Thread: English Common Law Requires Jus Sanguinis as Essential for Natural Born

Originally Posted by BullsLawDan

This guy's still at it? Even after I proved his claims laughably misguided pages ago? Sheesh.

So, according to this guy, this conspiracy to lie about what makes a natural born citizen includes all of Congress, all of the federal judges including the Supreme Court, the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, the State Department, a few foreign countries, several state records' departments, and several state elections commissions.

Seems like a big conspiracy just to elect a mediocre President.

Not to mention England which removed the Jus Soli definition that had existed since Calvin's case in 1984, Ireland which removed it in 2003, and MichealN's home country Australia which removed it in 2004.

The laughable thing is that he will probably be twittering on that Calvin's Case had no precedent in a republic and therefore does not apply to the unique situation in the US, when in fact 10 years after Lord Coke's ruling England itself became a Republic and remained so for 20 odd years. (It was called the Commonwealth of England.) So Lord Coke's ruling was in force in a republic pretty much at the very beginning.

Gotta keep charging those windmills...

Originally Posted by MichaelN

The original USC recognized only two types of citizens.

They were "citizen" and "natural born Citizen" i.e. "We The People"

Why do you keep mindlessly repeating what has proven to be a gross inanity?

It is frankly a demonstration of profound linguistic incompetence to understand the general term 'citizen' to not be exactly what it is... the general term that includes all classes of citizen.

There is no excuse for any native English speaker to make such an elementary error.

Originally Posted by WongKimArk

Why do you keep mindlessly repeating what has proven to be a gross inanity?

It is frankly a demonstration of profound linguistic incompetence to understand the general term 'citizen' to not be exactly what it is... the general term that includes all classes of citizen.

There is no excuse for any native English speaker to make such an elementary error.

I'll repeat.............. there were only TWO types of "citizens" recognized in the original US Constitution, i.e. "citizen" and "natural born citizen".

These were "We The People".

Those people who might eventually naturalize through the processes of a future naturalization act were not "citizen" at the time.

Without a naturalization act at the time of the ratification of the USC, there can be no naturalized US "citizen" until there was a US naturalization act.

Those who might become a part of "We The People" didn't get a mention in the USC, it is when the naturalization rules were enacted and subsequent to that, when non-citizen people were assessed and accepted, that these applicants became "citizen", and THEN the US Constitution was applicable to them as "citizens".

At the time of the ratification of the USC, there were only "citizens" and non-citizens, with the children of the "citizens" as "natural born citizens" through natural descent and the native-born children of the non-citizens as non-citizens.

"natural born" meant primarily by descent, as is demonstrated by the US Congress and Senate, in 1790, defining a child born NON-NATIVE to US citizen parents as a "natural born citizen".

The USC recognized that there would be those who would, in the FUTURE apply to the US government for membership as "citizens", and that naturalization rules were needed for the future.

There were no naturalized citizens recognized in the original USC.

.

Nope. There were just citizens. Unless you are saying Doctor Who transported some babies back in time in his Tardis, none of them had been born yet.

""natural born" meant primarily by descent, as is demonstrated by the US Congress and Senate, in 1790, defining a child born NON-NATIVE to US citizen parents as a "natural born citizen"."

Nope, It specificly stated that that applied to Births to US citizens ABROAD. If they wanted it to apply to every child they would not have bothered to include the abroad provision, as it would mean every child to 2 citizen parents would be a born citizen, whether born abroad or not. There would be no need to codify something that was a fiat acomplis in any case.

Someday MichealN you will find someone who actually agrees with you. Rather than keep pointing out how you are editing quotes and whatnot.

Originally Posted by Suranis

Nope. There were just citizens. Unless you are saying Doctor Who transported some babies back in time in his Tardis, none of them had been born yet.

The minor children born to the self declared "citizens" were "naturally" declared as "citizens" by their parents, in that sense they were "natural born citizens."

The fact remains that the original USC recognized and mentioned only two classes of "citizens", i.e. those who were self declared = "citizen", and those minor children of those self declared = "natural born Citizen".

Important to note that there were no other types of born citizens until the 14th Amendment in 1868, eighty years after the original USC, when native birth was recognized and accepted as a means to "citizen" by native birth-right.


.

Originally Posted by Suranis

Nope, It specificly stated that that applied to Births to US citizens ABROAD. If they wanted it to apply to every child they would not have bothered to include the abroad provision, as it would mean every child to 2 citizen parents would be a born citizen, whether born abroad or not. There would be no need to codify something that was a fiat acomplis in any case.

Yes, the Congress and the Senate used the term "natural born citizen" in the body of a statute, a man made law, but only applied ONE essential of the TWO REQUIRED.

A "natural born" is not made by the law of man, it is the Law of Nature that makes a "natural born".

You already agree that the Framers, were conversant and to some extent observant of English common law, history, principles, etc.

According to the benchmark English common law, i.e. Calvin's case, which the Framers would have been most familiar with (besides Vattel's works), Lord Coke pointed out that there were TWO essential qualities required to make a "natural born"; they were/are "nature and birth right" and as Coke said further, "procreation and birth right".

I.e. natural descent and native birth-right.

That's why the term "natural born" was absent in the superseding naturalization act of 1795 to describe the off-shore born children of US citizens; although natural descent was/is the MOST essential quality in the making of a "natural born" (see Lord Coke's holding) it must have became obvious to the Congress and the Senate that a "natural born" could not be legislated as well as one of the essential qualities required was missing, i.e. native birth.

There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.
2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.
And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other.
For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because though the King of England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitain, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are Subjects to the king of England. 2. The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject.

The Congress and Senate in 1790 (probably in their enthusiasm with the citizens of the new republic actually being joint sovereigns) considered, in a sense, that US citizens and their wives having children off-shore, was much the same as the English ambassador.

And therefore if any of the king’s Ambassadors in forein Nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the Common Laws of England they are natural born subjects, and yet they are born out of the king’s dominions.

.

THE historic benchmark 17th century English common law case (i.e. Calvin's case per Lord Coke) clearly ruled/held that native-birth was NOT SUFFICIENT to make a natural born subject.

There is NO WAY the Framers, Blackstone, Justice Swift, Horace Gray, Black's Legal Dictionary, or anyone else could have found in 17th century English common law, that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject, then adopted such an absurd notion, because it's NOT THERE at all, in fact the opposite is to be found.

Lord Coke - Calvin's case....

""There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.
2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.
And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered"

"it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born"

So IF the Framers had observed the English common law principles to determine a "natural born Citizen (as is your absurd contention), then for a native-born child to be an Article II "natural born Citizen", the child would have to be born under the allegiance of a US citizen.

Micheal, crawl back to Apuzzo's lair and kiss his ass some more. He's the only one that might pay you any attention. No-one cares what you are lying about today.

Originally Posted by MichaelN

Important to note that there were no other types of born citizens until the 14th Amendment in 1868, eighty years after the original USC, when native birth was recognized and accepted as a means to "citizen" by native birth-right.

So there we have it. Obama is a natural born citizen by the 14th Amendment. Don't need to bother with the English common law BS. I(t does not apply. The only way that it would, once, long ago applied was before women were granted the right to vote, because, prior to that time, they were not citizens in the full sense, thus not able to confer citizenship, by birth right, on their children. Under that kind of law, yes, Obama would have been a British citizen.

But, because his mother was a citizen, and he was born here, England had no claim on him and he did not need to be naturalized.

You're stuick with the black guy in the White House, people. Get a grip.

MichaelN is the only guy in 400 years who correctly understands Calvin's case. A legend in his own mind from down under.