+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 126

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

  1. #31
    Location: Southeast USA
    Posts: 62,129
    My Latest Mood: Amused

    Default

    MichaelN

    Everyone on US soil is under US jurisdiction.. EVERY ONE..

    Kenyan law doesn't apply in the US nor British, French or any other law.

    Take your time and find out what JURISDICTION means.

  2. Default

    On one hand, we have Michael- an Aussie who has no apparent legal training-on the other hand we have legal experts from the Indiana Court of Appeals:

    Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Indiana Ct. App. 2009, ). The Ankeny court ruled that the citizenship of President Obama's father is irrelevant:

    Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
    The real harm is to our children. As long as we remain suspicious of the wrong people, predators will continue to have free reign to abuse innocent children. If they remain free from scrutiny because everyone else is focusing on gays and lesbians, more young lives will continue to be shattered and more parents will suffer the agonizing heartache of learning that they trusted someone who destroyed their child’s future.

  3. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Margot View Post
    MichaelN

    Everyone on US soil is under US jurisdiction.. EVERY ONE..

    Kenyan law doesn't apply in the US nor British, French or any other law.

    Take your time and find out what JURISDICTION means.
    I'm not sure who is posting the biggest drivel, you or Michael.

    English common law is relevant to US law and all common law jurisdictions. This is not a controversial concept and has been well explained for anyone with an attention span of more than one minute.

    And diplomats have immunity from US law. This is the exception to "in the jurisdiction thereof". This would also apply to foreign armies on US soil, which is the instance in Coke that illustrates this principle.

    Michaels rambling answers nothing. I have explained how Coke is relevant to US law and the constitution, including the fourteenth amendment, how it is interpreted by US courts to support "anchor babies" being given US citizenship.
    Last edited by Heroclitus; Nov 18 2011 at 10:14 PM.
    Plus on aime quelqu'un, moins il faut qu'on le flatte:
    À rien pardonner le pur amour éclate.
    Moliere

    I think the term "classical liberal" is also equally applicable. I don't really care very much what I'm called. I'm much more interested in having people thinking about the ideas, rather than the person. Milton Friedman

    Die Sonne scheint noch. Es lebe die Freiheit!

  4. Default

    @ Heroclitus.

    It is irrelevant as to WHY an alien visiting England may not be a 'subject'.

    It is the FACT that when an alien visitor is not a 'subject', then his child cannot be born a subject, even if born in England.

    Coke doesn't say that the child is no subject because he was born to an enemy alien, he says that the child 'is no subject' because was 'not born under the ligeance of a subject'.

    UNLIKE England, alien visitors to US of any stripe, are not considered to have natural ligeance/obedience to the sovereign(s) (who by the way, are the US Citizens), as was the case with monarchical England, in US the alien visitors are not embraced as subjects/citizens, they must apply and be accepted as citizens by due process and swear an oath of allegiance, even though as non-citizen aliens, they may be under partial jurisdiction of US laws, and thus not the equivalent to a US citizen as far as full and proper jurisdiction goes.

    e.g. In England, an alien visiting in friendship may be charged and prosecuted as a 'subject' for treason, but an alien visiting US in friendship, not being a subject/citizen, cannot be charged and prosecuted for treason.

    Being under partial jurisdiction in US, by no means qualifies for one to be a citizen/subject of US.

    In England there was no partial jurisdiction/ligeance/obedience .......... it was the 'whole-hog' and one was taken as a 'whole-hog' 'subject', then, as a 'subject', a child of that 'subject' would be a 'natural born subject', because the child would be born 'under the ligeance of a subject'.

    The subject/citizen status of the parent MATTERS regardless of how the parent arrived at that status.

    In England, visit as a friend and you are in the mix as a 'subject', then your kid can be a 'natural born subject' if born in the realm.

    In US, visit as a friend, apply for US citizenship, attain acceptance, swear an oath of allegiance and you are in the mix as a 'citizen', then your kid can be an Article II 'natural born Citizen', if born in US.


    .
    ..."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 children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." - Supreme Court of US - Minor v Happersett

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rahl View Post
    Michael, you've yet to answer this question.

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

    what are you affraid of?

  6. #36
    Location: Southeast USA
    Posts: 62,129
    My Latest Mood: Amused

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heroclitus View Post
    I'm not sure who is posting the biggest drivel, you or Michael.

    English common law is relevant to US law and all common law jurisdictions. This is not a controversial concept and has been well explained for anyone with an attention span of more than one minute.

    And diplomats have immunity from US law. This is the exception to "in the jurisdiction thereof". This would also apply to foreign armies on US soil, which is the instance in Coke that illustrates this principle.

    Michaels rambling answers nothing. I have explained how Coke is relevant to US law and the constitution, including the fourteenth amendment, how it is interpreted by US courts to support "anchor babies" being given US citizenship.

    Think it thru... If you are a tourist in Germany, you are under German law and German jurisdiction..

    Yes, diplomats have immunity from the laws of a foreign country because the Embassy is consider a bit of soil of the country it represents.. BUT.. these posters are so ignorant and confused already don't make it more complicated for them.

    Obama's father was NOT a DIPLOMAT.. He was in the US on a student visa and as such he was under US jurisdiction.

    Being a subject or citizen is NOT the same as being under jurisdiction.
    Last edited by Margot; Nov 20 2011 at 06:00 AM.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Margot View Post
    Think it thru... If you are a tourist in Germany, you are under German law and German jurisdiction..

    Yes, diplomats have immunity from the laws of a foreign country because the Embassy is consider a bit of soil of the country it represents.. BUT.. these posters are so ignorant and confused already don't make it more complicated for them.

    Obama's father was NOT a DIPLOMAT.. He was in the US on a student visa and as such he was under US jurisdiction.

    Being a subject or citizen is NOT the same as being under jurisdiction.
    Even a foreign diplomat, visiting US is partially under US jurisdiction.

    The only difference with a diplomat is that he/she has immunity from prosecution, but still he/she must respect the US sovereignty, laws, rules, etc and enjoys protection, etc from US.

    So the notion is absurd, that foreign diplomats visiting US are not required to have the "allegiance" of other visiting aliens, of course they are, except they have immunity from prosecution.

    The so called temporary "allegiance" and "obedience" of friendly alien visitors to US is partial and DIFFERENT to the full allegiance and obedience of a US citizen.

    That's why the US has a pledge of allegiance for those who are accepted and naturalized to become citizens.

    We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside." This can be referred to as the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? Jurisdiction can take on different meanings that can have nothing to do with physical boundaries alone--and if the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term "limits" rather than "jurisdiction" since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries and reach of law.

    Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

    Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

    The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]

    It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

    [T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
    http://www.14thamendment.us/articles...tionality.html

    .
    ..."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 children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." - Supreme Court of US - Minor v Happersett

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rahl View Post
    Michael, you've yet to answer this question.

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

  9. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelN View Post
    It is irrelevant as to WHY an alien visiting England may not be a 'subject'.

    It is the FACT that when an alien visitor is not a 'subject', then his child cannot be born a subject, even if born in England.

    Coke doesn't say that the child is no subject because he was born to an enemy alien, he says that the child 'is no subject' because was 'not born under the ligeance of a subject'.
    This is not what Coke says at all. Let's look at what Coke says, quoted by yourself:

    Quote Originally Posted by Coke
    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....
    This is clear. A foreigner owes a local obedience to the King when he comes into his territory "in amity", not in warfare. The foreigner has a ligeance localis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coke
    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 ...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
    In this case the crime is treason, but this applies to any crime. The ligeance localis is not to break any of the King's laws.

    I see that here you may be confusing the term "natural subject" with citizenship, as in more modern English the term "subject" has that connotation (quite illogically actually, "citizen" being a much better description and the word on my British passport). However, this was not the connotation of the term then. This case is about the rights (a concept linked to citizenship not "subject" status) that accrue to "natural born subjects" not "subjects" per se.

    The meaning then was as it is in the fourteenth amendment - "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (US law hasn't taken the word 'subject" to imply the full rights afforded to citizens, quite correctly). It is amply clear that any Frenchman come in amity into England was "subject to the jurisdicion thereof" and that this was what made him a "natural subject" of the King. The Frenchman was in no way a citizen, but remained an alien.

    "Natural subjects" did not enjoy the rights of Englishmen. "Natural born subjects" did. This was the essence on which the case turned. To be a full citizen you had to be "natural born". "Natural subjects" remained aliens.

    Coke's judgement is clear regarding a foreigner come in amity:

    Quote Originally Posted by Coke
    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
    Clearly the plaintiff, whose parents were Scottish antenati, and therefore aliens in England, was a "natural born subject" and - and this is the critical part - therefore entitled to the rights of property of an Englishman that his parents, though they may be "natural subjects", were not entitled to, due to their status as aliens. It is this concept of the "natural born subject" enjoying full rights of citizenship that is to be found in the fourteenth amendment. "Natural subjects" enjoyed no such rights and were aliens, as now in the USA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michale
    UNLIKE England, alien visitors to US of any stripe, are not considered to have natural ligeance/obedience to the sovereign(s) (who by the way, are the US Citizens), as was the case with monarchical England,
    Not true. In the US I am expected to have an liegance/obedience to the Republic and its laws, and that when in the USA, I am, a foreigner, clearly "subject to the jurisdiction of" the USA. You apparently are disputing this very obvious fact. Please clarify. Are you?

    If you confirm this fact, and are in any way qualified to practise law in the USA, please let me know your number. If ever accused of a crime in the USA I will simply declare myself "outside the jurisdiction of the USA" and see how far I will get!

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael
    UNLIKE England... in US the alien visitors are not embraced as subjects/citizens, they must apply and be accepted as citizens by due process and swear an oath of allegiance, even though as non-citizen aliens, they may be under partial jurisdiction of US laws, and thus not the equivalent to a US citizen as far as full and proper jurisdiction goes.
    Of course this is EXACTLY THE SAME as in England and not unlike it at all. And of course in Coke's day, Sherley remained an alien, as did the parents of the Scots who were accepted as Englishmen by the ruling (the antenatum). Do you actually follow the original case? No citizenship or rights of freborn Englishmen was conferred on Sherley or the Scottish parents of the defendants of the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael
    In England, an alien visiting in friendship may be charged and prosecuted as a 'subject' for treason, but an alien visiting US in friendship, not being a subject/citizen, cannot be charged and prosecuted for treason.
    US law has moved on in respect to treason (now qualified by statute) in that it requires ligentia absoluta due to the Founding Fathers specifically rejecting English common law on treason. But treason here is a side issue as "liegeance and obedience" are not merely to prevent treason, but a requirement that an alien follow all the laws of the land.

    Quote Originally Posted by michael
    Being under partial jurisdiction in US, by no means qualifies for one to be a citizen/subject of US.
    Nor does it in England. Nor did it ever. Which is the whole judgement in the Coke case where antinati were denied the rights iof "natural born subjects".

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael
    In England there was no partial jurisdiction/ligeance/obedience .......... it was the 'whole-hog' and one was taken as a 'whole-hog' 'subject', then, as a 'subject', a child of that 'subject' would be a 'natural born subject', because the child would be born 'under the ligeance of a subject'.
    Not so. Dealt with above. You yourself quoted that for aliens ligeance localis applied and this clearly was not "the whole hog". Aliens, though natural subjects, were NOT entitled to their property being protected. This is the whole basis of the Calvin case.

    You are confusing "natural subject" with "citizen" when it merely means "subject to the jurisdiction thereof. "Natural subjects" did not have the property rights of freeborn Englishmen. The ligeance was very definitely partial. This is not disputed and is the basis of the whole case. Scottish born person were seeking to have their rights established as Englishmen because they had been born after the Union of England and Scotland and were entitled to greater rights than alien Scots in England.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael
    The subject/citizen status of the parent MATTERS regardless of how the parent arrived at that status.
    It does not matter. Any alien who come sin amity becomes subject to the jurisdiction of the USA or England. They do not change their status as aliens in either country. Sherley was an alien in England, for example, even though he was subject to the King's jurisdiction.

    In exactly the same way I will be subject to the laws of the Republic should I come in amity to the USA. I will still remain an alien, though I be subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael
    In England, visit as a friend and you are in the mix as a 'subject', then your kid can be a 'natural born subject' if born in the realm.
    You are not "a subject". You are an alien. You are merely subject to the jursidiction of the UK. In the same way as the aliens who were the "natural subjects" that Coke refers to did not enjoy the rights of Englishmen (the whole essence of the case), no visitor enjoys the rights of British citizens in Britain. Nor ever did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael
    In US, visit as a friend, apply for US citizenship, attain acceptance, swear an oath of allegiance and you are in the mix as a 'citizen', then your kid can be an Article II 'natural born Citizen', if born in US.
    As in England.
    Last edited by Heroclitus; Nov 21 2011 at 10:43 PM.
    Plus on aime quelqu'un, moins il faut qu'on le flatte:
    À rien pardonner le pur amour éclate.
    Moliere

    I think the term "classical liberal" is also equally applicable. I don't really care very much what I'm called. I'm much more interested in having people thinking about the ideas, rather than the person. Milton Friedman

    Die Sonne scheint noch. Es lebe die Freiheit!

  10. Default

    More proof that the status of the parents MATTERS in determining ordinary US citizenship, let alone Article II "natural born Citizen"-ship.

    These US citizens by birth-right are not even covered by 14th Amendment.

    Yet those birth-right US citizens born off-shore, have to PROVE they were born to at least one US citizen parent. ................. go figure!

    http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...00b92ca60aRCRD

    Are you a citizen born outside of the United States?

    The citizenship of someone born outside of the United States, as the child of a U.S. citizen parent, could vary depending on the law in effect when the birth took place. In most cases citizens born outside the U.S. requires a combination of evidence showing at least one parent being a U.S. citizen when the child was born and having lived in the United States or its possessions for a period of time.

    To apply for recognition of citizenship, you have options:

    Your Consular Report of Birth Abroad, or FS-240, provides proof of citizenship if your birth was registered at the nearest U.S. consulate when you were born. For more information you can link to the U.S. Department of State Web site from the “Related Links” section in the upper right corner of this page.

    If you are already in the United States, apply for a Certificate of Citizenship. Use Form N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship, also available from the “Related Links” section in the upper right corner of this page.
    TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401

    § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
    (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
    (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
    (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
    (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
    (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
    (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
    (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
    (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
    (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
    The citizenship status of the parents MATTERS.


    .
    ..."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 children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." - Supreme Court of US - Minor v Happersett

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 575
    Last Post: Apr 05 2013, 07:37 AM
  2. Native Born Is Not Natural Born
    By Frogger in forum United States
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Jan 11 2012, 10:44 AM
  3. Replies: 164
    Last Post: Nov 23 2011, 06:02 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks