'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. rahl

    rahl Banned

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

    the fact that you're completely wrong, as wong kim ark proves.
     
  2. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here's what I get from Coke's report of Calvin's case.....

    A 'natural subject' is such by the 'Law of Nature'; this is not because of any "subject to the jurisdiction" of any municipal law(s), it is by ligeance/obedience owed to the 'natural person' of the sovereign king and the by sovereign reciprocating the ligeance by providing protection, etc.

    A 'natural born subject' is such by 'nature and birthright' and/or 'procreation and birthright'; this also is not because of any "subject to the jurisdiction"; this status is arrived at before the municipal law has any part to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of.

    The 'point' you 'make' has to do with different rights, obligations and privileges of 'natural subjects' and 'natural born subjects'........ is that correct?

    But making this 'point' does nothing to alter the fact that a male alien (which means one who is alien-born) visiting 17th century England, in amity, is a 'subject' of the king by local ligeance/obedience, due by the law of nature; because the alien (aka alien-born) is a 'subject', any child born to him in England, is a 'natural born subject' (the same as Robert Calvin was, i.e. by procreation and birthright) the child being such because it was 'born under the ligeance of a subject'.

    My point is that if the English common law is to be relied on as a guide to what constitutes a US 'natural born Citizen', then a child must be born in the realm of the US to a US citizen parent-father to be a US 'natural born Citizen'.

    Furthermore serious consideration must be given to the framing period of the USC and the 'natural born' status in US as being a required qualification for highest office, with an imperative and obligation on the part of the framers to secure the office of POTUS from any foreign influence or claim, by aiming at ensuring the highest possible allegiance and dedication to the US republic as possible be required for one to be eligible for POTUS.

    It is without doubt that with all of this and with the profound influence of Vattel fresh in the minds of the framers, that a 'natural born Citizen' meant one born in US to US citizen parents.

    The notion that the framers would have been derelict in their duty and imperative to protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and/or claim is extremely absurd.

    The citizens of US are sovereign of US.

    Consistent with age old principles where sovereign begets sovereign................ the principle in US may be seen as sovereign citizen begets sovereign citizen.

    There is no need for me to address the rest of your post.

    .
     
  3. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Michael:

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


    Quote:
    In his Lectures on Constitutional Law, p. 79, Mr. Justice Miller remarked:

    "If a stranger or traveler passing through, or temporarily residing in, this country, who has not himself been naturalized and who claims to owe no allegiance to our Government, has a child born here which goes out of the country with its father, such child is not a citizen of the United States, because it was not subject to its jurisdiction."


    Michael- when you quote from the dissenting opinion in Wong, it would be more honest to note that this was part of the opinion that lost.


    I find it laughable that you mistate Minor in such a way. Minor is not a precedent, Minor does not define Natural Born Citizen, and the Supreme court does not say it is doubtful that a child born in the U.S. to non-citizen parentage is a citizen at all.

    Minor specifically says that a child born of non-citizen parents may well be a natural born citizen- AND that Minor was not addressing that issue.

    Further more, Wong Kim Ark supercedes Minor, and as per actual legal experts- in this case the Appeals Court of Indiana:

    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.

    So Michael- what are your legal credentials such that we should believe you rather than the Indiana Court of Appeals?


    "the SCOTUS holds that it is doubtful that a child born in US to non-citizen parentage is a citizen at all."

    There is no Supreme Court ruling that says that at all.
     
  4. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Makes no difference what 'side' Justice Miller was speaking from, considering the fact that the SCOTUS decision in Wonk Kim Ark was 'citizen' ONLY and NOT 'natural born Citizen', which was consistent with Justice Miller's expert opinion.

    With all the talk of 'natural born citizen' that took place throughout the WKA case, don't you find it odd that the decision was ONLY 'citizen' with no mention of 'natural born' or eligibility for presidential office.

    You do appreciate that the WKA court cited Minor v Happersett where this is what was stated...........

    Ergo:For a child born in US to be a 'natural born Citizen', that child must be born to US citizen parents.

    If YOU be honest and let go of your politically biased agenda, you will have the decency to acknowledge this truth of the matter.

    Don't preach honesty to me, I find such hypocrisy as disgraceful.

    .
     
  5. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So says Mr "because I said so", "I wish" SFJEFF, right on queue.............. now THAT is what is really laughable.

    Then you can show how it has been ignored by subsequent 'horizontal' SCOTUS proceedings?

    Seems to me the WKA court respected the Minor V Happersett sufficient to cite it and still rule WKA ONLY a 'citizen'.

    But you are wrong again.

    Minor clearly defined 'natural born Citizen' AND did say that it is doubtful that a child born in US of non-citizen parents could even be a 'citizen', let alone a NBS.

    Here it is again....

    I will leave your blatant desperate LIE here that follows, just for the record.

    Disgraceful!................... such a LIE!

    Keep up with your lies and "because I said so" garbage SFJEFF, and I will not respond anymore to your posts....... as all you are doing here is exercising your disinformation campaign based on political agenda and fouling the discussions here in desperation to suppress the truth.

    .
     
  6. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Curious then isn't it that you neglected to mention that you were citing part of the losing opinion. If it didn't make any difference- why did you quote him at all?


    As I mentioned in my last post, and which you carefully avoided, actual legal experts disagree with you. The Court of Appeals of Indiana specifically said:

    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.

    So Michael- what are your legal credentials such that we should believe you rather than the Indiana Court of Appeals?

    Except of course Minor doesn't say that. You keep glossing over:

    Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

    Right here the Supreme Court says these children may be Natural Born Citizens.

    And then Minor goes on to say that it is not addressing this issue.

    The truth of the matter- as every person born and raised in the United States knows- is that anyone born in the United States- with the exception of diplomats- can aspire to grow up and be elected President.

    The truth of the matter is- you are ignoring the legal opinion of actual legal experts to further your politically biased agenda. I will repeat once again the words of actual legal experts:

    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.


    How ironic.
     
  7. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here's a very informative article that doesn't deny the truth.

    http://jonathanturley.org/2011/10/23/holdings-dicta-and-stare-decisis/

    .
     
  8. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As opposed to you Michael?

    There is not a single legal expert that agrees with you Michael.


    WKA nevers says Wong was 'only' a citizen. WKA never says that Wong is not a natural born citizen. As the Indiana Court of Appeals says:

    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.

    No Minor said that the court was certain that children born of two citizens within the United States are Natural Born Citizens.

    And the Court never says 'it is doubtful'.

    Maybe the English you learn in Australia is different Michael

    "As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. "

    The Court never says 'it is doubtful, and indeed very clearly leaves open the possibility that such children are Natural Born Citizens.

    Oh no- Michael called me a LIAR! Seriously- you continue with your trolling of opinion boards around the U.S. trying to find someone to take you seriously, and you keep posting "Aussie Michael's Version of Natural Born Citizen" that no one- no one- take seriously. Poor Hero tried to answer you respectfully, but I warned him- you refuse to accept anything but your own particularly odd view of the law.

    You don't have to respond- I will just leave you one more time with this gem:

    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.

    Go ahead Michael- call the Court of Appeals of Indiana liars also.
     
  9. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I see your hack attorney Leo Donofrio and raise him one Court of Appeals of Indiana;

    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.
     
  10. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm going to stay just with this one. In order to debate effectively I will summarize what I see to be the basis on which you make this assertion. I will go one step at a time so that we can get to the kernel of our disagreement and not go off on a tangent.

    This statement you make here is both a conclusion and a premise to further conclusions. For now I will suggest the closest premises to this conclusion to see if you agree, before commenting on these. We can leave the conclusions you draw from this premise to after we have established if this statement is true or not. This may take a few exchanges, but I believe it will be productive.

    Here goes:

    Do you agree with the following:

    A "natural born citizen" of the US needs to be born of a US citizen parent

    because

    A "natural born subject" of England needed to be born of a "natural subject" of England? being the principle laid down by Coke


    Furthermore, if you agree that (which I think you do) then are you not arguing that:

    In reaching this conclusion, a "natural born citizen" is analagous to a "natural born subject" as defined in Coke

    and furthermore

    A "US citizen parent" is analagous to a "natural subject" as defined in Coke?


    Let's stick to clarifying these two questions, before we move on to the next point. If you do not agree with the two statements above then can you clarify in what way you disagree and re-state, just on these narrow points, what you do mean. My expectation is that you agree with these two points so in case you are tempted to be rude, please note that this is a friendly proposal.
     
  11. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not entirely ................ here's why.

    It is not 'because a "natural born subject" of England needed to be born of a "natural subject" of England? being the principle laid down by Coke' - that a US born child needs to be born of US citizen parents.'

    Btw, to correct ............ a NBS is needed to be born 'under the ligeance of a subject' and born in the realm; being the principle laid down by Coke.

    I am suggesting to those who cite English common law (e.g. in SCOTUS Wong Kim Ark case) claiming it to be the benchmark guide to what constitutes a 'natural born', they interchanging 'subject' & 'citizen', they referring to the qualities required to make a 'natural born subject', they relying on a generalized notion that a child born in England to an alien is all that is required to make a NBS and they claiming this is was what was stated by Lord Coke in Calvin's case; that rather the NBS is made by two or three required, essential qualities being nature and birthright and/or procreation and birthright and I am further suggesting that the generalized notion of alien parentage is all it takes to make a NBS if the child is born in the realm, has been 'cherry-picked' and is only a part of the truth of what is actually required to make a NBS.



    First, let's be clear in my opinion, 'citizen' and 'subject' are similar only to a limited extent, i.e. basically, both are members of a collective society.

    Based on the premise that what I interpret Lord Coke as saying i.e. jus sanguinis AND jus soli are both essential requirements to make a NBS, is the correct interpretation (and I firmly believe so) and if the English common law is to be used as a guide to what makes a 'natural born Citizen', then it takes both jus sanguinis AND jus soli to make a 'natural born Citizen'

    In the context of the US Constitution and the framing period, with the influence of Vattel, it is not necessarily so that the framers actually relied on English common law at all.

    Consider that there is no precedent in English common law that deals with eligibility requirements for an elected president as commander in chief of armed forces in a constitutional republic.

    I disagree with the notion that a 'US citizen parent' is analogous to a 'natural subject' as defined by Coke.

    A 17th century 'natural subject' of the English sovereign was such by the law of nature; it is not a choice on the part of the 'natural subject' and the 'natural subject' cannot normally aspire to highest office (i.e. monarch), cannot vote to elect government, etc (I have already been through this - read my posts)

    A US citizen is such by self declaration (independence period), by birthright and by naturalization process, such 'citizens' can elect highest office and government into power, those who are 'natural born' can aspire to highest office, they have a broad range of freedoms, liberties and rights that are not available to a 17th century English 'natural subject'.


    .
     
  12. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I can see that this is going to be more difficult than I had hoped.

    Ok well that is not "not entirely". That is "not at all".

    So I haven't got very far, trying to express what your point is.

    I know this and I want to develop this to challenge how you interpret this, but I am finding it difficult to actually pin down what that is. I can't find a reference to being born "under the ligeance of a subject" as you quote here and I'm not sure that there is any reference to being "born under a ligeance". Let me turn to Coke again to see the specific words:

    So, do you at least agree the second part of my statement that based on this:

    A "natural born subject" of England needed to be born of a "natural subject" of England being the principle laid down by Coke?

    If you do agree with this (if not then I am at a loss to know how to proceed), then what conclusion do you draw from this, if any - please be narrow and take it step by step - as to the conditions for being "natural born" or "natural born citizen" in the USA?

    I'll try and decopher the following:

    Please indicate if you agree to where I corrected the grammar (in italics)

    I see what you are trying to refute (I think) but before I go there can I please understand what you are trying to establish. I think this is what you are trying to establish (as opposed to refute):

    This is not very clear Michael. The problem is that as soon as I go interpreting this statement to try and refute it you will tell me that I have misunderstood.

    You see the clearest way to start is I need to know what your position is, not what your position is relative to someone else's position.

    Please can you expand on that by saying:

    what you think is necessary to be a natural born citizen and to state if this is supported in any way - in your opinion - by English common law or Coke.

    If you do this, we can start to discuss why.

    OK. My post should have finished now because I need you to help me understand what your position is, but let me just comment on this.

    Of course citizen and subject are different. And there are a hundred different definitions of each. But there are only two possible alternatives in this discussion:

    Either: the English common law on being a natural born "subject" is analagous to the US law on being a natural born "citizen" (ie, by analagous I mean that each state has no bearing on the implications of being "natural born" - analagous does not mean "the same as" or even "similar").

    Or: they are not analagous, and the difference between "subject" and "citizen" alters the implications of being "natural born", these implications being fundamentally different in a citizen and a subject.

    The latter case seems to be your position; and this would mean that English common law does not apply at all.

    In this case what Coke says is irrelevant, (which seems NOT to be your position).

    Your position seems contradictory. Can you clarify?

    I have seen arguments by conservatives which take exactly this position, further saying that because being a subject is based on "ligeance" this does not apply in the USA where this is/was a hated concept. This position then argues that common law simply does not apply to citizenship at all as it was refuted by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. So Coke does not matter, goes this argument.

    Again I need you to go back and clarify why you think this because I am clear that jus sanguinis was not a principle which concerned Coke. Instead of getting into a whole debate on this, which would be tangential, I urge you to explain why you think Lord Coke means this. This would be done by doing what I asked in bold above.

    So Coke is irrelevant?

    The application of these principles to the US Presidency is another point entirely. I think for now we should concern ourselves with the definition of "natural born citizen" (which relates to more than just the Presidency) and whether there is a common law basis to this. What is your position? Is common law relevant or not? I am not clear what your view is?

    Well again, this would suggest that Coke is not relevant to discussions on US citizenship, as I have stated above. Is this the case in your opinion?

    I'll confine my reading to this thread if that's OK with you. All this is by the by. The law of nature presumably applies to "natural born" whether it is a citizen or a "subject". I think this is the key point which makes Coke relevant. But you seem to disagree here.

    Am I right that your position is that : Coke is not relevant but that even if he was he would not support a position that....those dastardly liberals are putting?

    That's a very difficult position to dispute because you can have it both ways in the argument. As your interpretation of Coke comes under pressure, you then argue that he is not relevant. Your argument is a moving target. It is just contrariness, asserting nothing, just contradicting strawmen arguments that you have concocted without actually saying what you think is the truth. It is becoming clearer to me that this is our difficulty.

    The only way you can have this discussion with clarity is that you either:

    a. Clearly refute Coke's relevance and say what you think the present law is based on (and then I will have to argue why I think Coke applies, which I do) OR

    b. Declare exactly on what terms you will allow Coke's relevance (and therefore such terms will henceforth no longer be disputed by you) and what you think that relevance is to the present law.

    You can actually have it both ways and do both these things. But, if you want to do that, then you need to make two distinctly different arguments.
     
  13. clarkatticus

    clarkatticus New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why would you quote Coke for decision in todays world? If Chief Justice Taney was ever given the chance to hear secession argument he would have ruled in favor of the South. Today, such an idea (although politically popular) would never be granted cert. The same with any modern laws, they evolve. You can take apart everything Coke wrote, it doesn't matter. The present Judges decided what they believe was his intention and your not going to overturn without precedent. It won't even be granted cert. It's pointless.
     
  14. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Simply because the basis of US law is English common law in which Coke's judgements were landmarks.

    His rulings also led to the right to silence, for example.
     
  15. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Part 1 of 3
    here it is............
    http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=...itle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27
    I don't know, because there are also denizens and those who have legal ligeance to consider, whose children may be 'natural born subjects' yet the denizens and those with legal ligeance are not necessarily 'natural subjects', I don't know nor do I think it matters.
    There is no precedent to be found in English common law that relates to election and eligibility for the office of a president & commander in chief in a constitutional republic................ the nearest description that can be found in the framing period that would give the framers a term that best described a person with the highest possible allegiance to a REPUBLIC, its CONSTITUTION and its SOVEREIGN CITIZENS, was 'natural born Citizen' and given the profound influence of the very popular Vattel, it appears that the principle of Vattel from 212 of his publication was adopted, especially considering the important need to protect and secure the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim.

    SCOTUS precedent in the case of Minor v Happersett and it's subsequent citing in following SCOTUS cases, confirms this.


    cont'd
     
  16. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Part 2 of 3

    ................. maybe you would like to research the stuff about 'natural subject' and parentage of 'natural born subjects this to discover the answer to your question for yourself.
    This may help you .................... but notice that those ‘born under the obedience, power, faith, ligealty, or ligeance of the King, are natural subjects, and no aliens.’ yet an alien can also be a ‘natural subject’ (i.e. the Frenchman visiting in amity)
    Coke:
    But it seems that one or all of the three types of denizens may be ‘natural subject’(s), since Robert Calvin’s parent father was antenati, but Calvin was a ‘natural born subject’ and to be such must be born of a ‘natural subject’.
    It appears that the denizen (the second type of ligeance) acquired ligeance (ligeantia acquisita) and it was not by ‘nature’, whereas the first type of ligeance (ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,) and this originally is due by ‘nature’ and ‘birthright’.
    From all this, it appears that Coke is virtually stating that a ‘subject born’ (the first type of ligeance) is born by ‘nature’ (meaning born native of the realm) but this leaves by ‘birthright’ meaning what?
    What does Coke mean by ‘birthright’ if it doesn’t mean ‘native’?
    I believe that ‘birthright’ means the native-born child had a right (via his parent father) to being graced with the king’s reciprocal ligeance and protection that the king was already affording the parent father.
    I will make it clearer by editing the following quote “Originally Posted by MichaelN”
    Is it any clearer now?
    My position is:-
    that the framers didn’t look to English common law as the source to derive the term ‘natural born Citizen’.
    that there is no precedent in English common law that provides for eligibility requirements of a president and commander in chief of a constitutional republic.
    that the framers in their great wisdom had an obligation, duty and imperative to secure and protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim and would have intentionally and deliberately excluded as eligible for the office of POTUS, those born of non-citizen parents (due to their foreign influences and uncertain allegiances).
    the framers studied, understood and were profoundly influenced by Leibniz's conception of natural law, through studying The Law of Nations, by Emmerich de Vattel.
    that Vattel’s principle of children inheriting citizenship of the fathers is the main source, outside of the already existent common-sense derivation of the principle on the part of the framers.
    I could probably go on listing more points that demonstrate my position along with a myriad of other facts that give weight to why I take this position but this should suffice for now.


    cont'd
     
  17. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Part 3 of 3

    See above.
    I am pointing-out to those who do say that English common law was the source of the framers’ definition of ‘natural born Citizen’, that it does their argument no good, if (hyperthetically) what they say were to be true;
    because according to Lord Coke in his report of Calvin’s case (cited by SCOTUS as the benchmark case that supports this notion) to be a ‘natural born subject’, one must be born in the realm, to a ‘subject’ (i.e. jus soli AND jus sanguinis) with Coke stating that there are two or more qualities essentially required to make a ‘natural born subject’ i.e. by ‘nature and birthright’ and ‘procreation and birthright’.
    Already done.
    To me yes, I believe the framers did not use English common law to derive the term and the principle of an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’;
    but in response to those who say Coke is relevant, I say it makes no difference, as Coke states that jus sanguinis and jus soli are both essential in making a ‘natural born subject’.
    Nonsense .............. the term and definition of ‘natural born Citizen’ in the context of US Constitution relates ONLY to eligibility for the office of POTUS.
    Already answered.
    I have clarified my position sufficiently for you to now make your case, i.e. (since you say US framers relied on Coke) that in English common law, the status of the parent father was not a consideration in determining ‘natural born subject’ and further that the framers relied on this principle that you say exists in English common law.

    .
     
  18. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The basis of SOME US law may be English common law, but there is absolutely no evidence at all that suggests the founding fathers and framers of the US Constitution relied on English common law to derive the Article II POTUS eligibility term 'natural born Citizen' or it's intended meaning.

    There is no precedent in English common law that relates to eligibility for an elected president of a constitutional republic.


    .
     
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you would do me a great favor if you can supply me with the sources that you quote all that from.

    You hit on one of my fav topics of how evil promulgates the world which I will get into later.

    I have several sources of my own, and for the most part they agree with you, however the laws of nature and natural born are "entirely" different and separate matters. again which I will get into but I would like to see your references to better review that work first.

    or was everything derived from those 2 links?

    thanks
     
  20. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113

    you can find it in many supreme court decisions, and that subject originates in the statutes at large 1802 if I remember correctly and your title 8 is derived from that.
     
  21. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I am not a "person" I am a sovereign now what does that do to your party?
     
  22. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    well you should care about english law because its extremely easy to prove the us is operating a feudal system and no one is the wiser because they simply do not understand the difference. and it get deep.
     
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ..............................................
     
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you are not born into a body politic by coming into life you BORN into a body politic by franchise.

    Instead of mom and dad issuing the state a certificate of berth they foolishly agree to accept a certificate FROM the state.


    Now lets talk about titles shall we? :D

    interesting post btw
     
  25. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    This is far from a clear logical case based on easily identifiable premises and conclusions; it is a ramble going from denizenry to Presidency and refusing to deal with the principles we are trying to establish. It is impossible to work with this. Some intellectual rigour is required when discussing legal questions. I will try again to introduce some structure and rigour to this discussion. A constructive discussion requires arguments to be clearly made and for each of the particpants to fairly state the other's position, which I will attempt to do again.

    This rudeness is irritating. Clearly you wish me to make your case for you as you seem unwilling or unable to make it for yourself. I am faced with the choice of giving up, or searching for people who agree with you who tend to express the same ideas more clearly.

    This is actually the crux of your argument. We will come back to it, after we have checked the flotsam and jetsam below to see if there is anything else to discuss.

    Interesting. Here you have clearly concluded that someone who is clearly an alien, is a natural subject, ie: Calvin's father.

    Agreed.

    "Nature" means by "natural law". This is due to "birthright". Denizens acquire ligeance by statute or royal decree, these being based on civil law. This is the difference between denizens and natural born subjects.

    Where do you get this from? Is this a very unclear way of saying that the parent and child enjoyed identical forms of ligeance? Your position has no basis in logic. The "reciprocal ligeance and protection" of the child and parent is of a completely different nature, one being of a ligeance localis (parent) and the other of a "ligeance absoluta"(child). This is also empirically proved, by what actually happened in the case.

    The whole basis of Calvin's case, and the judgement, was that Calvin was "graced" with a completely difference "reciprocal ligeance and protection" than that enjoyed by his alien father. This is the whole essence of the case: an alien was not entitled to reposess his inherited land, but Calvin was judged as being entitled to such rights of natural born subjects.

    Of course not. Re-read your posts and tell me that you honestly believe they clarify your position.

    This is a completely separate point to "what Coke meant".

    This is a completely separate point to "what Coke meant".

    This is a completrely separate point to "what Coke meant"

    This is a completely separate point to "what Coke meant".

    This is a completely seprate point to "what Coke meant".

    Please don't - at least until we have at least established clearly what you actually think Coke meant, the title of this thread.

    Finally. At last you clearly state what you think Lord Coke meant.

    So you are actually saying that:

    even if, for the sake of argument, we assume that English common law and Lord Coke's judgement are relevant to the concept of a "natural born citizen" in US law....

    and if, for the sake of argument, we assume that this relevance is due to the term "natural born subject" being analagous to "natural born citizen" in determining the definition of "natural born"...

    then it does not follow that a natural born citizen can be born of parents who are not citizens, as Coke clearly shows that natural born subjects cannot be born of parents who are not subjects.


    Please be clear that this is what you mean. If not please clarify.

    Clearly the "for the sake of argument" mans that you don't agree with those points. Although we may go there later I would ask you, initially, to confine yourself to the third point, being the one that you raised in the title to this thread.

    Again Michael, let's be clear here, you are saying, "for the sake of argument let's say that Coke and common law applies", so all the stuff about common law not applying and citizen not being analogous to subject, is by the by, for this argument anyway.

    Not to labour the point too much, but this means all the stuff you post to deny common law applies to the US law, is by the by? It would be helpful therefore if you didn't clutter up our exchanges with such "by the by" arguments. If we establish, and you accept (which you do not now do), as a result of discussion, that

    "if common law applies then only jus solis applies to the concept of natural born subject"

    then

    we can fall back on discussing the "if common law applies"

    and

    the analogy of "subject" with "citizen".

    Agreed?
     

Share This Page