+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 126

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

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelN View Post

    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?
    .

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

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heroclitus
    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".
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Heroclitus
    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.
    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.

    .
    ..."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

  3. Default

    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelN View Post

    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.
    .
    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.
    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.

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SFJEFF

    MichaelN said:

    "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.
    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...........

    At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens 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.
    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.

    .
    ..."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 SFJEFF
    I find it laughable that you mistate Minor in such a way. Minor is not a precedent,
    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'.

    Quote Originally Posted by SFJEFF
    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.
    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....

    At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens 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.
    I will leave your blatant desperate LIE here that follows, just for the record.

    Quote Originally Posted by SFJEFF
    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.
    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.

    .
    ..."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

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelN View Post
    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..
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelN View Post
    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...
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelN View Post
    Ergo:For a child born in US to be a 'natural born Citizen', that child must be born to US citizen parents..
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelN View Post
    If YOU be honest and let go of your politically biased agenda, you will have the decency to acknowledge this truth of the matter..
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelN View Post
    Don't preach honesty to me, I find such hypocrisy as disgraceful.
    .
    How ironic.
    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.

  7. Default

    Here's a very informative article that doesn't deny the truth.

    naturalborncitizen 1, November 14, 2011 at 10:42 pm

    The US Supreme Court in Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894) held:

    “In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since…”

    Justice Horace Gray who wrote the opinion in Wong Kim Ark was on the Court for Lockwood. Minor continues to be cited as good law for 100 years on both the definition of federal citizenship under A2 S1, and voting rights, and it is beyond question controlling law. Minor was not decided under the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.

    When the SCOTUS in Lockwood said…

    “In Minor v. Happersett…this court held…”

    it was a direct recognition of stare decisis on the federal citizenship issue.

    The Court construed A2 S1 and determined that Minor, having been born of citizen parents within the US, was a citizen BEFORE the adoption of the 14th Amendment and further held that she did NOT derive her citizenship from that amendment.

    Since she was in the “class” deemed to be “natives or natural-born citizens” her citizenship was not in doubt. The Court noted that the other “class”, those born in the US without citizen “parents”, was subject to doubt as to their citizenship. Some of those doubts were resolved as to persons domiciled permanently in the US under US v Wong Kim Ark, where Justice Gray cited the nbc passage from Minor as precedent.

    Furthermore, in Lockwood voting had nothing to do with the case at all.

    Those who refuse to acknowledge that Minor is a citizenship precedent, decided six years AFTER the adoption of the 14th Amendment, are in an irrational state of denial.

    Leo Donofrio
    http://jonathanturley.org/2011/10/23...stare-decisis/

    .
    ..."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 MichaelN View Post
    So says Mr "because I said so", "I wish" SFJEFF, right on queue.............. now THAT is what is really laughable..
    As opposed to you Michael?

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


    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelN View Post
    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'..
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelN View Post

    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..
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelN View Post
    I will leave your blatant desperate LIE here that follows, just for the record.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelN View Post

    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.
    .
    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.
    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.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelN View Post
    Here's a very informative article that doesn't deny the truth.
    .
    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.
    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.

  10. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelN View Post
    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'.
    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.
    Last edited by Heroclitus; Nov 23 2011 at 06:20 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!

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 575
    Last Post: Apr 05 2013, 06:37 AM
  2. Native Born Is Not Natural Born
    By Frogger in forum United States
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Jan 11 2012, 09:44 AM
  3. Replies: 164
    Last Post: Nov 23 2011, 05:02 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks