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

Discussion in 'Political Science' started by MichaelN, Nov 12, 2011.

  1. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If it is as is said, by the proponents of the absurd notion that an alien visitor's child, born in US = Article II 'natural born Citizen'; that the term 'subject' is analogous to the term 'citizen', and alien visitors to US are to be treated and embraced the same as did the English, i.e. as a 'subject/citizen' - then why would the US even bother having rules & laws of naturalization and an oath of allegiance?

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html
    But does 14th Amendment language "subject to the jurisdiction" actually refer to the visiting alien parents or only to the 'persons born or naturalized'?

    The 14th Amendment makes no reference whatsoever to alien visitors.

    Why even have the language "subject to the jurisdiction" in reference to "persons born or naturalized in the United States", if these "persons" are already "subject to the jurisdiction" by virtue of either being born in US or by taking an oath and becoming naturalized?

    Who might those "persons" be, who could be "born or naturalized in the United states" and NOT be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

    It is obvious that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" relates to those who have naturalized and sworn an oath of allegiance, but what of those "persons born"... "in the United States"?? .............. it appears their are doubts as to their citizenship.

    This doubt has been expressed by the SCOTUS in Minor v Happerset.

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html
    Why does the 14th Amendment not clarify the status of those "persons born" ... "in the United States" and use the language "natural born" rather than "citizen", if the 14th was really intended for them to be "natural born Citizen"(s)???

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress...-“natural-born”-for-presidential-eligibility/

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress...rn-citizen-born-of-citizen-parents-in-the-us/

    An Article II "natural born Citizen" is one born in US to US citizen parents.

    .
     
  2. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wrong..

    The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

    The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

    Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

    * Anyone born inside the United States *
    * Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
    * Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
    * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
    * Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
    * Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
    * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
    * A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

    * There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
     
  3. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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?
     
  4. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    None listed are Article II "natural born Citizen"s ..... so what's your point?

    According to 14th Amendment, ONLY those "persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction are citizens of the united states"

    Section 5 of 14th Amendment merely gives Congress the "power to enforce" the "provisions of the article".

    "14th Amendment - Section 5.

    The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

    It does not give congress the power to give birth-right citizenship to person born outside of US, in that it does not 'amend' the 14th Amendment.

    Here's your problem.......... if the Congress can grant birth-right citizenship by positive law (i.e. US Codes), then the Congress can also repeal such a law.

    On the other hand, "natural born" is a state of being, it is by the Law of Nature, before any municipal law & can't be repealed by any legislation.

    Here's what § 1401 actually says (full text).

    [Note: In EVERY instance in 1401 (except for (a) & (b) which simply repeats 14th Amendment for those born in US) the citizenship is based on the status of PARENT(s) and this is only to get to be an ordinary 'citizen' ......... go figure!]

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html

    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.
    --------------------------------------------

    'natural born Citizen' is all about the parents, and being born in US is what is a 'birth-right citizen'............. it takes both conditions to make a 'natural born Citizen'


    .
     
  5. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ???????????
     
  6. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  7. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  8. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  9. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    @ 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.


    .
     
  10. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ???????????

    what are you affraid of?
     
  11. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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.
     
  12. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.

    http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html

    .
     
  13. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    anything???
     
  14. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    This is not what Coke says at all. Let's look at what Coke says, quoted by yourself:

    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.

    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:

    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.

    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!

    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.

    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.

    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".

    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.

    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.

    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.

    As in England.
     
  15. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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/us...nnel=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

    The citizenship status of the parents MATTERS.


    .
     
  16. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank you- I have read others respond similarly to Michealn's claims, but you did a masterful job- I say that because I understood it better this time than the other times I have read it.

    Michael has had the same thing explained to him before. Over and Over. And as you can see by his post after yours....he ignores that which he cannot refute.

    Feel free to explain to Aussie Mike the falacy of his latest post. I just don't have the energy to point out it out right now- so I leave it to a Brit to explain to an Aussie how what American law really says. He won't listen to Americans, maybe he will listen to you.
     
  17. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Sometimes I think you are making an attempt to interpret the law and at other times I think you are just rambling inanely. What on earth are you talking about? Do you just want a score points /abuse each other fight or do you want to have a serious discussion about the law? This post is a spectacular weakening of your case confusing jus solis with jus sanguinis.

    We are talking about jus solis in the USA. That is the right to citizenship that accrues to someone by virtue of their birth within a territory. The slightest knowledge of common law will tell you that any other rights to citizenship are gained by statute. These come from the continental civil law tradition which established jus sanguinis. That is the right to citizenship that accrues to someone by virtue of their blood or ancestry.

    Coke does not concern himself in the slightest with jus sanguinis. There is no right under common law to citizenship based on ancestry or parentage. This right only arises through statute.

    The very absence of this from the 14th amendment just shows that the citizenship of parents under common law DOES NOT matter for jus solis. It only matters for jus sanguinis. You prove my very point.

    The primarily basis of English and American law, prior to amendment by statute, is jus solis and the establishment of citizenship by birth. Other means of acquiring citizenship, and in the case of the United Kingdom, limitations on jus solis, are by statute law. The 14th amendment does not limit Congress from conferring citizenship on whomsoever it wishes. Children born outside the territory of the USA are subject to citizenship rules established by statute.

    For this very clear reason, where the code determines that in cases of birth outside the territories of the USA, citizenship can be established through parentage, then parentage must be established. Just as where citizenship exists through birth within US territories, that place of birth must also be established. Its why we have birth certificates, as evidence of the place of birth and the nationality of the parents.

    I am an Irish citizen according to jus sanguinis, even though I was born in England, and this right accrues to me through Irish statute. To be recognized as an Irish citizen, I should have to prove my entitlement under this statute. Common law, despite being the basis of the Irish legal system, does not apply as I was not born in Ireland. This is reasonable.

    You completely ignore my carefully targeted points. I assume that this is because you have no interest in having a serious discussion but just indulge in silly point scoring and going off on a tangent. Is this so? Or can I expect you to actually carefully consider and engage with the points that I make?
     
  18. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes thanks. It's bloody hard work to do all that research and to think about how a "natural subject" may be different from a "natural born subject". I also had to research the treason law in England to see if (I did not think it did) it included aliens, which it does, unlike in the USA. It is very annoying when a meticulously researched and well considered post is dismissed by someone who isn't taking the subject very seriously and just posts the first thing that comes into his head. I got drawn in despite your warnings. It seemed that Michael had an interest in a serious discission.

    It looks as if you right be right. His reply just ignored all the points I had made and went off in a completely different direction. I made an appeal to him to address my points with some intellectual rigour. I will wait and see if he makes any attempt to do so.

    I understand how this relates to 'anchor babies". I don't understand how this relates to Obama. That jus solis applies to the President of the USA is not a common law principle but a deliberation of the Founding Fathers. There is no English common law precedent. And as jus sanguinis doesn't apply to the Presidency, then Obama's parentage is irrelevant, even though he clearly has an American mother which would establish a right to American citizenship wherever in the world he was born. So how does Coke apply to that? It would seem that if Obama is born in Hawaii then he is eligible. If born in Kenya or wherever all the barmpots think he was born, then he is not. This is nothing to do with common law. I personally think it is a stupid rule. But it is the rule. The law seems pretty clear.
     
  19. clarkatticus

    clarkatticus New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    0
    English common law is the logical extension of Greek and Roman law, as the Constitution is the extension of those laws. What do they have in common? The are all "Living Documents". They are expanded not just on the actual wording, but on the perseived intent, perseived by the Judges given the power to do so. One of the many builders of law is called "precedent", where past decisions lead to new enlightened ones. It is the present position of the GOP that the Constitution can only be read verbatim, that it is not a living document, although in the past they have not been so picky. Truth is, from the very first president of the US, the Constitution has been expanded past it's original intent so it is moot as to the ramblings of the "purists" we see today. Your argument about Obama's legal status is laughable and would not be granted cert in any past or present Supreme Court.
     
  20. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Whose argument? Where? I missed the Obama angle in this thread but everyone says it is here. I thought this thread was about Mexican "anchor babies".

    What is interesting here is that the conservative OP is not arguing the GOP position you describe but trying to use common law to justify denying citizenship to "anchor babies".

    I think you overstate the importance of "perceived intent". The superiority of common law over codified systems of civil law is that laws can evolve as their application is slowly changed. There are no sudden changes. There is a wisdom here which allows the law to withstand fads, and abuses, particularly the tyranny of the majority which can come through Roman (codified) law systems.

    Codified law, of which the US Constitution is an example, supercedes common law, or enshrines it. Codified law still needs to be applied to real cases but it introduces some rigidity into the law, which means it needs to be amended from time to time. Between those times there is some scope for common law precedent to develop statute law, as statutes are rarely specific enough to cover each situation. In these cases the "intent" is taken into account by the judge, but the interpretation of that law and the intent is made in a practical modern context. Under common law judges are lawmakers, but such lawmaking has to be done within the tight framework of precedent. In Roman Law systems (continental Europe and Scotland), judges have much more power as they are not required to follow precedent in interpreting a law. The common law system is clearly a greater protector of individual rights against those of the powerful - whether backed by the majority or not - than Roman law. This is why the Founding Fathers chose it.

    And regarding the fourteenth amendment, surely this is a perfect expression of the principle of jus solis under common law, and needs no "expansion" in modern times. This is the problem: conservatives who like to argue that the Constitution is a biblical tablet of stone from God that can never be changed, do have a real problem with the fourteenth amendment. The ancient right to the benefits of citizenship that accrue to natural born subjects, still applies in the USA and is guaranteed through the Constitution which explicitly codifies Lord Coke's arguments.

    Lord Coke would be in favour of a baby born on US soil to a Mexican immigrant being given US citizenship. The Constitution applies. The English common law which the Constitution codified, applies. The case law since the Constitution applies. Only an amendment to the Constitution can deny the rights under jus solis that accrue to anyone born on US soil. All other laws would be against common law precedent and the Constitution.

    In England, for example, which has no fourteenth amendment, statute (from conservatives who wanted to limit immigration in the 1980's) has superseded jus solis, and overrides it, so that an "anchor baby" in England has no right of citizenship. Lord Coke no longer reigns in England. In the USA such a law would be unconstitutional because the higher law - the Constitution - applies.
     
  21. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    PART 1 OF 3

    It is precisely what Lord Coke states, here it is verbatim...

    But still let's have a look at your long-winded argument.

    Correct ............. and because the 'foreigner' ( i.e. the alien-born) is visiting in amity, he is embraced as a 'subject' and as such, his children, if born in the realm, can be natural born subjects because they would be born 'under the ligeance of a subject'.

    Furthermore the same alien-born 'subject' can be tried for treason, why? ............... because he is a 'subject'.

    This might interest you ....... (from Wong Kim Ark)

    Garbage!

    The alien-born 'subject', like any other 'subject' can be prosecuted for treason and if he wasn’t considered a ‘subject’ then a charge of treason cannot be applied.

    All subjects are expected to obey the laws and furthermore the King doesn't create or enact the common law.
    In England, a ‘subject’ (which includes any alien-born friendly visitor) may be indicted for treason, but the indictment is for treason against the sovereign, not against the laws or jurisdiction.
    Lord Coke:
    As you can see an alien-born ‘subject’ (so called by mere presence in the realm) in England is “subject to the jurisdiction” to such an extent that he may be indicted for treason.
    Whereas an alien-born non-citizen (so called because they are not naturalized) in US is NOT “subject to the jurisdiction” to the same or an equal extent to that of the US citizens and is not indictable for treason.
    Thus the argument that ‘subject’ and ‘citizen’ are synonymous or inter-changeable is flawed.
    “Quite correctly”?
    You really should explain precisely what you mean here.
    As I see it, the term ‘subject’ as a noun, means one who in a non-democratic society is subject to a sovereign, owing absolute and faithful allegiance/obedience to the natural person of the sovereign.
    A ‘subject’ does not have a right elect the sovereign monarch (highest office) of the realm.
    A ‘subject’ cannot aspire by any normal rights or laws to be the sovereign monarch, nor can a ‘natural born subject’ who is not of ‘royal blood-line’ aspire to the status of sovereign monarch.
    An English ‘natural born subject’ is a ‘subject’ that has been born in the realm, under the ligeance of a ‘subject’, the term ‘natural born subject’ being only to describe one who has natural, absolute, pure and indefinite allegiance to a sovereign, but such a one can never by virtue of this status be eligible for the high office of sovereign monarch.
    On the other hand...................
    The term ‘citizen’, means one who is a member of a democratic political community (in the case of the US, a constitutional republic, founded by violent rebellion against monarchical rule and rejection of subjugation brought by same), owing allegiance to the community and entitled to enjoy all civil rights, privileges and protection.
    A ‘citizen’ has the right to vote in elections to choose the sovereign leader of the republic.
    A ‘citizen’ shares sovereignty with fellow citizens in the US republic.
    A US born ‘citizen’ can aspire by normal constitutional rights to be the sovereign leader, highest office, president of US, as an Article II ‘natural born citizen’.
    An USC Article II ‘natural born subject’ is a ‘citizen’ that has been born in the realm, under the ligeance of two parent ‘citizen’s, the term ‘natural born Citizen’ being to describe one who has natural, absolute, pure and indefinite allegiance to the fellow US citizens, and as such can by virtue of this status be eligible for the high office of sovereign monarch, president of the US republic.
     
  22. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    PART 2 OF 3

    Basically, an English ‘natural born subject’ is the US equivalent to what has (arguably) been construed as a birth-right US 14th Amendment where the status of the parents is not a consideration.
    You might also like to consider that the principle of citizens begetting citizens in a republic, where the citizens are the joint sovereigns, is much like the ancient principle of blood-line royalty, where sovereign begets sovereign.
    The notion that the framers of the USC were derelict in their duty and failing in the profoundly important imperative to secure the highest office i.e. of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim is absolutely absurd, especially in light of the profound influence Vattel et al had on the founding framers.
    Let’s stay with the program and not try and twist the language used.
    England did not have ‘citizens’ ............... only ‘subjects’.
    It is amply clear according to Lord Coke, that any alien-born, visiting England as a friend, is a ‘subject’ of the sovereign and as such, a child born to said ‘subject’, if born in England, would be ‘a natural born subject’, because the child was ‘born under the ligeance of a subject’.
    Given ‘subject’ and ‘citizen’ are interchangeable as has been held in the SCOTUS case of Wong Kim Ark, then for a child born in US to an alien-born parent, to be a ‘natural born citizen’, the alien-born parent would need to first become a US citizen, so the child could be ‘born under the ligeance of’ a citizen.

    You are twisting words again, there were no ‘citizens’ in 17th century England ............ but no matter.
    I think you need to consider also that ALL ‘subjects’ were ‘natural subjects’............. some ‘natural subjects’ were ‘natural born’ by nature and birthright, having the highest allegiance.
    It seems you have it wrong ............. as I see it aliens in England at the time could indeed acquire property.
    Coke:
    BTW, Calvin, ALREADY owned the property he was simply in court to maintain ownership and get it back off the people who took it over unlawfully by Richard and Nicholas Smith.
    Go read what I have already said on the matter of ligeance and ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ in US, etc.
    An English 17th century ‘subject’ as compared to a US ‘citizen’ and their respective allegiances and ‘subject to’ statuses, indictability for treason, duty to pay taxes, military duty, etc, are as chaulk is to cheese.
    ‘subject’ and ‘citizen’ have completely different meanings and implications as to rights, privileges, suffrage, sovereignty, aspirations to highest office, duties, taxes, etc, etc.
    Now you are being silly.
    Maybe this quote from Lord Coke will help you understand.
    Coke:
    Now lets’ get this right ............ Coke makes reference to ‘alien-born’ or ‘alien’, etc, but it is to describe one who is not a ‘subject born’, so even though a Frenchman visiting England as a friend is alien-born or an alien, he still is considered a ‘subject’, yet still remains an alien i.e. alien-born.
    Who’s talking about ‘citizenship rights’?
    The alien-born were ‘subjects’ and remained alien-born.
    You need some further correction,
    i.e. Robert Calvin was not the defendant, he was the plaintiff i.e. Calvin’s guardians sued to maintain ownership of land he ALREADY owned.
     
  23. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    PART 3 OF 3
    How nice................. still I have made my point
    I think you have got it wrong again........................... as well as that you spelled ‘antenati’ incorrectly.
    Coke:
    By the ‘whole hog’ I meant that with whatever partially being “subject to the jurisdiction” that the alien-born was, he was still a ‘subject’/citizen, but in US, an alien being partially “subject to the jurisdiction” does NOT make said alien a ‘citizen’/subject.
    Chaulk and cheese is ‘subject’ of a monarchy to a sovereign ‘citizen’ of a republic, as I have shown you already on numerous occasions.
    No so!
    You! are suggesting that an alien visiting US is “subject to the jurisdiction” to the same extent as a US citizen, when in fact this is not true, we know that in the context of the USC 14th Amendment “subject to the jurisdiction” actually meant “full jurisdiction”, “not subject to any foreign powers”, something that an alien cannot be for the reasons I have already mentioned i.e. treason, taxes, suffrage, national service, etc.
    Futhermore there is not one mention of “subject to the jurisdiction” to be found anywhere in Lord Coke’s report of Calvin’s case .................. you are inventing all this as you go along.
    The fact is that a ‘subject’ in England owes ligeance/obedience to the “natural person of the king” by the ‘Law of Nature’ which was before any municipal laws even existed that could come-up with “subject to the jurisdiction”.
    All English ‘subjects’ were ‘natural subjects’ by the ‘Law of Nature’, some were ‘natural born’ with a higher allegiance than other ‘subjects’.
    I have dealt with this garbage of yours (and others in this forum) on several occasions; you will need to read again my posts and other comments in this post, as I am not going to repeat it all again, except to say that it is an established fact, according to Lord Coke in his report of Calvin’s case, that the ‘subject’ status of the parent father of a child born in England, MATTERS, for that child to be a ‘natural born’, to the extent that it is an ESSENTIAL quality for the parent father to be a ‘subject’; for if the parent father were not a ‘subject’, then his child can not be a ‘natural born’, even if born in the realm.
    Coke:
    As we already know, when a person in England has ligeance and obedience to the sovereign, that person is a ‘subject’; because of this ‘subject’ status, a child of such a ‘subject’ can be a ‘natural born’ if born in the realm; without the parent being a ‘subject’ then a child cannot be a ‘subject’ let alone a ‘natural born subject’, even if born in the realm.
    There is nothing in Calvin’s case that relates to ‘citizens’, so let’s keep this correct in terms of language and definitions; you keep twisting definitions and language.
    The alien-born, visiting England as a friend, was a ‘subject’, still alien-born and still a ‘subject’ and as such, his child if born in the realm, would be a ‘natural born subject’, BECAUSE the child was born ‘under the ligeance of a subject’.
    The alien-born, visiting US as a friend, was/is a non-citizen, still alien-born and still NOT a US citizen unless naturalized by due process AND by pledging an oath of allegiance and abandoning any other allegiances, then if this alien-born becomes a US citizen (yet still alien-born) his child, if born in US would be a ‘natural born Citizen’
    This has been the accepted norm per SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett.
    Garbage!

    .
     
  24. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Michael, your continued abuse with the word 'garbage" is very juvenile. Do you want to have a serious debate? Why are you being so tediously disagreeable?

    Clearly your sophistry regarding "citizenship" will be one area where we have to thrash this out. My meaning here is a "person in England who enjoys the rights of a natural born subject", as opposed to one who simply enjoys the very limited rights of a natural subject. I did explain that this was how I defined the term for this argument, but you chose to be pedantic about the meaning of the word, which of course has many different connotations. If you had any real interest in debate you would have allowed this use of the word "citizen" as, for the sake of this argument, being shorthand for " a person in England who enjoys the rights of a natural born subject".

    The key to my argument is that a "natural subject" is completely different in rights and obligations to a "natural born subject". This is the central issue in Calvin. We are talking about rights that come with "birth".

    I think this is analagous to citizenry, but that is a separate point, and the truth or otherwise of this separate point does not negate the point I make above.

    An alien coming into England in amity has less property rights than a "natural born subject" (I'm not allowed to say citizen so I won't) and also maintains his liegeance absoluta to his foreign monarch while having a liegeance localis to the English king. He is a "natural subject" in that he owes a local allegiance to the king. He is still an alien. He is not merely alien born. There is nothing anywhere which you have quoted that negates his status as an alien. This is also clearly the status of Scots antenati even after the Calvin ruling. Foreigners are aliens in England and at this time enjoyed less property rights than "natural born subjects".

    Foreigners were always aliens in England and still are. If you dispute this, please explain why. Foreigners today are aliens in England, unless they are formally naturalized as in the USA. When did this change from the state of affairs you propose that aliens coming to England ceased to be aliens and were merely "alien born"? If anything is garbage it is this proposal that there are no aliens in England (I will at least be very specific as to what I deem as garbage in your posts). When did this change? When did alien in England start to cover visitors as it does today? The answer is it has always been so. Alines have never been anything but persons with limited liegance, as explicitly stated in Coke.

    The other glaring howler is in your opening post where you talk about an alien visiting at war, which was not the part I was referring to, all the while assuming that we were talking about an alien visiting in amity, which is the analogy that is relevant here.

    Your point about aliens being able to own property is again pedantic as clearly you can see that the substance of my argument - that aliens have less property rights than natural born subjects, is true. This sort of approach is unhelpful.

    The other area which you do not seem to be making any effort to understand is regarding treason and laws. You may have a very fine point here as to the difference between treason (against the King in person) and other crimes (against laws), which needs to be explored, but your whole "garbage" bombast means that the point is lost and I will have to try and figure out what you mean by research.

    And you have dismissed my analogy of "natural subject" with "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" casually and with no explanation. It's very tiresome.

    Basically Michael if you want to have a debate with me (or anyone really unless you just like the sound of your own keyboard) I really need you to adopt a Socratic method. This means you seek out to understand what your opponent is saying, identify areas where you agree, and then where you disagree explain clearly the point of disagreement with the intention to persuade.

    I know that this debate has two strong points of view because I know that this has been a subject of debate between two law schools. I am sure they did not say "garbage" to each other and am sure they realized that the points of agreement between themselves were a hundred times more than those of disagreement but that it was in a few fine distinctions that their case was won or lost.

    Thanks for the opportunity to do some research. I'm happy that I understand the common law basis of the fourteenth amendment now and the rulings of the SCOTUS.
     
  25. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The US Constitution is 'expanded' and can only be a 'living document' (apparently meaning to you that it mutates or morphs) via the amendment process.

    As it stands SCOTUS precedent holds that there has never been any doubt that a US 'natural born Citizen' is one who is born in US to US citizen parents and further the SCOTUS holds that it is doubtful that a child born in US to non-citizen parentage is a citizen at all.

    What do you find 'laughable' about that?



    .
     

Share This Page