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

Quoting from Lord Coke - Calvin's case.

Calvin's case case was cited in dicta of Wong Kim Ark as the source for a definition of 'natural born Citizen'.

Even after citing Calvin's case and with all the discussion that took place in dicta, Wong Kim Ark was ruled a 'citizen', but not a 'natural born Citizen'.

English common law requires TWO essential qualities to make a natural born, of which jus sanguinis is paramount, for without the parent being a subject, his child cannot be a natural born, even if born in the land.

There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright,

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

Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=c...html&Itemid=27

Originally Posted by MichaelN

Quoting from Lord Coke - Calvin's case.

Calvin's case case was cited in dicta of Wong Kim Ark as the source for a definition of 'natural born Citizen'.

Even after citing Calvin's case and with all the discussion that took place in dicta, Wong Kim Ark was ruled a 'citizen', but not a 'natural born Citizen'.

English common law requires TWO essential qualities to make a natural born, of which jus sanguinis is paramount, for without the parent being a subject, his child cannot be a natural born, even if born in the land.







http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=c...html&Itemid=27

Since when does English Common Law applies to the USA?

Originally Posted by Nosferax

Since when does English Common Law applies to the USA?

Obama's website during the campaign stated that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed his birth status since his father was a British National.

From Fight the Smears:

“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”


John Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment which defined what a 'citizen' is defined a 'natural born citizen' as this:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

As you can see, Obama's father held allegiance to the British Crown and that negates Obama's natural born citizen status at his birth.

Originally Posted by Nosferax

Since when does English Common Law applies to the USA?

It is not my contention that English common law should apply in defining US 'natural born Citizen' ........... the SCOTUS in WKA case cited in dicta English common law, particularly Lord Coke - Calvin's case, in their quest to define NBC and yet still gave Wong 'citizen' ONLY.

The point is that English common law requires the parent to be a subject, for a child of that parent to be a 'natural born' & that the subject status of the parent is ESSENTIAL as the PARAMOUNT quality for 'natural born'.

So IF the framers of the USC did take English common law as a guide, then jus sanguinis is undoubtedly paramount & essential in establishing NBC status in USA.

It appears that the WKA court took on-board the English common law requirement of jus sanguinis per Lord Coke, because even after all the considerations in WKA dicta about NBC, SCOTUS ruled WKA a 'citizen' only and NOT a NBC.

Also in Minor v. Happersett SCOTUS included in it's ruling the definition of "natural born citizen".

This should explain, with certainty, what is meant by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the united States Constitution.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens(not natural born citizens)children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts,(of citizenship) but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts (which doubts). It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.


CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
88 U.S. 162; 21 Wall. 162
OCTOBER, 1874, Term

Italics and highlights are mine.

British Citizenship can be acquired both by:
lex soli: By birth in the United Kingdom to a parent who is a British citizen at the time of the birth, or to a parent who is settled in the United Kingdom
lex sanguinis: By descent if one of the parents is a British citizen otherwise than by descent (for example by birth, adoption, registration or naturalisation in the United Kingdom).
The premise of the OP is flat wrong.

Obama is a British subject (he sure dissed his Queen during the toast) by birth, maybe on British protected soil, certainly according to the British nationality Laws of 1948.

I do not believe, there is any way in heck, that the Founding Fathers would have understood the words they carefully wrote into Article II Section 1 Clause 5 as permitting a British subject to be able to ascend to the office of Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military forces. Do you?

P.S. Paul Revere was an Original Citizen as were all of the early American Patriots. Do you need me to explain what it meant to be an Original Citizen or are you trolling with your sig line?

Originally Posted by Colonel K

British Citizenship can be acquired both by:
lex soli: By birth in the United Kingdom to a parent who is a British citizen at the time of the birth, or to a parent who is settled in the United Kingdom
lex sanguinis: By descent if one of the parents is a British citizen otherwise than by descent (for example by birth, adoption, registration or naturalisation in the United Kingdom).

So?

Originally Posted by Colonel K

The premise of the OP is flat wrong.

Why? .......... how? .............. because you want it to be 'wrong'?

funny thing is that I have watched your theory get torn to shreds elsewhere.

But I don't care.

Because here in the U.S. everyone knows that anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen.