Ooops, there goes that lame 14th Amendment theory.

Recapping:

Ergo: According to English common law, if daddy ain't a subject, then the kid can't be a subject, even if born in the land.



.

 

nobody agrees with you michael. not the voters, the electoral college, the ENTIRE congress, nor the ENTIRE judiciary.

 

It's not about who or how many agree............... silly!

You really need to go back to school and learn about how silly your warped reasoning is.

That's why your default cut and paste harassing posts are as useless as tits on a bull..................... it's plain to see that you have no sound argument that might reasonably come anywhere near rebutting the FACTS that I have presented.............. so your only resort is to fallacy, reliance and proliferation of falsity.

Seeing as you are in denial of the truth and have a political bias, you seek to suppress the truth by way of deceit and fallacy.

It's about whether the information that i have presented is the truth or not.

Recapping.............

It is the truth and it is a fact that English common law defines a 'natural born' as one born in the realm to a parent father who is a subject of the sovereign of that realm.

It is the truth and it is fact that the 'subject' status of the parent father of a child born in 17th century England, that is ESSENTIAL to qualify that child as a 'natural born subject'.

.

 

But that is where you are wrong Mike. Here in the United States, voters actually do matter- as does the Electoral College, Congress and the courts.

The voters say you are wrong- and they count.
The Electoral College says you are wrong- and they really count- literally.
Congress says you are wrong- they are the only body who could change anything.
And of course Chief Justice Roberts says you are wrong.

What MIchael is saying is that nobodies opinion counts except his own.

Silly Rabbit.