The “Grandfather Clause” Regarding the “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement of the Constitution — Was It Ever Needed or Used?

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

"Natural Born Citizen" Clearly Didn't Include George Washington -- Says TJ McCann

Recently, a Mr. TJ McCann showed up at this blog (in the comments section of the post giving my reaction to Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s original “birther” press conference back in July, claiming to have great knowledge and authority in his opinion on the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

Mr. McCann has written a paper which makes certain claims that have been discussed in times past on this blog. He is of the opinion that his position is absolutely true, and that those who disbelieve the claim that it takes two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen know nothing at all about the issue.

And he would like to debate that proposition.

I won’t go into all of the discussion that’s taken place so far — it’s available in the comments section of that article, as there has been no way to get Mr. McCann to actually read the relevant contents of this site, and get him to post in any thread other than that one.

He did, however, propose that a separate thread be set up where he and I could engage in a debate.

I retired from the “natural born citizen” claims in July, having satisfied myself that I had conducted a thorough survey of the legal, historical and Constitutional meaning of the term, and had addressed every significant claim that I could find on the subject. And at this point, I have other things I am trying to accomplish, and really don’t have much time to any more devote to birtherism.

Slartibartfast, however, a long-time and distinguished participant at this site, has proposed the following to Mr. McCann:

“I would like to challenge you to an honest debate on the question of whether or not the grandfather clause of the Constitution has ever been used and, in particular, how the citizenship status of four men: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and St. George Tucker; changed throughout the course of their lives.

This, as John mentioned, has not been a topic addressed here (or, really, anywhere else that I’m aware of) and it is only peripherally related to the issue of President Obama’s eligibility, so it is as innocuous and self-contained a topic as we are likely to find and neither of us has much of a head start (although I have spent some time thinking about it, I’ve never done any research).

McCann has been very clear in his claim that the Founding Fathers required the “grandfather clause” (“or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”) because none of the Founding Fathers were natural-born citizens of the United States.

To save you from having to click through to McCann’s claim, I will reproduce it here:

This shows how thoroughly you do not understand the subject matter.

Washington was not a natural born citizen. Not only was Washington not born on American soil (as there was no United States), and his parents were not only not citizens of the United States, but rather SUBJECTS of the Crown, providing Washington with undelible allegiance to the Crown from birth. This is why Washington and the other signers of the Declaration knew they must “hang together, or they would assuredly hang seperately”. Washington was guilty of treason against the Crown.

However to qualify under the Article II requirement, the founders included the “grandfather clause” allowing those who were citizens at the time of the signing to be President. This Grandfather Clause of Article II applied to the qualifications of 1) Washington, 2) Adams, 3) Jefferson, 4) Madison, 5) Monroe, 6) J.Q. Adams, 7) Jackson, and 9) Harrison, all of whom were born on British Soil, and to parents who were British subjects.

The first President not qualifying under the Grandfather Clause, but as a natural born citizen, is 8.) Martin Van Buren. Van Buren was born on Dec. 5, 1782, near Albany, NY, to two parents who were both U.S. Citizens. Every predecessor to Van Buren was born British Subjects and with British allegiance through the British subjecthood of their parents.

You should really read the Constitution sometime.

So I have decided to set up this thread that would facilitate debate on the matter. And how Mr. McCann fares on this particular topic could be an initial test of his scholarship in general. If he is able to prove his point, and — convincingly — factually and historically demonstrate that neither Washington, nor Adams, nor Jefferson, nor Adams, Monroe, etc., were natural born citizens, then he will have passed his initial test.

On the other hand, if he can’t convincingly prove the point factually from the historical and legal record, then I think it is safe to assume that Mr. McCann is a bloviating failure of a pretended historical and legal scholar who in fact doesn’t have the faintest clue what he’s talking about.

Sound reasonable? It sounds reasonable to me.

So let the discussion begin.

This entry was posted in Challenges, Natural Born Citizen, New Information. Bookmark the permalink.

644 Responses to The “Grandfather Clause” Regarding the “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement of the Constitution — Was It Ever Needed or Used?

  1. Suranis says:

    I’d just like to toss in a nugget response to what TJ said. Which by the way was filled with a hell of a lot of noise but very little meat. Long on rhetoric, very short on provable facts or references.

    Well here’s one that’s easy to debunk for starters

    “Natural born CITIZEN” is not the same as “natural born SUBJECT”;

    Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813).

    “And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”

    That was easy. Subject and citizen are more or less the same. And only what 23 years after the founding of the nation too.

    As for TJs rant about dual parentage

    James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826)

    “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”

    James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

    “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

    Native born citizen. Nothing about Parentage in there. By the way, Kent was appointed by John Jay, he of the letter to Washington, to a supreme court, so I don’t think that Jay disagreed with Kent’s legal interpretation, do you?

    And here is a hero of the founding talking about the issue of British rule And citizenship which TJ waffled about.

    St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)

    “Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign….That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.

    Nothing better settled. My goodness.

    Finally Calvins Case. Yes, Jus Soli means that you are not s citizen if your father had Diplomatic Immunity (and therefore is not under American law) or is a member of an invading Army. The fact that Catholics and Jews were regarded as being enemies of the state and effectively outlaws does not change that fact. That’s what the word Outlaw means, by the way. Outside the law. Outside the laws protection.

    This is the relevant part of the Calvins case ruling

    Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum; for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject.

    What that means is that as long as the frenchman was subject to the kings law, he was a natural subject of the law, and so his children were natural born subjects

    That’s how Calvin was allowed to inherit properly, a right only afforded to the natural born subjects of England, despite the fact that his parents were Aliens. Incidentally 12 years after this ruling England became a republic for slightly over 20 years, so the Calvin ruling operated in a situation where there was no King right at its inception, which no problems whatsoever.

    You can read more analysis at this excellent link http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/06/natural-law-calvins-case-and-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/comment-page-1/#comment-6381

    I think that’s enough for now. Its always nice to debunk using the founders own words from the time of the founding and before. I’ll let wiser heads than myself, namely Slartibartfarst and practically everyone else, take a crack at the rest of your stuff

  2. Slartibartfast says:

    So your saying I’m distinguished… are you calling me old? :-P

    Thanks John!

    I hope TJ McCann will participate and I invite him to offer any ground rules he would like for this debate. I will post an opening statement summarizing my position in the next day or so.

    TJ,

    You got what you asked for—someone willing to participate in an honest debate—so why don’t you invite your lickspittles and sycophants to watch and take your best shot at kicking my ass?

    Suranis said: “I’ll let wiser heads than myself, namely Slartibartfast…”

    I wouldn’t go that far… :-P

    • John Woodman says:

      You can be distinguished without being old.

      And you can be old without being distinguished.

      So no, I’m not calling you old — just distinguished. ;-)

  3. TJ McCann says:

    Simply put mere birth on U.S. soil was not opportunity until the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

    At the time of this adoption, and also long thereafter, few states recognized mere birth in U.S. soil to result in even citizenship, so thereby these states would not have been able to provide a “natural born citizen” President by those means.

    Furthermore, birth on U.S. soil would not protect the country from foreign influence in the office of President, as was the purpose of that requirement indicated by John Jay to Washington in a letter dated July 25th, 1787:

    “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”

    As is precedent in Minor v Happersett, never undermined by Wonk Kim Ark, “aliens” or “Foreigners” are recognized to be those who are not born on a country’s soil to parents who were its citizens.

    On that very same day as Jay’s letter to Washington, July 25th, 1787, James Madison addressed the Constitutional Convention in Carpenter’s Hall in Philadelphia:

    Besides the general influence of that mode on the independence of the Executive, the election of the Chief Magistrate would agitate & divide the legislature so much that the public interest would materially suffer by it. Public bodies are always apt to be thrown into contentions, but into more violent ones by such occasions than by any others. the candidate would intrigue with the Legislature, would derive his appointment from the predominant faction, and be apt to render his administration subservient to its views. The Ministers of foreign powers would have and make use of, the opportunity to mix their intrigues & influence with the Election. Limited as the powers of the Executive are, it will be an object of great moment with the great rival powers of Europe who have American possessions, to have at the head of our Governmt. a man attached to their respective politics & interests. No pains, nor perhaps expense, will be spared, to gain from the Legislature an appointmt. favorable to their wishes. Germany & Poland are witnesses of this danger. In the former, the election of the Head of the Empire, till it became in a manner hereditary, interested all Europe, and was much influenced by foreign interference. In the latter, altho’ the elective Magistrate has very little real power, his election has at all times produced the most eager interference of forign princes, and has in fact at length slid entirely into foreign hands. The existing authorities in the States are the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary. The appointment of the Natl. Executive by the first, was objectionable in many points of view, some of which had been already mentioned. He would mention one which of itself would decide his opinion. The Legislatures of the States had betrayed a strong propensity to a variety of pernicious measures. One object of the Natl. Legislre. was to controul this propensity. One object of the Natl. Executive, so far as it would have a negative on the laws, was to controul the Natl. Legislature, so far as it might be infected with a similar propensity.
    ….
    An appointment by the State Executives, was liable among other objections to this insuperable one, that being standing bodies, they could & would be courted, and intrigued with by the Candidates, by their partizans, and by the Ministers of foreign powers.

    As can be seen, the Convention was not just worried about the King positioning himself in the Office of President, but those with allegiances to foreign countries, who would minister (administer) their interests. Originally the Convention resolved that the President should be chosen by those in Congress, not subject to a democratic election. However they resolved that the President should be elected by the people, and then imposed the natural born requirement, insisting that the occupant should be born entirely from American society, born on American soil to parents who were citizens.

    According to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845), early patriots were eligible to be president, even though they were naturalized citizens and not natural born citizens. But after their generation passed away, only natural born citizens were eligible to be president. The reason for this “natural born citizen” requirement was to exclude “foreigners” from the presidency. (This then draws into consideration the true meaning of “naturalization”, which is something more than just forswearing and then swearing an oath at sometime after birth)

    It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election.

    This permission of a [pre-1787-born and grandfathered] naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities.

    But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. (Story, § 1473)

    In truth many of our founders were born in a “foreign land” even though born on American soil, because that land was then the territory of Britain, and those founders did own Britain allegiance, and the Crown fealty.

    At the time, the English meaning of “foreigner” was not limited to persons born overseas. Anyone who was born with allegiance to another country was recognized to be a “foreigner”, regardless of their place of birth. Birthplace does not magically redefine one, nor erase the allegiance to the societies from which they come.

    According to Black’s Law dictionary, the word “foreigner” has both a municipal meaning and an international meaning. In the international context, a “foreigner” in a country is someone who owes allegiance to another state or country, regardless of citizenship.

    FOREIGNER. In old English law, this term, when used with reference to a particular city, designated any person who was not an inhabitant of that city. According to later usage, it denotes a person who is not a citizen or subject of the state or country of which mention is made, or any one owing allegiance to a foreign state or sovereign.(Henry Campbell Black, A Dictionary of Law, First Edition, 1891, p.506)

    This concurs with De Vattel’s definition, and the citation provided in Minor v Happersett. As is evident in those definitions, this allows that persons not born on this country’s soil to parents who were citizens, might be both a citizen and a foreigner.

    The fact is that many of this nation’s founders were born on north American soil, albeit the territory of the Crown, owing allegiance to that Crown, a Perpetual Allegiance that could not be severed at their own whim. This became particularly evident during the War of 1812, when Britain wa taking persons on American sailing ships in this country’s own harbors, and pressing them into British service.

    • John Woodman says:

      And you, Mr. McCann, are no longer on moderation.

    • Scientist says:

      TJ McCann siad: “At the time of this adoption, and also long thereafter, few states recognized mere birth in U.S. soil to result in even citizenship”

      I’m sorry but you have yet to show even the slightest support for this statement. Here is what the NY State Archives says:

      “Naturalization is a grant of the full legal rights and privileges of a native-born individual to a non-native foreigner.”

      http://www.archives.nysed.gov/a/research/res_topics_gen_naturalization_col.shtml

      Only NON-NATIVE foreigners were naturalized. So, all of these supposed native-born people who were in your view not citizens, could not be naturalized. So, according to you, they existed in some nebulous category of native-born non-citizens. And since they were in TJ-land, not citizens, their children were non-TJ citizens. And so on up until when exactly? Maybe even up to the present? So all these non-citizens were and are living here who couldn’t/can’t be naturalized (being native-born). They must have been/be zombies….

      I am still waiting for a specific cite to the naturalization of a US-born person. New York says they don’t have any, but TJ does I guess.

    • Scientist says:

      When it comes to foreign influence, permit me to hint whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of those with foreign financial interests into the adminsitration of oour national government.

      Case A-A person has a foreign sperm donor who abandons him in the care of his US citizen mother

      Case B-A person deposits a substantial proportion of their assets in foreign tax havens in order to (legally, I presume, but cannot say for sure) to avoid paying US taxes.

      I say B would be far more influenced by the foreign interests that guard his fortune than A would be by a deceased father with whom he spent perhaps 2 weeks of his life with. But I think the voters will decide.

      • TJ McCann says:

        The concern is “foreign influence” not “foreign interests” .

        And neither example would have any particular foreign influence resulting from allegiance, assuming that that “A” does not meet the father-donor, and does not receive a bio on the father, which would be very strange.

        (Is there a high amount of lead in the water here, maybe some PCB’s or something?)

        • Scientist says:

          “The concern is “foreign influence” not “foreign interests”
          So a President who served foreign interests out of financial motives would be OK with you?

          Listen pal, any foreign government that wants influence in DC doesn’t send somebody to father a child here and then wait 50 years or so for the kid to grow up and play the 1 in 300 million odds of him becoming President. And hope that the kid really cares what passport his dad held and isn’t by then a through-going American who eats hot dogs and watches baseball.

          Nope. That isn’t what they do. What they do is wire cash to lobbyists who buy their influence in Congress and the White House with good, old-fashioned pictures of Benjamin Franklin. That, for your information is what “foreign influence” looks like in the 21st century. Not that it is really worse than the legalized bribery practised by American corporations and plutocrats. Who would be the ones who put lead or PCB in the water, by the way. Though I drink only Saratoga water straight from the source.

          • John Woodman says:

            Actually, that was a lot of what it looked like in the 18th century as well.

            This exact topic was discussed by the Framers of the Constitution during the debates on writing that document. One of the prominent Founders (I don’t recall exactly who; Franklin, maybe — someone else can look it up) said pretty much exactly that: That the real concern had to do with foreign money handed off to native-born, pure-bred Americans, and not the person’s ancestry.

            Oh, and for bonus points —

            I’m not sure Scientist had any reference to this specifically, but it turns out that Saratoga water has a tenuous but very important link to the question of whether a person born in the United States is, Constitutionally speaking, a natural born citizen.

            Very important link.

            Now if TJ had actually done the really extensive research, he might know this as well. But alas, we will leave him scratching his head. Or perhaps he might be induced to become slightly more educated than he is?

            • Scientist says:

              John- I had no particular reference in mind regarding Saratoga water, other than responding to TJ’s quip about lead and PCBs in the water. I DO drink only Saratoga water which I get personally from the source, which is nearby.

              I am quite unaware of the link with natural born citizens and would love to hear what you are referring to.

              And, of course, bribery was just as much a problem in the 18th century as it is today. I am sceptical that laws or constitutional provisions really provide the kind of protection TJ thinks they do.

            • John Woodman says:

              You’re not the only person who likes Saratoga mineral water… and is willing to pay money for it.

              The rights to that valuable mineral water were at the heart of the first prominent American court case to explore the question of whether children born of alien parents — who didn’t stay here but who resided in the United States only temporarily — were natural born US citizens.

              The judge in that case made a very thorough review of the law, going back for centuries and digging what I considered to be almost astonishingly deep. So in that sense, I think it would not be a stretch to refer the judge’s review of the law as “exhaustive.”

              And he concluded that the American common law legally established that children born in the United States of alien parents who were only residing here temporarily were, in fact, natural born US citizens.

              You’ve heard of the case. Discussion of it is over here.

            • Scientist says:

              Ah, yes, of course, Lynch v Clarke. That property is now Congress Park. A beautiful park, where they put on some nice Shakespeare in the summer. The water there is heavily mineraled. I get mine from the State Park a few miles away, which is very sweet.

              Didn’t judge Sandford rule Julia Lynch a natural born US citizen, even though her parents were British nationals who returned with her to Ireland when she was an infant? Did Judge Sandford not say: “Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.” What does TJ have to say about that?

              Yes it was a state court, but it ruled under the US Constitution and national laws. Just like the Ankeny court in Indiana did in 2009.

            • Northland10 says:

              In the Federalist Papers, one of the arguments for the Electoral College was that specifically selected electors voting in separate states would reduce the inappropriate influence that might sway a centralized voting body such as Congress. Modern day communication abilities lessen the separation.

            • John Woodman says:

              Didn’t judge Sandford rule Julia Lynch a natural born US citizen, even though her parents were British nationals who returned with her to Ireland when she was an infant? Did Judge Sandford not say: “Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.”

              You know, I do believe he did.

              So Judge Sandford, in addition to all the others on our growing list of authorities, directly contradicts TJ’s claim.

    • gorefan says:

      TJ,

      “At the time of this adoption, and also long thereafter, few states recognized mere birth in U.S. soil to result in even citizenship, so thereby these states would not have been able to provide a “natural born citizen” President by those means. ”

      Can you document this statement. Can you show us the actual laws that make this plain.

      Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey and New York incorporated the English Common Law into their Constitutions, Rhode Island and Connecticut did not draft constitutions but continued to operate under their Colonial Charters (we know Connecticut was a jus soli state because of the work of Zephaniah Swift), Virginia passed a jus soli law (drafted by Jefferson).

      So what were the laws in the other states? Can you provide examples of the citizenship laws from these states? Were existing laws (prior to 7/4/1776) no longer in effect? Did the states essential start from scratch, having to create all new laws?

  4. TJ McCann says:

    Saranis, regarding your quotation from Ainslie v. Martin, which would be recognized as irrelevant orbita dicta, our country is founded on the principle that the individual citizens are sovereign, and we are the masters of our government, with the Declaration clearly indicating that the sole legitimate purpose of that government being to protect the individual freedoms of Life, Liberty and Happiness. We sovereign citizens cede what legitimate authority the government has, and contrary to the quote, we are not bound to the government and subjected, but it is subjected to our limitations. Our government is not sovereign.

    Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, underscored the fact that citizen is not the same as subject in the first constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:

    [A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects . . . .”

    Justice James Wilson confirmed Jay‟s articulation of the opposition between subjects and citizens:

    The term “citizen” reflects the notion that individual citizens are sovereign in a republic, whereas the term “subject” reflects feudal and monarchical conceptions of the lord or monarch as sovereign and the individual as the subject.

    Subject and citizen are vastly different, and this recognition is the foundation and impetus for the formation of this country. Contrary to the view of many leftists, we are not bound to accept whatever the government might give us.

    As per James Kent’s comments, they are accurate within the times they were stated and under that context, but they are limited and erroneous in modern times, and this is part of the perfidy of many of Gray’s citations in WKA.

    Kent: “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”

    At the time and well beyond even the ratification of the 14th Amendment, “jurisdiction” of the United States was not applicable to those with foreign allegiance. Under those terms, the President would actually be a native born citizen (not a term applicable to citizenship), but would be wholly “native” in application, having no foreign allegiance.

    This is confirmed by not only the Slaughterhouse Cases, but also the Gray’s own decision in Elk v Wilkins, as well as the 1866 Civil Rights act. It is further and profoundly confirmed by the June 22, 1874 joint congressional report, House Report No. 784, which stated, “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”

    The Slaughterhouse Cases did not just indicate that meaning of “jurisdiction” but went further, supporting this importance of allegiance, and indicated that jurisdiction excluded citizens or subjects of foreign states (legally resident or illegal), along with ambassadors.

    ‘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.’ … The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was
    intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls,
    and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United
    States.
    (Slaughter-House Cases, 1873)

    This all undeniably recognizes that mere birth on U.S. did not even result in citizenship, much less natural born citizen status, and should end the mockery about the two-citizen parent requirement. It is undeniably a real issue which was only altered in practice by Gray’s deliberately contravening the intent of Congress and American history in Wong Kim Ark.

    The fact is that after gaining independence, the original thirteen States retained aspects of English common law, including the statutory rule which granted citizenship to children of alien parents who, though not yet citizens, had sworn an oath of allegiance to the State and had established permanent legal residence, or domicile, within the State:

    While all States could be said to have recognized birth within the State as a means of conferring State citizenship to all persons, it is important to realize these States also required of aliens who desired to become domiciled within their limits to first renounce any allegiances to other governments and pledge their allegiance solely to the State. Therefore, a child born to domiciled parents was “born within the allegiance” of the State even if the parents had not yet been naturalized.[1]

    Kent’s comments are lax in their exactness and really are not true overall, and certainly are not true given that fact that most states did not even recognize citizenship for mere birth within their borders. “Native born” is not the equivalent of natural born, and does not inherently convey any recognition of citizenship. Part of the problem too is that many actually believed that British Common Law was actually applicable at the formation of this nation. The War of 1812 was fought to adamantly indicate that we did not recognize the terms of British common law subjecthood.

    Kent’s comments are only even reasonable within that time period. So, yes, I believe John Jay would adamantly disagree with Kent’s comments, particularly in light of the unintended alterations made to citizenship since then.

    Mere birth on this country’s soil does not at all provide a protection against foreign influence, and the award of such instead actually invites foreign influence, as we’ve seen with Obama.

    The problem with Calvin’s case, is that we not only don’t agree with it, but we fundamentally reject in in the formation and foundation of this country. Under that feudal heirarchy, the King, as head of the Anglican church, was in line with God, and the British actually conflated that dictate with God and Natural Law.

    This Law of Nature, which indeed is the eternal Law of the Creator, infused into the heart of the creature at the time of his creation, was two thousand years before any Laws written, and before any Judicial or Municipal Laws. (Coke(1608), p.196)

    It hath been proved before, that ligeance or obedience of the inferior to the superior, of the subject to the Sovereign, was due by the Law of Nature many thousand years before any Law of man was made: Which ligeance or obedience (being the onely mark to distinguish a subject from an alien) could not be altered; therefore it remaineth still due by the Law of Nature.(Coke, pp.197-8)

    This country’s foundation profoundly disagreed with that “proof”, and instead removed the King as the intermediary between God and Man, and recognized that each sovereign individual was directly “endowed by their creator” with certain unalienable rights” which did not come from government, nor any sovereign. This is so fundamental to this country that it cannot be denied that we reject the concept of legience which is inherent in Coke’s decision.

    Even our freedom of religion is a denial of the King and his position of the as head of the Church of England, and intermediary between God and man.

    Unless you want to bow yourself in subserviance to a monarch, forgo individual rights, have your religion dictated unto you, life your life in a rigid medieval hierarchy, and live in service to those above you.. perhaps you might want to abandon this focus on British common law and Calvin’s case, because that is how that British definition of “natural born subject” came about, through subjecthood to the Crown.

    We the people of these United States generally believe quite differently:

    Monarchical Government: God –> Monarchy(King) -> Government(“elites”) –> Man
    (Feudalism)

    “Progressive” Neo-Feudalism: Elites –> Government –> Man

    ____

    Biblical Law: God –> Man –> Men –> Government(social law)

    Natural Law Republic (USofA): God –> Man –> Government

    .

    • Suranis says:

      YOu know, a sure sign of crap is providing partial sentences to prove something that someone was saying. For instance, you actually yanked something out the middle of a sentence of John Jays opinion and trying to say something it isnt. John Jay was not saying that citizen was different to a subject, he was saying that all citizens were equal to one another. Just like all subjects are, incidentally

      It will be sufficient to observe briefly that the sovereign-ties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority, and from his grace and grant derives all franchises, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial controul and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such sovereignty. Besides, the Prince having all the Executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African

      Page 2 U. S. 472

      slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.

      And you know the interesting thing about Chisolm? John Jay clearly looked to English law and precedent to resolve the issue. And lo and behold, what does John Jay cite as authority on this? Blackstones commentaries, in which Jos Soli is sacrosanct and which Birthers try and deny had any influence on the founders

      “is of use where the King is in full possession of any hereditaments or chattels, and the petitioner suggests such a right as controverts the title of the Crown, grounded on facts disclosed in the petition itself.”

      I leave out of the argument, from which I have made so long a quotation, everything concerning the restriction on the Exchequer so far as it concerned the case then before the Court, as Lord Somers (although more perhaps by weight of authority than reasoning) was overruled in that particular. As to all others, I consider the authorities on which he relied, and his deduction from them, to be unimpeached.

      Blackstone, in the first volume of his commentaries (p. 203), speaking of demands in point of property upon the King, states the general remedy thus:

      “If any person has, in point of property, a just demand upon the King, he must petition him in his Court of Chancery, where his Chancellor will administer right, as a matter of grace, though not upon compulsion. [For which he cites Finch L. 255.] . . . And this is exactly consonant to what is laid down by the writers on natural law. A subject, say Puffendorf, so long as he continues a subject, hath no way to oblige his Prince to give him his due when he refuses it, though no wise Prince will ever refuse to stand to a lawful contract. And if the Prince gives the subject leave to enter an action against him upon such contract in his own courts, the action itself proceeds rather upon natural equity than upon the municipal laws. For the end of such action is not to compel the Prince to observe the contract, but to persuade him.”

      It appears that when a petition to the person of the King is properly presented, the usual way is for the King to indorse or underwrite, soit droit sait al partie (let right be done to the party), upon which, unless the Attorney General confesses the suggestion, a commission is issued to enquire into the truth of it, after the return of which, the King’s attorney is at liberty to

      Page 2 U. S. 443

      plead in bar, and the merits shall be determined upon issue or demurrer, as in suits between subject and subject. If the Attorney General confesses the suggestion there is no occasion for a commission, his admission of the truth of the facts being equally conclusive as if they had been found by a jury. See 3 Blackstone’s Commentaries 256. and 4 Com. Dig. 458, and the authorities there cited. Though the above-mentioned indorsement be the usual one, Lord Somers, in the course of his voluminous search, discovered a variety of other answers to what he considered were unquestionable petitions of right, in respect to which he observes:

      Considering that Birthers claim that the founders did not look to English law at all, John jay sure as hell did Its all over Chisolm V Georgia. Along with references to your hated Blackstone. Grand total of zero from Vattel, of course.

      As for your Wilson quote, so what? It says the same thing as I do that the only real difference is that Subjects have a king and citizens don’t. Both are equally subject to the law.

      Ok and you know who else says that people under the rule of a king are citizens? Why Emerich de Vattel! You might have heard of him

      Book one, 24

      24. Examples.

      On this subject, the English furnish us an example highly worthy of attention. That illustrious nation distinguishes itself in a glorious manner by its application to every thing that can render the state more flourishing. An admirable constitution there places every citizen in a situation that enables him to contribute to this great end, and everywhere diffuses that spirit of genuine patriotism which zealously exerts itself for the public welfare. We there see private citizens form considerable enterprises, in order to promote the glory and welfare of the nation. And while a bad prince would find his hands tied up, a wise and moderate king finds the most powerful aids to give success to his glorious designs. The nobles and the representatives of the people form a link of confidence between the monarch and the nation, and, concurring with him in every thing that tends to promote the public welfare, partly case him of the burden of government, give stability to his power, and procure him an obedience the more perfect, as it is voluntary. Every good citizen sees that the strength of the state is really the advantage of all, and not that of a single person. (20) Happy constitution! which they did not suddenly obtain: it has cost rivers of blood; but they have not purchased it too dear. May luxury, that pest so fatal to the manly and patriotic virtues, that minister of corruption so dangerous to liberty, never overthrow a monument that does so much honour to human nature — a monument capable of teaching kings how glorious it is to rule over a free people!

      So Vattel calls people under the rule of a king citizens. Who knew? By the way he consistently does this through the law of Nations, not that you have ever actually read the thing.

      Another example

      § 38. Of the sovereign.

      THE reader cannot expect to find here a long deduction of the rights of sovereignty, and the functions of a prince. These are to be found in treatises on the public law. In this chapter we only propose to show, in consequence of the grand principles of the law of nations, what a sovereign is, and to give a general idea of his obligations and his rights.

      We have said that the sovereignty is that public authority which commands in civil society, and orders and directs what each citizen is to perform, to obtain the end of its institution. This authority originally and essentially belonged to the body of the society, to which each member submitted, and ceded his natural right of conducting himself in every thing as he pleased, according to the dictates of his own understanding, and of doing himself justice. But the body of the society does not always retain in its own hands this sovereign authority: it frequently intrusts it to a senate, or to a single person. That senate, or that person, is then the sovereign.

      Back to your box of delights

      As per James Kent’s comments, they are accurate within the times they were stated and under that context, but they are limited and erroneous in modern times, and this is part of the perfidy of many of Gray’s citations in WKA. “

      So you are not claiming that the founders believed in Jos Soli, but it no longer applies now because of Wong Kim Ark? You do realize you are claiming that you are now claiming you are going against what the founders intended. That’s what heppens when you base your entire Philosophy on quote mining and half sentances.

      At the time and well beyond even the ratification of the 14th Amendment, “jurisdiction” of the United States was not applicable to those with foreign allegiance. Under those terms, the President would actually be a native born citizen (not a term applicable to citizenship), but would be wholly “native” in application, having no foreign allegiance.

      This is confirmed by not only the Slaughterhouse Cases, but also the Gray’s own decision in Elk v Wilkins, as well as the 1866 Civil Rights act. It is further and profoundly confirmed by the June 22, 1874 joint congressional report, House Report No. 784, which stated, “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”

      The Slaughterhouse Cases did not just indicate that meaning of “jurisdiction” but went further, supporting this importance of allegiance, and indicated that jurisdiction excluded citizens or subjects of foreign states (legally resident or illegal), along with ambassadors.

      ‘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.’ … The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was
      intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls,
      and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United
      States. (Slaughter-House Cases, 1873)

      This all undeniably recognizes that mere birth on U.S. did not even result in citizenship, much less natural born citizen status, and should end the mockery about the two-citizen parent requirement. It is undeniably a real issue which was only altered in practice by Gray’s deliberately contravening the intent of Congress and American history in Wong Kim Ark.

      Well look here. You are basing your entire theses on the wrong interpretation of the term aliegence. Allegiance is actually a very simple concept; you are subject to the law in return for its protection. The fact that birthers have to twist it into a corkscrew shows that they know that is fatal to their entire case

      This is the definiton from lectlaw

      ALLEGIANCE

      The tie which binds the citizen to the government, in return for the protection which the government affords him.

      It is natural, acquired, or local. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the United States; acquired allegiance is that which is due by a naturalized citizen. It has never been decided whether a citizen can, by expatriation, divest himself absolutely of that character. Infants cannot assume allegiance, although they enlist in the army of the United States.

      It seems, however, that he cannot renounce his allegiance to the United States without the permission of the government, to be declared by law. But for commercial purposes he may acquire the rights of a citizen of another country, and the place of his domicil determines the character of a party as to trade.

      Local allegiance is that which is due from an alien, while resident in the United States, for the protection which the government affords him.

      See that term, Local Allegiance? Yep its the SAME PHRASE AS USED IN CALVIN’S CASE. That directly binds the term now with the use in 1608. That’s 500 years of legal precedent going right up to today. Hell the 14th amendment debates make that clear. The real version not the quote mined version you use.

      And you know who are not subject to local allegiance? Yep, Diplomats and members of invading armies. Gosh, who knew.

      Even Vattel says this. From book 2

      § 101. Foreigners are subject to the laws.

      But, even in those countries which every foreigner may freely enter, the sovereign is supposed to allow him access only upon this tacit condition, that he be subject to the laws, — I mean the general laws made to maintain good order, and which have no relation to the title of citizen or of subject of the state. The public safety, the rights of the nation and of the prince, necessarily require this condition; and the foreigner tacitly submits to it, as soon as he enters the country, as he cannot presume that he has access upon any other footing. The sovereignly is the right to command in the whole country; and the laws are not simply confined to regulating the conduct of the citizens towards each other, but also determine what is to be observed by all orders of people throughout the whole extent of the state.

      And he says that the children of forigners settled in other states become its citizens, From Book 1 part 215

      But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

      Since citizens are “members of a civil society, that leans that the children are born citizens.

      Back to you

      Mere birth on this country’s soil does not at all provide a protection against foreign influence, and the award of such instead actually invites foreign influence, as we’ve seen with Obama.

      And you are trying to say that having 2 American parents would? Tim McVaigh had 2 American Parents. So had Charles Manson and Anwar al-Awlaki.

      Since your definition of perfect Influence is obviously flawed by the example in the real world, therefore the founders must be looking to some other definition of influence than you are postulating. Since we are talking about a time where the United states was actively encouraging people to come to its shores, it is obvious they didn’t care much about the parentage of the ordinary citizen, but would must likely have been concerned with those with direct ties to foreign governments. Which in those times meant Royalty or diplomats.

      Oh and you have no proof that Vattel was even considered in any of the discussions on citizenship. And the Phrase in the constitution “Offenses against the law of Nations” was actually the title of book 4, chapter 5 of Blackstone’s commentaries, which dealt with, amongst other things, Piracy.

      Hmm Piracy.

      To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

      Wow, what a coincidence that Piracy would be listed in the same sentence as law of Nations in the constitution, and in the chapter of Blackstone where piracy was discussed. Its almost like they were thinking of Blackstone when the wrote it. Lets have the first 2 paragraphs of that chapter.

      ACCORDING to the method marked out in the preceding chapter, we are next to confider the offenses more immediately repugnant to that universal law of society, which regulates the mutual intercourse between one state and another ; those, I mean, which are particularly animadverted on, as such, by the English law.

      THE law of nations is a system of rules, deducible by natural reason, and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world a ; in order to decide all disputes, to regulate all ceremonies and civilities, and to insure the observance frequently occur between two or more independent States, and the individuals belonging to each b. This general law is founded upon this principle, that different nations ought in time of peace to do one another all the good they can ; and, in time of war, as little harm as possible, without prejudice to their own real interests c. And, as none of these states will allow a superiority in the other, therefore neither can dictate or prescribe the rules of this law to the rest ; but such rules must necessarily result from those principles of natural justice, in which all the learned of every nation agree : or they depend upon mutual compacts or treaties between the respective communities ; in the construction of which there is also no judge to resort to, but the law of nature and reason, being the only one in which all the contracting parties are equally conversant, and to which they are equally subject.

      Anyway gotta run and do important stuff. Oh i had a good laugh reading your magnum opus http://www.scribd.com/doc/104741948/Natural-Born-Defined-Natural-Born-Citizen-vs-British-%E2%80%9CCommon-Law%E2%80%9D-Natural-Born-Subject

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Really Suranis, where do you get off calling out TJ for cherry picking, showing how the quote, in context, contradicts his argument, and then beating him over the head with several more extended quotes? You know that kind of whuppin’ has got to leave a mark… so then you go and pile on another 15 short quotes on top of that? Have you no pity? Aren’t you scared of what TJ and his superior legal understanding are going to do to you? And let’s not forget his sycophants and lickspittles. He might even sic his Harvard lawyer father on you. All because you had to go and make him look like a fool.

        I hope you’re happy with yourself. ;-)

        p.s. thanks for giving me the link to TJ’s magnum opus—now I gonna to larn me some REAL lah…

        • Suranis says:

          I’m so scared!

          • John Woodman says:

            If you want the bird’s eye summary of McCann’s paper, here were my very quick comments on it. I didn’t spend much time on it other than observing that it consisted of claims that had all been thoroughly analyzed before.

          • John Woodman says:

            Ah — never mind. I see that you were the one who provided the link, and were simply saying that you were skeered of how silly TJ with his Superior Legal Acumen (TM) was going to make you look.

            I wonder if he’s emailed his circle of friends that he mentioned, and urged them to come follow the way he’s beating up on the circle of rubes here? If not, why not?

            • Suranis says:

              I’M TERRIFIED MAN!!! He’s gonna… like… put up a picture of me in clown makeup and everything when he is done. :(

    • Suranis says:

      Oh and here’s some more quotes for you to gloss over, just like you did the St George Tucker quote that pretty much shredded your definition of Allegiance. Especially since it actually left him unable to run for the Presidency himself without the grandfathedr clause, but hey.

      Justice Story, concurring opinion,Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)

      “The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”

      Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)

      “The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”

      Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)

      “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

      William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)

      “From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law, unless where they were prevented from becoming citizens by the constitution or statutes of the place of their birth.”

      American Jurist and Law Magazine, January, 1834

      “Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”

      State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838)

      “It requires all senators to be thirty years old, and prohibits any but a natural born subject from being president.”

      State v. Foreman, 16 Tenn. 256, 335–36 (1835).

      “and that no person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.”

      The Law Library, Vol. 84, pg. 50 (1854)

      “The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution, and, by that principle, the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned, such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States. The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle…. But the law of France rejects the principle of the English law, and of our own laws, that birth within the limits and jurisdiction of France, makes a Frenchman, or a natural-born citizen or subject of France, absolutely,…”

      Horace Binney, American Law Register, 2 Amer.Law Reg.193, 203, 204, 206, 208 (February 1854).

      “Alligience”: It is natural, acquired, or local. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the United States; acquired allegiance is that which is due by a naturalized citizen. It has never been decided whether a citizen can, by expatriation, divest himself absolutely of that character.

      Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843)

      “That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”

      January 28, 1838, Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838)

      “The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”

      Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)

      “Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”

      Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)

      “It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.”

      The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)

      “This is called becoming naturalized; that is, becoming entitled to all the rights and privileges of natural born citizens, or citizens born in this country.”

      Andrew White Young, First lessons in Civil Government, pg. 82 (1856).

      “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”

    • Ballantine says:

      “At the time and well beyond even the ratification of the 14th Amendment, “jurisdiction” of the United States was not applicable to those with foreign allegiance. Under those terms, the President would actually be a native born citizen (not a term applicable to citizenship), but would be wholly “native” in application, having no foreign allegiance.”

      Gibberish, as no one ever said that. We defined allegiance by place of birth, see Madison, Swift, Story and numberous members of the 14th Amendment Congress said. Even England didn’t think children of their subject born in the US owed England allegiance. From 1790 to 1866, a foreign national with a foreign allegiance could not be naturalized unless they were “under our jurisdiction” for 2 years. Prior to 1866 there was a famous supreme court case stating that foreign nationals visiting the US were subject to our jurisdiction unless they had diplomatic immunity. the same can be found in any treatise on public law. You are misrepresenting what Sen. Trumbull said as he was referring to indians who were born in a quisi foreign nation and hence owed allegiance to such quisi foreign nation rather than us. Trumbull made clear one owed allegiance to the nation one was born in, repeatedly stated that children of aliens were citizens, and even said that natural born subject and citizen meant the same thing. And nothing in Elk said anything different as it didn’t talk about aliens at all, just indians born in a foreign nation. It doesn’t appear that you get anything right.

      “Subject and citizen are vastly different, and this recognition is the foundation and impetus for the formation of this country. Contrary to the view of many leftists, we are not bound to accept whatever the government might give us. ”

      In his treatise Wilson made clear that children were born subject and were made citizens it they were given the right to vote. Hence in his view only adult men were citizens. It is simply an historical fact that the terms “subject” and “citizen” and “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” were often used interchangeably for decades following independence. See, e.g., State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838) (“The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.); James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, pg. 258 (1836) (And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary “); State v. Foreman, 16 Tenn. 256, 335–36 (1835)(“It requires all senators to be thirty years old, and prohibits any but a natural born subject from being president.”) Most pre-ratification state naturalization statutes gave aliens the rights of “subjects” or “natural born subjects” and when term “citizen” was used, it was used in identical contexts as “subject.” For example, the Massachusetts legislature alternated from month to month between using “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject’ in the years prior to the Constitutional convention, see, Acts and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1786-87, pg. ___ (1893); Acts and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1788-89 pg. ___ (1894).and few years after ratification proposed to amend the “natural born citizenship” clause in the Constitution while stating that such clause applied to “natural born subjects.” Acts and laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, pg. 211 (1897). In addition, there was a whole body of case law interpreting English statutes adopted in the states that used the term “natural born subject” which were generally interpreted by substituting “subject” with “citizen.” See, e.g., Palmer v. Downer, 2 Mass. 179 (1806), Jacksons v. Sanders, 2 Leigh 109 (1830), McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354 (1824), Lessee of Levy v. McCartee, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 102 (1832). This continued in the 14th Amendment Congress where State v. Manuel was cited over and over and “subject” and “citizen” conflated.

      Your attack on Kent is a little silly since every other scholar of the period agreed with him. Tucker, Story, Bouvier, Townsend, Rawle to name a few. 10 members of the 14th Amendment Congress said the President need only be a native born citizen and several specifically said we adopted the English common law rule with respect to Presidental eligibility. In fact, I don’t think there is a single scholar of note or court prior to 1866 that said one needed citizen parents or that natural born was defined by anything but the English common law rule. Quite sad that you hold on to your delusions, but it is time you did some actual research.

      • John Woodman says:

        Ballantine, welcome back!

        I’m not much involved in this discussion, but I look forward to hopefully having some time to really actually read the replies rather than just skim over them.

        Have fun!

        • Northland10 says:

          Yes, hello Ballantine. Good to see you stop by. On the earlier stream, I actually went back to your list of debate quotes when McCann tried to make some wild claim regarding the intent of Congress with the fourteenth amendment. The debates stated otherwise.

          He never did respond to my comments.

      • TJ McCann says:

        Ballantine wrote:

        You are misrepresenting what Sen. Trumbull said as he was referring to indians who were born in a quisi foreign nation and hence owed allegiance to such quisi foreign nation rather than us. Trumbull made clear one owed allegiance to the nation one was born in, repeatedly stated that children of aliens were citizens, and even said that natural born subject and citizen meant the same thing. And nothing in Elk said anything different as it didn’t talk about aliens at all, just indians born in a foreign nation. It doesn’t appear that you get anything right.

        Given the fact that I have not said ANYTHING about Trumbull, how is it at all reasonably possible that I am in any way “misrepresenting Sen Trumbull”? Furthermore, I have not specified any argument at all about Elk v Wilkins here anywhere. What you’re doing is creating your own strawman arguments, and then batting them around, as if mine, and then have the ignorance to pronounce “It doesn’t appear that you get anything right”. Here’s a suggestion: quit being an ***.

        In Elk v Wilkins Justice Horace Gray wrote:

        “The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.

        These words by Gray emphasizing “complete jurisdiction” as opposed to subject in “in some respect or degree” echo the words of Senator Trumbull emphasizing “complete jurisdiction”(provided later).

        As if this were not enough, Gray went on in Elk v Wilkins:

        “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States…although in a
        geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of_that_government_ [the United States], or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.”

        Gray is indicating that the children of subjects of any foreign government, born within the the domain of “that government”, are not intended to be citizens of the United States. It is clear that the underscored “that government” is referring to the previous “United States”, as nothing else makes sense.

        There are two other possible references for “that government”. The first is the other reference to government, the “foreign government”, in which those children’s parents are subjects and other foreigners who are foreign to that foreign government giving birth therein. However this is not reasonable because Gray would then be arguing for the non-citizenship status in another country when he (allegedly) would be doing exactly the opposite in these United States. This would be employing non-parallel logic. and is an irrational argument by example. The second is similarly unreasonable, with the foreigners giving birth in their own native country, and it is obvious that those offspring would be citizens, being born in the country of their parents. Quite clearly Gray is recognizing that the offspring of aliens born in the United States are not citizens. This then contradicts Gray’s holding in Wong Kim Ark.

        Senator Trumbull indicated the primary author of the 14th Amendment:

        Trumbull:“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” What do we mean by “complete jurisdiction thereof?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

        Not owing allegiance to anybody else is pretty clearly not the “temporary and immediate” jurisdiction of only law used by Gray in Wong Kim Ark.

        Senator Howard then responded to Trumbull’s assurances about the Amendment he had authored:

        Sen. Jacob Howard:” [i] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

        That complete and total jurisdiction, which was also applied to every citizen at that time, was a jurisdiction in which the citizen recognized no allegiance to any other country, even as affirmed in the June 22, 1874 joint congressional report, House Report No. 784, which states, “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”

        This emphasis on jurisdiction being complete and total, having no allegiance to any other country, is also indicated by other legislation and court decisions:

        1866, Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised indicated who was a citizen:

        “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power … are declared to be citizens of the United States”

        Of note, “Indians not tax” were specifically excluded, because they were not subject to a “foreign” power, as that power was located within the continental boundaries of the United States, thereby not “foreign”. Of note, neither the offspring ambassadors nor the offspring of alien/foreign parents were mentioned, because both are born subject to a foreign power.

        Civil Rights Act of 1866: The very same Congress that drafted the 14th Amendment (two months before the 14th (and recognized in Wong Kim Ark) defined citizenship in the first section:

        “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.”
        112 U.S. 99-103.

        This is not employing the vagueness of “jurisdiction”, but is clearly stating that the persons born in the United States (the offspring) are not subject to any foreign power. Once again “Indians not taxed” are refereced, because they are not subject to a foreign power, but rather a domestic one. Notice also that the offspring of Ambassadors are not referenced, nor are the offspring of aliens, because they are indeed born subject to foreign powers.

        1873, Supreme Court Slaughterhouse Cases: indicated that the U.S.-born children of foreign citizens (incl. legal alien residents) are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, therefore are not U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment:

        ‘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.’ … The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
        (Slaughter-House Cases, 1873)

        What is significant about this recognition is that it specifically excludes from jurisdiction and citizenship “children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States” thereby denying citizenship to alien offspring, both illegal aliens, and those legally resident. Why does it do so? Because they are not

        Furthermore, by this Supreme Court ruling, Children of Ambassadors, ministers and counsels are excluded by the same reasoning as those children of non-citizen aliens – THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE 14th AMENDMENT’S JURISDICTION. All owe allegiance to other foreign powers, and are not “true and faithful to our government alone”.

        1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v.Wilkins years later:

        “The word ‘jurisdiction’ must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them.
        (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

        Once again the “limited” (and temporary) jurisdiction in which aliens and their offspring find themselves here when giving birth does not meet the requirement for “absolute and complete” jurisdiction referenced by the Fourteenth Amendment.

        (And that’s how it’s done, girls. To properly present a quote as evidence, one does not just drop the quote and presume it self-evident, but rather has to emphasize the applicable portions AND indicate how these are relevant to the discussion. )

        Ergo, given the evidence at hand, these United States have not recognized mere bith in U.S. soil as resulting in de facto citizenship, and this fabrication only came about from the judicial corruption by the Gray Court of the clear and undeniable legislative intent of Congress, and the previous recognition of other Supreme Court cases, including Gray’s own Elk v Wilkins.

        ” Even England didn’t think children of their subject born in the US owed England allegiance. “

        Fascinating! England didn’t think children born in the U.S. of their subjects owed England allegiance? I’d love to hear you defend this piece of utter bull****. You need to to do some serious studying regarding the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. Franklin must have been a raving alarmist when he said, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

        • John Woodman says:

          Your ignorance is stunning, TJ. You haven’t read the Congressional debates. You’ve read what some birther idiot wrote about the Congressional debates, complete with all the pretty little quotes pulled right out of their context, and ignoring the other quotes that the birther idiot author didn’t give to you.

          • TJ McCann says:

            Let’s talk about stunning ignorance.

            If every comment from the by Congress from debate and discussion were legitimate and valid, (ignoring the presumption that these comments were not necessarily the conclusion of the body) then we would be in a panic right now because Guam is expected to capsize from American military presence there! Your claim is idiotic even at face value.

            And those more narrow, specific quotes of Trumbull and Howard, which I provided, are not as prone to be taken out of context as the far more general quotes that you and others keep wanting to refer to as the ruling context! This is particularly true given the fact that I cite Howard rephrasing and corroborating Trumbull’s own point!

            For instance, the Howard quote indicating, “Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries and that is sufficient for my purpose.” has been cited by some. Nativity obviously does not impart citizenship in this country, in all cases, as Ambassadors offspring do not receive citizenship, and we never recognized dual allegiance. Also mere birth on a country’s soil sure as hell does not impart citizenship in other countries.

            So what might the context of “nativity” mean here? It certainly is not a term of art applied to citizenship, given that “nativity” certainly has no inherent citizenship associated with the term. The only way that Howard’s statement can be even remotely true is if “nativity” applies to being “wholly native” or a native of a society – indigenous – and not just “native born”.

            Furthermore, it should be obvious to any but the ignorant and dishonest, that the “complete jurisdiction thereof” to which Trumbull refers, and the “full and complete jurisdiction” indicated by Howard, do not coincide with the temporary and partial jurisdiction which Gray applies in Won Kim Ark to argue for his citizenship!

            • Ballantine says:

              Your Guam comments makes less sense than your usual gibberish.

              And to claim the phrase “full and complete jurisdiction” excluded children of aliens you first have to show they thought such children were not subject to our “full and complete jurisdiction” which you cannot do. They were talking about indians not aliens and you are simply being dishonest to say they thought such applied to aliens when they never said so. And why did Trumbull say that all the indians had to do was come live amongst us and make themselves subject to our laws to have their children be citizens. Because the phrase meant “subject to our laws” like Senator Howard said. If the indians put themselves exactly in the position of aliens by living among us, their children are citizens. Seriously it really isn’t that hard.

              “But I held that in the sense of the Constitution every person born free within the limits of a State, not connected with a foreign minister’s family, is born a citizen whether he be white or black. Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries and that is sufficient for my purpose.” Senator Howard, Gong. Globe, 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., pg. 1543 (1870).

              Yes, this is so unclear next to using the term “full allegiance” when talking about indians.

              “A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws…..They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” Senator Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

              Gee, its almost like he is telling us exactly wht “Subject to the jurisdiction” meant and telling us what the universal rule is. You are really getting pathetic. Obviously trumped be a statement that indians don’t owe us full allegiance when born in a quisi foreign language. Duh.

            • TJ McCann says:

              Ballantine:

              Your Guam comments makes less sense than your usual gibberish.

              During a hearing, Rep Hank Johnson indicated that Guam might capsize from America’s Marine presence there. “My fear is that the whole island would become so overly populated that it would tip over and capsize.” This is the Democratic ideology on display in all its glory. Sometimes to make sense of things it helps to have knowledge of current events.

              My point was that what Congress people say in debate and in hearings is not necessarily the truth, and less so when it is taken out of context.

              And to claim the phrase “full and complete jurisdiction” excluded children of aliens you first have to show they thought such children were not subject to our “full and complete jurisdiction” which you cannot do.

              Such children were not, in fact, subject to our complete jurisdiction, but rather a “temporary and local” allegiance, as argued by Gray, referencing Calvin. What Calvin indicates is that temporary and local allegience is strong enough to make any “issue” there (Britain) a natural born subject. What Calvin is arguing is the Perpetual Allegiance to the Crown of feudal heirarchy, which this country did profoundly reject, That project, and posession of the offspring, forcibly making them subjects, is not something this country subscribes to, nor a part of our citizenship.

              Ballantine wrote:

              They were talking about indians not aliens and you are simply being dishonest to say they thought such applied to aliens when they never said so.

              They? They WHO? Talking about WHERE? WTF are you talking about?

              The extended quote by Howard doesn’t mention Indians at all.

              Furthermore, Indians are not any sort of special case, but are the applied reasoning of aliens in this country, the same as aliens from other countries. The reason Indians are an exception is that owe allegiance to some other sovereign authority which is not “foreign” because it is within these United States. Beyond that the consideration of Indians is just like foreign aliens from other countries and by the same principle. Please tell me you’re not so obtuse that this fact escapes you.

              Furthermore, it is not “in the sense of the Constitution” of these United States, that persons born on this country’s soil are citizens, but rather through only the projected Perpetual Allegiance incorporated into British Common Law, and compelled upon those on that country’s soil, something that was rejected at this nation’s founding! THis is why Gray had to resort to British law, principle and reference, to justify what was never true, and should not be true, in these United States!

              Its not a “universal rule” at all. It is the compulsion of the fuedal Monarchical society, where there is but one sovereign, the King, compelled on those who abide on its shore, even imagining that it can undermine and overpower any allegiance that the parents might convey to their children to another country. It is nothing short of a colonial doctrine, one which we rejected with TWO WARS, or is this news to you?

            • Suranis says:

              They? They WHO? Talking about WHERE? WTF are you talking about?

              The extended quote by Howard doesn’t mention Indians at all.

              Good God, why do you blather lies that are so easy to check?

              http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16

              His entire speech was about indians. That’s the “current events” to make sense of the quote.

            • Ballantine says:

              My point was that what Congress people say in debate and in hearings is not necessarily the truth, and less so when it is taken out of context.

              Translation, the dozens and dozens and dozens of quotes that say you are wrong in the most unambiguous terms don’t count. But the 3 quotes you cite do count. Claiming quotes are out of context does not mean they are and an unambiguous quote stating parentage is irrelevant stands on its own. For example:

              “This clause is unnecessary, but nevertheless proper, since it is only declaratory of what is the law without it. This has been sufficiently demonstrated by the by the distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee and by the authorities he has cited ….. In the great case of Lynch vs. Clarke, it was conclusively shown that in the absence of all constitutional provision or congressional law declaring citizenship by birth, “it must be regulated by some rule of national law coeval with the existence of the Union” it was and is that “all children born here, are citizens, without any regard to the political condition or allegiance of their parents.” Rep. Lawrence, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1832 (1866).

              “”I have always believed that every person, of whatever race or color, who was born within the United States was a citizen of the United States…The Senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen. I know that is so in one instance, in the case of the children of foreign ministers who reside “near” the United States in the diplomatic language. By a fiction of law such persons are not supposed to be residing here, and under that fiction of law their children would not be citizens of the United States.” Senator Wade, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess.2768-69 (1866).

              “The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law [the Civil Rights Act]; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Senator Conness, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 2890 (1866).

              You are simply dishonest to not admit such quotes say you are wrong or somehow don’t count. Obviously I can keep citing dozens and dozens of more unambiguous quotes but you refuse to consider anything but the 3 quotes you have decided count that, of course, have nothing to do with children of aliens.

              Such children were not, in fact, subject to our complete jurisdiction, but rather a “temporary and local” allegiance, as argued by Gray, referencing Calvin.

              Gibberish. Gray, Coke, Blackstone, Story, Kent and every authority in England and America said the native born child of aliens owed his natural allegiance to his place of birth and such was complete allegiance even though the child’s parents only owed a temporary allegiance. The origins of such rule may have been feudal like many provisions in the Constitution taken from English law, yet the United States and England retained the rule. In 1870, England considered changing the jus soli rule, but decided it was still the best rule even though they abandoned perpetual allegiance. One had nothing to do with the other.

              The extended quote by Howard doesn’t mention Indians at all.

              Sorry to tell you, but in the 14th Amendment debates the statements by Trumbull and Howard on full allegiance or “not owing allegiance to anyone else” were when the Senate was arging about whether indians were subject to our laws. Yes, they argued that indians born in a quisi foreign nation did not owe us full allegiance. No one said children of aliens did not owe us full allegiance and the to compare indians born in a quisi foreign nation to children of aliens born within our jurisdiction is simply dishonest. They are completely different situatios which is why Justice Gray compared such indians to aliens born in the domain of a foreign government.

              Of course, the Civil Right Act only said indians had to be subject to tax for their children to be citizens. They didn’t need to be naturalized or renounce their Indians allegiance. Trumbull said they only needed to come within our jurisdiction and be subject to our laws. Clearly just a matter of territorial jurisdiction.

              “whenever they [indians] are separated from their tribes, and come within the jurisdiction of the United States so as to be counted, they are citizens of the United States.” Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 572 (1866).

              “If they are there and within the jurisdiction of Colorado, and subject to the laws of Colorado, they ought to be citizens; and that is all that is proposed.” Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 572 (1866).

              So let’s summarize. Indians born within a quisi foreign nation owed a foreign allegiance to such indians nation and were not citizens. However, if their parents left their tribes and came within our jurisdiction and became subject to our laws and tax obligations, the children were citizens and hence were fully within our jurisdiction owing allegiance only to us. And why would anyone think children whose alien parents where within our jurisdicition and subject to taxation would not be citizens under the same logic? No honest persons would.

              THis is why Gray had to resort to British law, principle and reference, to justify what was never true, and should not be true, in these United States!

              Of course, Gray cited every legal giant in the early Republic saying he was right. Fuller could cite no one. Gray could have cited several dozen more if he wanted to as he didn’t cite Rawle, Tucker, Dane, Bouvier, Townsend, Madison, Swift, White, Burrel, Pomeroy, Paschel, well you get the point. We have challenged you to cite any early authority of any significance saying that Gray was wrong and you cannot, as such authority does not exist.

              Its not a “universal rule” at all.(

              You see your saying it was not the universal rule doesn’t mean anything as you are a nobody that has not shown any understand of law. I have pointed out that 10 members of the 39th Congress said it was the universal rule. Such was also the opinion of Attorney General Bates, Justice Story, Swift, Pomeroy and most American commentators on the issue. There opinion counts, not yours. I’m sorry you can’t accept that.

              “They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country.” Senator Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

              You really can’t understand that. How about:

              “It is a principle of universal law that every person born in a country, and not a slave, is a citizen or subject of such country, and unless excluded by special laws is entitled to all privileges or citizens or subjects. ” Sen. Davis, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. pg. 182 of Appendix (1866)

              “It is a rule of universal law, adopted and maintained among all nations, that they who are born upon the soil are the citizens of the State. They owe allegiance to the state, and are entitled to the protection of the State. Such is the law, whether you put it into this bill or not. So far as this declaration of the bill is concerned, it is but reiterating an existing and acknowledged principle of law.” Rep. Thayer, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1152 (1866).

              “Mr. Justice Curtis held that the Constitution of the United States assumes that citizenship can be acquired by nativity. That is the common law, that is the law of the civilized world, that he who is born in a country, and not made a slave at the moment of birth by any municipal law, becomes, by virtue of his birth, a citizen…” Senator Johnson, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1776 (1866).

              “The honorable Senator from Kentucky…forgets this general process of nations and or nature by which every man, by his birth, is entitled to citizenship, and upon the general principle that he owes allegiance to the country of his birth, and that country owes him protection. That is the foundation, in my understanding, of all citizenship…” Senator Morrill, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. p. 570 (1866).

              “Why, all the world knows, the most unlettered of our people understand, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of any nation, or naturalized under its laws, is, by virtue of those facts alone, a citizen of that country in the fullest and amplest sense of the term.” Rep. Kerr., Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 2, pg. 47 of appendix (1871).

              Are the words too big for you to understand? I know, I know. These don’t count as Trumbull said children born in a quisi foreign nation didn’t owe us full allegiance which trumps everything else.

              “Now where is the authority to except the native-born African from the application of the general rule of law that every native shall be a citizen of the country on whose soil he is born?” Rep. Raymond, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1266 (1866).

              “As a positive enactment this would hardly seem necessary….What is a citizen but a human being who, by reason of his being born within the jurisdiction of a government, owes allegiance to that government?” Congressman Broomall, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 1262 (1866).

              They were joking.

              “and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

              Doesn’t count as Trumbull said children born in a quisi foreign nation didn’t owe us full allegiance which obviously trumps a clear statement that natural born subject and citizen mean the same thing and that the English common law is common law of every nation.

              “We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1117 (1866).

              Doesn’t count. Seriously, does your brain just switch off when you see dozens and dozens of actual legal authorities saying you are wrong or are just a dishonest person?

            • John Woodman says:

              Okay, I’m just now getting around to responding to some of this stuff from TJ.

              TJ accuses me of “stunning ignorance:”

              Let’s talk about stunning ignorance.

              If every comment from the by Congress from debate and discussion were legitimate and valid, (ignoring the presumption that these comments were not necessarily the conclusion of the body) then we would be in a panic right now because Guam is expected to capsize from American military presence there! Your claim is idiotic even at face value.

              The claim was 1) that he has taken quotes from the Congressional debates on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment out of context; 2) those quotes, read in context, do not support what the birthers (TJ included) claim they’re saying, and 3) other quotes, and the debate in general, contradicts TJ’s birther claims.

              Those points have been well established. For example, they are well established in the extensive commentary throughout the site on the words of our Congressmen Trumbull, Howard, and Bingham. One needs only to search the site. There is further discussion in the 7-part series on this site regarding the historical meaning of “natural born citizen.” And when it comes to point 3, quotes from at least Trumbull and Howard that directly contradict TJ’s claims have appeared in this very thread.

              TJ’s point about Guam is silly. Now he’s arguing that one shouldn’t rely on getting any reasonable information from Congressional debates at all! And yet he was the one who earlier claimed those debates supported his point.

              And those more narrow, specific quotes of Trumbull and Howard, which I provided, are not as prone to be taken out of context as the far more general quotes that you and others keep wanting to refer to as the ruling context! This is particularly true given the fact that I cite Howard rephrasing and corroborating Trumbull’s own point!

              On the contrary, it is the fact that those quotes are quite specific that makes them very liable to be taken out of context.

              In virtually every instance that a birther pulls a quote from these debates, it is stripped of its specific context, which is almost always that they were talking about Indians who were members of tribes. And they are saying that such persons are not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States.

              But NOBODY ever claimed, during the course of those debates, that non-citizen immigrants from other countries, who came over here and were participating in our society, and were held to account by our laws and our law enforcement and other governmental agencies, were anything other than completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

              That claim actually was made, later, in the 1873 Attorney General quote TJ also referenced. But again, when you hunt that quote down to its original source, you discover that the Attorney General who made it had not the slightest reference to whether a child born on US soil of alien parents was a natural born citizen or not. It was an attempt to answer a question about a native American citizen who had renounced his US citizenship and now wanted to renounce the renunciation!

              And the exact same Attorney General, in the exact same passage, refers to “Persons born in the United States” in a way that implies he assumes ALL persons born in the United States are US citizens. He also furthermore says, “Actual naturalization abroad would seem to be necessary to make a person born in the United States an alien.”

              In any event, other Attorney General quotes are quite clear that a person born in the United States is a US citizen. And it is clear from reading the actual Congressional debates that the Congressmen who passed the Civil Rights Act and introduced the 14th Amendment did not intend to exclude children born of non-citizen immigrants from being “subject to the ['complete'] jurisdiction of” the United States.

            • Ballantine says:

              And the same atorney general also said:

              “One Francois A. Heinreich, now resident in Austria, was born in the city of New York in 1850, of Austrian parents, who were then temporarily residing in that city, but who never became naturalized….As a general rule, a person born in this country, though of alien parents who have never been naturalized, is under our law deemed a citizen of the United States by reason of the place of his birth, (10 Opin., 321, 328, 329; and see also section 1 to the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.) But the article of the convention just quoted—the right of an American citizen to change his national character, and become a citizen of Austria—is clearly recognized; but it is required that he shall have had a residence of five years in that country, besides being naturalized there, before the United States are bound to consider and to treat the person so naturalized as an Austrian citizen. In the case under cousideration, therefore, though the said Francois is a native of this country, and as such was originally clothed with American nationality, yet, he having resided in Austra uninterruptedly far beyond the period mentioned, the question submitted resolves itself practically into this inquiry, whether during that time he has acquired Austrian citizenship?” Attorney General Williams (December 21, 1872)

              I know, I know, it must be out of context. The letter was to Secretary of State Fish who also wrote many opinions saying TJ was wrong including:

              “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” This is simply an affirmance of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage. The qualification, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was probably intended to exclude the children of foreign ministers, and of other persons who may be within our territory with rights of extraterritoriality.” Secretary of State Fish, 2 Whart.Int.Dig. p. 394. (1871)

              “The child born of alien parents in the United States is held to be a citizen thereof, and to be subject to duties with regard to this country which do not attach to the father. The same principle on which such children are held by us to be citizens of the United States, and to be subject to duties to this country, applies to the children of American fathers born without the jurisdiction of the United States, and entitles the country within whose jurisdiction they are born to claim them as citizen and to subject them to duties to it. Such children are born to a double character: the citizenship of the father is that of the child so far as the laws of the country of which the father is a citizen are concerned, and within the jurisdiction of that country; but the child, from the circumstances of his birth, may acquire rights and owes another fealty besides that which attaches to the father.” Secretary of State Fish, Opinions of the Executive Departments on Expatriation, Naturalization and Allegiance (1873).

              “So far as concerns our own local law, a child born in the United States to a British subject, is a citizen of the United States.” Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Ellis, Apr. 14, 1873. MSS. Dom. Let.

              Let’s not mention the opinions of Attorney General Bates, Black and Hoar as well as Secretary of State Marcy or acting Secretary of State Davis.

            • John Woodman says:

              As a general rule, a person born in this country, though of alien parents who have never been naturalized, is under our law deemed a citizen of the United States by reason of the place of his birth.

              Okay. Well, you just killed that. :lol:

            • Ballantine says:

              I would think that TJ’s daddy would tell him that before he tries to cite authority that is not on point and says nothing about children of aliens, he might want to make sure such authority did not opine directly on point about children of aliens making clear he is wrong. We have seen this over and over. Not really rocket science. Of course, I’m sure TJ’s daddy will still tell him he is smart no matter how he mangles actual legal authority.

            • John Woodman says:

              I’ve no idea how many times going and reading a birther-promoted quote in context, or going and further researching the person who said the quote, has led to a negation of the birther claim.

              A lot. I can tell you that.

      • Ballantine says:

        Oh no, this must really be Mario as only he makes such stupid arguments. Anyone who can read English can read:

        “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States…although in a
        geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of_that_government_

        says subjects of a foreign government born within the domains of THAT GOVERNMENT obviously means that foreign government that was just mentioned. Duh! Are you dishonest or stupid?

        Gray, Trumbull and Howard all were talking about indians born in a quasi foreign nation that was territory we didn’t completely control. Accordingly they owed allegiance to that nation and were treated as aliens born in the domain of a foreign nation. Trumbull said all they had to do to make thier children citizens is come live amongst us and make themselves subject to our laws. The parents need not be naturalized and, of course, the law of allegiance of the tribes was not relevant. They simply had to put themselves in the position of aliens living amongst us. None of these people ever said children of aliens were not citizens or owed a foreign allegiance, but rather make clear were citizens. Why not try reading who Howard and Trumbull said were citizens:

        “But I held that in the sense of the Constitution every person born free within the limits of a State, not connected with a foreign minister’s family, is born a citizen whether he be white or black. Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries and that is sufficient for my purpose.” Senator Howard, Gong. Globe, 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., pg. 1543 (1870).

        “A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws…..They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” Senator Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

        “I have two objections to this amendment. The first is that it proposes to change the existing Constitution in reference to qualifications of President of the United States. If this amendment shall be adopted, then that clause of the Constitution which requires that the President of the United States shall be a native-born citizen of the United States is repealed, and any person who hasbeen naturalized and then become a citizenof the United States will be eligible to the office of President;” Sen. Howard, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1013 (1869)

        Seems Howard didn’t get your memo. How about Trumbull? You do know that the children of the Chinese were children of aliens since the chinese could not be naturalized?

        “The Constitution of the United States declares that no one but a native-born citizen of the United States shall be President of the United States. Does, then, every person living in this land who does not happen to have been born within its jurisdiction undergo pains and penalties and punishment all his life, because by the Constitution he is ineligible to the Presidency? Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2901(1866).

        “in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872).

        ““The President also has an objection to making citizens of Chinese and Gypsies. I am told that few Chinese are born in this country, and where the Gypsies are born I never know…… And, as is suggested by a Senator-behind me, even the infant child of a foreigner born in this land is a citizen of the United States long before his father.” Senator Trumbull (reply to President Johnsons’s Veto), Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1757 (1866)

        “children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?” Senator Trumbull, CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 497 (1866).

        “I am afraid that we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”‘ Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866)

        “Undoubtably.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866)(in reply to Sen. Cowen’s question whether the Civil Rights Act will have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese aliens and Gypsies born in this country).

        “birth entitles a person to citizenship, that every free-born person in this land is, by virtue of being born here, a citizen of the United States.” Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st session. 600 (1866)

        “It is competent for Congress to declare, under the Constitution of the United States, who are citizens. If there were any question about it, it would be settled by the passage of a law declaring all persons born in the United States to be citizens thereof. That this bill proposes to do.” Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 475 (1866).

        “My own opinion is that all these people born in the United States and under it authority, owing allegiance to the United States, are citizens without any act of Congress.” Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 527 (1866)

        “It was believe by myself and many others that all native born persons since the abolition of slavery were citizens of the United States. This was the opinion of Mr. Bates, the Attorney General during the Lincoln administration, the opinion adopted by his administration and acted upon since by all departments of the Executive Government, including Secretary of state, which has issued passports to persons of color recognizing them as citizens. It was the opinion expressed by Mr. Marcy when Secretary of State that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States not referring of course to slaves…” Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 1757 (1866)

        I guess Trumbull didn’t understand. Here, try some others:

        “”I have always believed that every person, of whatever race or color, who was born within the United States was a citizen of the United States…The Senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen. I know that is so in one instance, in the case of the children of foreign ministers who reside “near” the United States in the diplomatic language. By a fiction of law such persons are not supposed to be residing here, and under that fiction of law their children would not be citizens of the United States.” Senator Wade, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess.2768-69 (1866).

        “The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law [the Civil Rights Act]; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Senator Conness, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 2890 (1866).

        “On this question of citizenship, Mr. Marcy, while he was Secretary of State, in a note dated March 6, 1854, expressed himself as follows: ‘Although, in general, it is not the duty of the Secretary of State to express opinions of law, and doubts may be entertained of the expedience of making an answer to your inquiries an exception to this rule, yet, I am under the impression that every person born in the United States must be considered a citizen of the United States, notwithstanding one or both of his parents may have been alien, at the time of its birth.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1116 (1866).

        “It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term “citizen.” It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1117 (1866).

        “This clause is unnecessary, but nevertheless proper, since it is only declaratory of what is the law without it. This has been sufficiently demonstrated by the by the distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee and by the authorities he has cited ….. In the great case of Lynch vs. Clarke, it was conclusively shown that in the absence of all constitutional provision or congressional law declaring citizenship by birth, “it must be regulated by some rule of national law coeval with the existence of the Union” it was and is that “all children born here, are citizens, without any regard to the political condition or allegiance of their parents.” Rep. Lawrence, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1832 (1866).

        “The Amendments to the Constitution now pending seek to make citizens of the United States of all men born in the country of lawful age…It makes citizens not only of the pet negro but also of the filthy Chinese.” Sen. Johnson, The Congressional Globe, 3rd Session, 40th Congress pg. 1067 (1868) .

        “and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.” Sen. Johnson, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 2893 (1866).

        “The Constitution of the United States provides that no person but a native-born citizen of the United States, with other qualifications as to age and residence, shall be president of the United States…. Is the Congress of the United States prepared at this time to adopt a proposition that negroes and Indians and Chinese and all persons of that description shall be eligible to the office of President…” Senator Williams, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 573 (1866).

        “I propose to insert before the word “citizen” the word “natural-born;” so that it will read: “The right of natural-born citizens of the United States to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” If that amendment is adopted it will not be competent for Congress or for any State to discriminate against any person born in the United States on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude ; but the States may discriminate as against foreign-born persons. Adopt this amendment of mine and the States of California and Oregon would be able to provide that any persons born in China or Japan should not exercise political power in those States, but California or Oregon could not provide that any person born in the United States, no matter what his color might be, sbonld be deprived of the elective franchise or the right to hold office; so that the effect of this amendment would be that it would leave it with the States to declare that persons born in Asia or in Africa should not exercise political power within the several States.” Senator Williams, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 938 (1869).

        “This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, people of color, negroes, mulattoes, and persons of African blood. Every individual of those races, born in the United States, is by the bill made a citizen of the United States.” President Johnson’s Veto Message, William Horatio Barnes, History of the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 252 (1868).

        “I assumed that by the amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery, the slaves being made free became citizens entitled to all the rights, civil and political, of other American citizens. I maintained that if the offspring of a man from a foreign country became a citizen and entitled to vote, because a man happened to be born in America and was black, that did not disfranchise him.” Mr. Yates, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1004 (1869)

        “This bill provides that all persons born within the United States, excepting those that do not owe allegiance to the United States government, as children of ambassadors of foreign powers, and such are not subject to our laws, and Indians not taxed who owe a tribal allegiance, are citizens of the United States.” Rep. Cook, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1124 (1866).

        “A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws…..They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” Senator Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

        “It is a principle of universal law that every person born in a country, and not a slave, is a citizen or subject of such country, and unless excluded by special laws is entitled to all privileges or citizens or subjects. ” Sen. Davis, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. pg. 182 of Appendix (1866)

        “It is a rule of universal law, adopted and maintained among all nations, that they who are born upon the soil are the citizens of the State. They owe allegiance to the state, and are entitled to the protection of the State. Such is the law, whether you put it into this bill or not. So far as this declaration of the bill is concerned, it is but reiterating an existing and acknowledged principle of law.” Rep. Thayer, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1152 (1866).

        “Mr. Justice Curtis held that the Constitution of the United States assumes that citizenship can be acquired by nativity. That is the common law, that is the law of the civilized world, that he who is born in a country, and not made a slave at the moment of birth by any municipal law, becomes, by virtue of his birth, a citizen…” Senator Johnson, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1776 (1866).

        “The honorable Senator from Kentucky…forgets this general process of nations and or nature by which every man, by his birth, is entitled to citizenship, and upon the general principle that he owes allegiance to the country of his birth, and that country owes him protection. That is the foundation, in my understanding, of all citizenship…” Senator Morrill, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. p. 570 (1866).

        “Why, all the world knows, the most unlettered of our people understand, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of any nation, or naturalized under its laws, is, by virtue of those facts alone, a citizen of that country in the fullest and amplest sense of the term.” Rep. Kerr., Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 2, pg. 47 of appendix (1871).

        “Now where is the authority to except the native-born African from the application of the general rule of law that every native shall be a citizen of the country on whose soil he is born?” Rep. Raymond, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1266 (1866).

        “As a positive enactment this would hardly seem necessary….What is a citizen but a human being who, by reason of his being born within the jurisdiction of a government, owes allegiance to that government?” Congressman Broomall, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 1262 (1866).

        “The Constitution in speaking of natural-born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations and as old as political societies themselves, that the people born in the country constitute the nation, and as individuals are natural members of the body-politic. If this be a true principle, and I hardly think it will be denied, it follows that every person born in the country is at the time of birth prima facie a citizen ; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great dis-franchisement strong enough to override the “natural-born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color or any other accidental circumstance. That nativity furnishes the rule both of duty and of right as between the individual and the Government is a historical and political truthso old and so universally accepted that it is useless to prove it by authority. In every civilized country the individual is born to duties and rights—the duty of allegiance and the right to protection.” Rep. Bowen. The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 3. pg. 96 (1869)

        “As matter of law, does anybody deny here, or anywhere, that the native-born is a citizen, and a citizen by virtue of his birth alone … Sir, he has forgotten the grand principle both of nature and nations, both of law and politics, that birth gives citizenship of itself. this is the fundamental principle running through all modern politics both in this country and in Europe. Everywhere where the principle of law have been recognized at all, birth by its inherent energy and force gives citizenship. There for the founders of this government made no provision – of course they made none – for the naturalization of natural born citizens…. Therefore, sir, this amendment, although it is a grand enunciation, although it is a lofty and sublime declaration, has no force or efficiency as an enactment. I hail it and accept it simply as a declaration….” Senator Morrill, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. p. 570 (1866).

        “The freedmen of the United States are citizens of the United States; not citizens under the naturalization law, not citizens by virtue of any treaty, but citizens because they are born native to the soil.” Sen. Lane, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 741 (1866)

        The English Law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward. The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone – natural born and naturalized citizens.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lest Sess. 1116 (1866).

        “I told him that that I thought a man was eligible for the office of President or Vice President even if he was a citizen of the Territory of Tennessee if he was a native born citizen of the United States…If he is a citizen of the United States, born within the limits of the United States, he is eligible, no matter whether he was born in a territory that never became a state or born in the District of Columbia, or inside some of the forts of the country.” Rep. Broomall, The Congressional Globe, 2nd Session, 38th Congress, pg.468 (1865)

        “The Constitution requires that the President must be a native-born citizen of the United States.” Sen. Sherman, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1035 (1869)

        “No one who is not a native born citizen of the United States, or a citizen at the time of adoption of the Constitution, can be voted for.” Sen. Johnson, The Congressional Globe, 2nd Session, 38th Congress, pg.552 (1865)

        “that the President and Vice President must be native born.” Rep. Clarke, Congressional Globe, 2nd session, 40th Congress. 1105 (1868).

        “One of those principles is that the candidate voted for must be thirty-five years of age; another is that he must have been a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, or he must be a native-born citizen.” Sen. Davis, 2/2/1865 reported in The presidential counts: a complete official record of the proceedings of Congress at the counting of the electoral votes in all the elections of president and vice-president of the United States; pg. 203 (1877).

        “What is the qualification for the office of President? He must be a native-born citizen of the United States and thirty-five years of age. Nothing more!” Rep. Boutwell, 1/11/69 cited in Great Debates in American History: Civil rights, part 2 Volume 8 of Great Debates in American History: From the Debates in the British Parliament on the Colonial Stamp Act (1764-1765) to the Debates in Congress at the Close of the Taft Administration (1912-1913), United States. Congress, pg. 113 (1913)

        “Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)

        “you shall be permitted to take a position equal in every respect, with the exception, perhaps, of not being eligible to the office of President of the United States, to that of the native-born citizen.” Mr. Schenck, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lest Sess., pg. 298 of Appendix (1866).

        “The Constitution of the United States provides that no person but a native-born citizen of the United States, with other qualifications as to age and residence, shall be president of the United States…. Is the Congress of the United States prepared at this time to adopt a proposition that negroes and Indians and Chinese and all persons of that description shall be eligible to the office of President…” Senator Williams, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 573 (1866).

        “I hold in my hand Paschal’s annotated edition of the Constitution, four pages and a half of which are filled with references to decisions of the courts, from .the beginning of the century until now, declaring in the plainest terms that all free persons, born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens thereof. A weak attempt was made in the Dred Scott case to exclude free colored persons from the rights of citizenship, but that feature of the opinion was in opposition to the main body of previous precedents and to all subsequent decisions. I will quote but one or two of the many declarations of our constitutional teachers. Chancellor Kent says: ” Citizens, under our Constitution and laws, mean free inhabitants born within the United States or naturalized under the laws of Congress.” Rep. James Garfield, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 2, pg. 152 of appendix (1871).

        “In the admirable opinion of Attorney General Bates, delivered to President Lincoln November 20, 1862, this whole subject is thoroughly discussed. He said “The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, it is. in fact, made by them. Every person born in the country, at the moment of his birth, is prima facie a citizen.” Rep. James Garfield, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 2, pg. 152 of appendix (1871).

        “By the provisions of the civil rights bill all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States, or duly naturalized, are made citizens.” Mr. Mercur, The congressional globe, Volume 58, Part 2, pg. 1291 (1867)

        “and I shall therefore incorporate in my remarks an extract from Chancellor Kent directly sustaining my position in reference to this provision: “Citizens, under our Constitution and laws, mean free inhabitants born within the United States or naturalized under the laws of Congress.” Rep. Kerr., Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 2, pg. 47 of appendix (1871).

        I can keep going if you would like. Simply put, no honest person would think Justice Gray was wrong in WKA as the legislative history could not be clearer.

        • TJ McCann says:

          Ballantine

          You must be a blithering idiot, after having repeatedly demonstrated the comprehension skills of a young child.

          Ballantine wrote:

          says subjects of a foreign government born within the domains of THAT GOVERNMENT obviously means that foreign government that was just mentioned. Duh! Are you dishonest or stupid?

          No, I did NOT write that. I wrote that “that government” likely references these United States. I specifically said that if it were a reference to that “foreign government”, then Gray would be arguing against citizenship by birth in that country, be the by Aliens to that foreign country or birth by that foreign country’s own citizens, both of which would would be irrational, and not logical parallels to the consideration at hand!

          If Gray truly supports a right by birth to those born of aliens in these United States, then the idea of Aliens giving birth in some other foreign land not their own, and not resulting in citizens, contradicts his alleged believe (in WKA) that such is valid rule of law here.

          NO, GRAY WAS NOT still talking about Indians in a “quasi foreign nation” when he made that comment, because HE WAS USING A COMPARISON TO CONTRAST THOSE INDIANS IN A QUASI FOREIGN NATION so as to argue in support for his decision, BY PARALLEL, you halfwit! That comparison was discussing the aliens in of a foreign nation giving birth IN ANOTHER NATION’S SOIL! Which could be OUR NATION, or ANY NATION by parallel! Otherwise there is no comparison and parallel with the consideration of those American Indians! The PARALLEL is neither Indians nor foreigns on another sovereign soil can naturalize themselves or their offspring mere by giving birth there!

          And your dumps of the Congressional debates ares meaningless dribble.

          First, even Gray himself indicated that those debates were “inadmissible”. This you cannot deny.

          Second, many of those comments are inconclusive given the subject matter and points under contention, and when even remotely clear, they are not thorough and thereby the Judicial equivalent of “ORBITER dicta”!

          Third, the comments from the floor of Congress during the discussion of a bill or amendment, run the gamut, none of which has significant meaning regarding the consensus and final outcome.

          WHAT DOESs have significance regarding final outcome, and overall intent of Congress are
          1) The intention of the bills authors, in this case Trumbull and Howad, and
          2) those bills that were authored at the time by this congress, and in place at that time WHICH I’VE SHOWN QUITE COMPELLINGLY!!

          • John Woodman says:

            TJ,

            You refer to Ballantine as a “blithering idiot” with the “comprehension skills of a young child.”

            But you’re the one whose claim is directly and absolutely contradicted by the statements from both Senator Howard and Senator Trumbull. How can you defend your claim in light of that direct and absolute contradiction by sources which you have previously claimed were “on your side?”

            And having called someone else a “blithering idiot,” and having already been corrected in your Archie-Bunker-like use of the wrong term for a basic legal concept — using “orbita dicta” for “obiter dicta” — how do you defend your NEW instance of getting that term wrong even after being told what the proper term is?

            Don’t you think that having already been corrected once, that then using “ORBITER dicta” to mean “obiter dicta” makes you look like the absolute, blithering idiot that you claim others to be?

            I’m just curious here.

        • Ballantine says:

          I should add that the language of the Civil Rights Act did not say “subject of foreign power” but “subject to any foreign power” as in subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power. According to the author of such language, Mr. Trumbull:

          “That amendment in its form is but a copy of the civil rights act, declaring that all persons born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction of any foreign country is a citizen of the United States.”

          So, the CRA and the Amendment are simply mirror images of each other and make perfect sense under the rules of Public Internation Law in 1866. Any 19th century treatise on Public Law stated very clearly that a nations jurisdiction over all inhabitants was absolute. For example:

          “The first and most general maxim or proposition is that which has been already adverted to: that every nation possesses an exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction within its own territory. The direct consequence of this rule is, that the laws of every state affect and bind directly all property, whether real or personal, within its territory; and all persons who are resident within it, whether natural-born subjects or aliens; and also all contracts made and acts done within it.” Story, Conflect of Laws, pg. 23 (1841)

          “From the definition of a sovereign state it follows that “the jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from any external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.’ This jurisdiction extends to all subjects and over all persons within its territorial limits, it matters not whether those persons be native-born, or naturalized citizens, or aliens.” George Breckinridge Davis, Elements of International Law, pg. 39 (1900)

          This concept is found in Vattel, Twiss, Wheaton and in Justice Marshall’s famous Supreme Court opinion which all clearly state all aliens are under our jurisdiciton. The sole excpetion to this rule is someone covered by the privilege of Extra-Territoriality (foreign sovereigns, ambassadors and foreign military) who were considered in Public Law to be under the jurisdiciton of the foreign state even though they were outside such foreign state.

          This concept was embedded in our naturalization statutes which refered to aliens “within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States,” and citizens born “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States.” Hence, these statutes, which existed in 1866, distinguished between foreign nationals or aliens in the US who were under our jurisdiction and those who were not. It also distinguishes between citizens outside the US who were out of our jurisdiction and those who were still under it. In each case, these statutes only make sense in the language of Public Law which clearly spells out when persons are not subject to the jurisdiction of the nation they are in.

          This is simply Public Law 101 and something any lawyer of the time would understand. Accordingly, it is not surprising that it was said over and over and over during the debates on the Civil Rights Act, including by Trumbull himself, that such act made citizens of the children of aliens or was otherwise adopting the English jus soli rule which of course exlcuded children of persons covered by Extra-Territoriality.

          • TJ McCann says:

            Your quote from Trumbull says it follows the Civil Rights Act, however that quote might just as easily support my own argument as much as it does yours.

            Trumbull’s comment does not address the implication of “Jurisdiction” however my list of legislation from that period, and Supreme Court Cases, and statements from Congress itself, all concur with my own conclusion, including that Civil Rights Act, all similar but not exact, recognitions of jurisdiction, which sometimes translates to owing no allegiance to any foreign government.

            You fail any discernment of applicability in many, and even most of your provided quotes, because you ignore things such as the Congress’s recogntion of this country’s not having recognized dual allegiance and under that term any “born citizen” or even a “native born citizen” would indeed have to be a natural born citizen, born with no allegiance to any country having parents who were citizens. In other words, you do not show the discretion to apply the quotes in context.

            You also reference the rules of Public Internation Law in 1866, but do not indicate how they might affect or be relative to your own argument.

          • Ballantine says:

            You must have trouble reading as under Public Law everyone understood that all aliens were “under the jurisdiction” or “subject to the jurisdiction” of the nation they were in other than persons covered by Extra-Territoriality. Is that so hard to understand? It is simply wrong as a matter of Pulbic Law that a person with a foreign allegiance by virtue of being a foreign national was not subject to the laws of the United States when they are in the United States irreprective of the use of such term for indians born in what is deemed a foreign nation. Did or did not the naturlalizaiton law in 1866 say aliens had to “under our jurisdiction” for 2 years in order to be naturalized? No ambiguity there.

            “Allegiance” is a confusing word becuase it is used in many senses with different meanings. Some people talked of dual allegiance and some talked of only having one allegiance. Some talked of its meaning under municipal law and some under public law. Under Public Law, all who visit the United States owe allegiance to the United States while they are here other than those covered by Extra-Territoriality which are bound by their native allegiance. Hence, in one sense they are the only persons in the US who literally owed a foreign allegiance while they are here while in another sense their native country would hold they always owe allegiance even if it couldn’t be enforced outside its jurisdiction. Hence, such is why the treatises on Public Law speak in the language of “jurisdicition” as there is no dispute about what jurisdiction an alien is under in a foreign country. Show me the treatise that says an aliens is not subject or under the jusidiction of the nation he is in. You cannot.

            “When private individuals of one nation spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. Nor can the foreign sovereign have any motive for wishing such exemption. His subjects thus passing into foreign countries are not employed by him, nor are they engaged in national pursuits. Consequently there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this description from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found, and no one motive for requiring it. The implied license, therefore, under which they enter can never be construed to grant such exemption.” The Exchange v. McFaddon – 11 U.S. 116, 144 (1812).

        • John Woodman says:

          Ballantine, I note that your quotes from Senators Howard and Trumbull in particular are categorically and absolutely in contradiction with TJ’s claims. I wonder what he has to say in regard to that absolute contradiction?

          • Ballantine says:

            He will just ignore that and focus on the quotes from the indian debate where Trumbull and Howard were arguing that indians were not completely in our jurisidiction as we didn’t completely control the territory and where Trumbull used the phrase “owing allegiance to anyone else” when referring to indians born in what was considered a foreign nation. It is simply dishonest to say the discussion of indians born in what was considered a foreign nation shed any light on aliens who were born on soil under our jurisdiciton. And, Trumbull said all the indians had to do to make their children citizens was come live amongst us and make themselves subject to our laws, i.e., put themselves in the same position as Wong Kim Ark’s parents.

            The only other thing he can say legislative history doesn’t count and instead argue that “subject to the jurisdiction,” one of the clearest phrases in law, doesn’t mean what everyone in law understand such phrase to mean.

            Oh, I guess he will argue that Slaughterhouse and Elk are somehow precedent rather than Wong Kim Ark. Too bad the Court has approvingly cited WKA over and over and over and has never questioned it conclusions. Well, there are lots of fringe groups full of ignorant people who think all the courts are wrong and they are right.

        • Ballantine says:

          Yes, what the Howard, Trumbull and the people who passed the Amendment actually said means nothing unless you cherry pick a few quotes out of context. You obviously cannot address the clear evidence that you are wrong and it is clear you have never read those debates as everyone understood that children of aliens were to be citizens. I guess you can simply pretend that the framers of the Amendment didn’t say you were wrong over and over and over if it makes you feel good. However, it is the Supreme Court’s opinion that counts and it has clearly stated you are wrong.

          In your interpretation of Elk you again simply are demostrating you cannot read English or are simply dishonest:

          “than the children of subjects of any FOREIGN GOVERNMENT born within the domain of THAT GOVERNMENT”

          In English, this means children of subjects of a foreign government born in the domain of that foreign government are not citizens. In English, it cannot mean the United States. Indeed, the only government mentioned in the paragraph in such foreign governement that directly precedes “that government.” You really are making no sense.

          And such makes perfect sense in the paragraph as Gray is comparing foreign born aliens to

          “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes”

          Again the comparison is simple. The tribes are quisi foreign powers and hence these indians were treated as aliens being born in foreign nations. Hence they were no more “born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction” than aliens born in foreign nations. This really isn’t that hard. The rest of you post makes no sense. To say it is talking about aliens giving birth on another nation’s soil is delusional. Seriously, is English your first language? You are you going to say something that isn’t stupid?

          • TJ McCann says:

            My reference to specified quotes, with narrowed context in them, is not the same as your own broad quotes, with uncertain application of terms, which are easily misapplied and taken out of context.

            You provide quotes with generalities, and no specific application or terminology, and then demand those quotes be applied to in interpretation (of Gray’s) which inherently has no recognition of limitation, boundaries and terms, while the government disowns its fiduciary and constitutional obligation to the tw0-way commitment which is citizenship and naturalization. This is why our country is overrun with aliens, and our infrastructure and social services are taxed to the breaking point.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Yes TJ, what you do is different from what Ballantine does—it’s called “cherry picking” and it is a logical fallacy.

            • Scientist says:

              I honestly don’t know what you are talking about. Gray changed nothing with the Wong decision; he merely re-stated the law that had existed since Colonial times and through and after the Revolution and said that the Chinese Exclusion Acts could not over-ride those long-existing practices and that they had to apply to non-whites as well as whites (as the 14th Amendment sets out).

              The Wong case would never have arisen if Wong had been Wenger, born to German immigrants instead of Chinese, because no port entry official would have ever tried to deny entry to a US-born white person.

            • John Woodman says:

              The Wong case would never have arisen if Wong had been Wenger, born to German immigrants instead of Chinese, because no port entry official would have ever tried to deny entry to a US-born white person.

              Bingo.

          • Ballantine says:

            I have no idea what you are even trying to say. I have provided quotes that are specifically on point stating children of aliens were citizens, that parentage didn’t matter, that you adopted the English common law, that the President must be native born or born on our soil. These people said these things before the adopted the 14th amendment, while they were adopting it and after they adopted it. Everyone thought it was the law before 1866 as any treatise on ths subject made clear. Sorry you cannot except this.

            And no, your quotes are not clear and, as I have pointed out, are clearly out of context. There is no evidence that anyone thought a child born on US soil in 1866 other than indians or ambassadors owed a foreign allegiance. Such was simply not the law in the United States as all the treatises showed and as I have shown many members of such Congress clearly stated, indeed many believing that jus soli was the universal rule. Indeed, even England didn’t claim children of their subjects born on our soil owed allegiance to England. Why would we? In fact, the whole purpose of the Expatriate Act two years later was to proclaim that we would not recognize any foreign nation’s claim on any of our citizens since our citizens only owed allegiance to us.

    • Slartibartfast says:

      TJ said:

      “Simply put mere birth on U.S. soil was not opportunity until the time of the adoption of the Constitution.”

      I’m not sure what you mean here—please clarify.

      “At the time of this adoption, and also long thereafter, few states recognized mere birth in U.S. soil to result in even citizenship, so thereby these states would not have been able to provide a “natural born citizen” President by those means.”

      Since you have agreed that the 14th Amendement was merely declaratory of existing law, when did this law (which makes everyone born or naturalized in one of the several states) come into effect?

  5. TJ McCann says:

    Scientist wrote:

    Only NON-NATIVE foreigners were naturalized. So, all of these supposed native-born people who were in your view not citizens, could not be naturalized.

    No, and this is the problem with not having a broad understanding of the issues and instead going to superficial analyses such as NY State Archives, bogus sites like USConstitution.net, or a dictionary for your understanding. These are just not rigorous sites with any accurate information, and only serve value in giving the layperson some vague idea to complex issues.

    In reference to your “NON-NATIVE”, “native” or one wholly native, is not the same as “native-born”, and even the native born reference is grossly inaccurate. Native is one wholly native whereas native born is not necessarily wholly native, and might owe allegiance to another country upon birth. From this nation’s founding “native born” did not receive ipso facto citizenship by birth on native soil. If your referenced site had said non-native, it would be accurate, but still not thorough.

    However that’s not even what I was referring to.

    Naturalization is actually not just a process of forswearing an oath to another country and then swearing an oath to this country, done sometime later in life, after birth.

    Naturalization is any process whereby one is made “as if natural (born)” at any time in life, upon birth or afterwards by Congress, be it by legislative statute, or amendment to the Constitution.

    We’ve lost track of this meaning in modern times, and instead believe naturalization is a prolonged process something akin to waiting in line at the DMV, but no.

    To the astute reader, Horace Gray even recognizes this in the Wong Kim Ark decision, albeit subtly:

    I. In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by the legislature or a constitution established by the people as the supreme law of the land, regard is to be had not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power of which the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the history [p654] of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which the new act must be read and interpreted.

    The provision of that act concerning “the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States,” not being restricted to the children of persons already naturalized, might well be held to include children of persons thereafter to be naturalized.

    This recognition of “naturalization” and the distinction between naturalization and “natural born” was further made by Representative John Bingham, recognized as the father of the 14th Amendment:

    “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.”

    (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

    This far more precise understanding puts a whole new spin on the contemporary misconstruction of “naturalized” and gives new perspective to “born or naturalized” in the 14th Amendment.

    IF Naturalization is accurately recognized to be any act by Congress, then those who are “born” citizens, per the 14th, are everyone who is NOT a natural born citizens, clearly not being born in a country of parents who are citizens, thereby requiring an of Congressional naturalization to overcome the impediment of their foreign allegiance.

    Under these terms, Obama was then more clearly naturalized by statute, Title 8 §1405 “Persons born in Hawaii”, or naturalized by the corrupt misconstruction of the 14th Amendment, both acts of Congress, given the fact that he was admittedly born with British Citizenship, by right of blood and the British Nationality Act of 1948, as stated on Obama’s own FightTheSmears site, thereby making Obama “NATURALIZED”.

    As such Obama might be considered a “born citizen”, or even a “Native Born Citizen”, but under either case, he was “naturalized born” and cannot possibly be a “natural born citizen”. This “naturalized born” phrase is actually something employed by Jill A.Pryor, in her “scholarly” Yale Law Journal article, “The Natural Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility”.

    Barack Obama is “naturalized born” and ineligible to be President.

    • Scientist says:

      The NY State Archives is not a superficial source, they are the definitive repository of the history of New York, recognized as such by historians around the world. You are not recognized as definitive by anybody besides yourself. They are part of the NY Department of Education and speak for the State of New York. You speak for TJ McCann and no one else. They know very well that only the foreign-born were ever naturalized in New York. So, if not New York, then exactly which states did not consider those born on US soil to be citizens?

      You use a lot of words to cover up the fact that you cannot cite a single instance of a US-born person that was ever found to be naturalized. Even your Bingham quote specifically says, “All from other lands”

      As far as Obama, you can consider him ineligible if you like. I don’t really care what you consider him or me or anyone else. He is President nonetheless. And found to be so by every court that has ruled on the matter.

      PS- Title 8. 1405 covers people born in Hawaii between August 12, 1898 and April 30, 1900, it hardly pertains to Obama. You may think you sound impressive quoting statutes like a real lawyer, but I don’t even think you are up to the “I play one on TV” standard

      • TJ McCann says:

        Scientist, The NY State archives may not be a superficial source of historic data … .for the state of New York,.. but that reference to naturalization was indeed a superficial reference to naturalization. One only has to look at the substance of the citation to realize this.

        Naturalization isn’t about the state of New York, so it may speak as much as it will it is not relevant. Naturalization is held by the U.S. Constitution to be the domain of the federal govenrment, among its enumerated powers, Article I Section 8, “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization;”

        No, foreign born were not the only ones naturalized. Foreigners were naturalized, even as shown, among those who were born on this country’s soil, their parents had to have sworn an oath of allegiance even in settling in states. And as shown by my references, inclusive of Gray himself, naturalization does not just involve the limited contemporary understanding of it, but also any act of Congress, be it law or Amendment.

        You use a lot of words to cover up the fact that you cannot cite a single instance of a US-born person that was ever found to be naturalized. Even your Bingham quote specifically says, “All from other lands”

        This is a silly challenge, and a silly presumption on your part, all the result of you clinging to your limited preconception of what naturalization is. Even from my Bingham quote, “all from other lands” includes those who are born to foreign/alien parents on this country’s soil. This is clearly indicated by the FACT from that Bingham quote that outside that group (set) of those “from foreign lands” not needing naturalization, are ONLY those whose parents owe no foreign allegiance:

        “all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.”

        This statement, by even Gray’s understanding of naturalization, is a clarification of not only what “born or naturalized” means in the 14th Amendment, but also restates what is a natural born citizen, and the purpose of “jurisdiction” being one of allegiance, not law. Everyone is subject to the immediate jurisdiction of law, but not subject to jurisdiction of allegiance.

        The only possible dismissal one might give is if they imagine there is a whole plethora of foreigners wandering around without any sort of patriation, “people without a country”, which is actually only a rarified exception in extraordinary conditions.

        In point of fact, these references by Gray and Bingham should remove all cause for mockery of the idea that the allegiance of parents has no bearing as to natural born citizen status, AND the application of the 14th Amendment.

        This is really a bad time for you to claim that I am citing myself as “definitive” in the argument, when I am referencing Justice Horace Gray, allegedly on your side, and Bingham, one of the authors of the 14th Amendment whom you seem to assert wrote the 14th Amendment to fabricate the corruption of real birthright citizenship.

        Your inability to come to terms with the facts and truth does not constitute my fabricating them myself.

        And you need to go back and do a more thorough reading of 8 U.S.C. § 1405 as well. The text belies the fact it ” covers people born in Hawaii between August 12, 1898 and April 30, 1900″. You evidently missed the entirety beyond the first sentence which indicates:

        A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

        This is simple stuff, and shouldn’t necessitate such a major correction. No wonder the real intricacies of these considerations are entirely beyond your consideration.

        • Scientist says:

          TJ- You said “At the time of this adoption, and also long thereafter, few states recognized mere birth in U.S. soil to result in even citizenship”. I happen to live in New York (actually in Albany) so I wanted to see if that was true for New York. I could find no evidence that it was. So which states did your statement apply to and what evidence do you have? Where are the native-born naturalized? Who are they? Some specifics please.

          I am well aware that since the adoption of the Constitution, naturalization is a federal power. It was you who made the statement regarding states, not me.

          You said-”Foreigners were naturalized, even as shown, among those who were born on this country’s soil.” Give me a name of a naturalized native-born person, a date of naturalization. Your claim is that there are millions of people running around who were born in the US but who are naturalized, so that should be easy. Yet, nada.

          By the way, I know many people born in the US whose parents or parent were not citizens. They don’t consider themselves naturalized. No government official, no judge, no lawyer, no one has ever in their lives (and some of them are quite old) told them that they are naturalized. They have no documents indicating that. Only you, sir, only you think they are.

          As for the meaning of “allegiance”, you have been told what it means multiple times. It means obligation to obey the laws. Not loyalty, not citizenship. I have allegiance to the NY Yankees. I support them vociferously. I am tickled pink that they have beaten the Red Sox and won the division. but that has no legal weight. Legally, I do not OWE allegiance to the Yankees, no matter how I may feel. Nor does Barack Obama owe allegiance to Britain or Kenya. He might have warm feelings towards his Kenyan ancestry as you might to your (presumed) Irish ancestry or Apuzzo to his Italian. But no allegiance in the legal sense.

          It has been explained to you over and over that the Bingham quote refers to those who are not subject to US laws-diplomats, invading armies and certain Indian tribes. Ignore it if you wish; frankly no one cares what your opinion is, besides you. Real courts have rejected your argument about a dozen times in the last year alone, as recently as a few days ago.

          Anyway, who the next President will be will be determined by the voters irrespective of your nonsensical opinions. That is as it should be if the people are sovereign, as you have said.

    • Ballantine says:

      “IF Naturalization is accurately recognized to be any act by Congress, then those who are “born” citizens, per the 14th, are everyone who is NOT a natural born citizens, clearly not being born in a country of parents who are citizens, thereby requiring an of Congressional naturalization to overcome the impediment of their foreign allegiance. ”

      As was pointed out over and over in the 14th Amendment Congress, our courts had always ruled that “naturalization” could only apply to the foreign born. For example:

      “But I go on; I beg pardon for this digression. I maintain that a negro cannot be made a citizen by congress; he cannot be made a citizen by any naturalization laws because the naturalization laws apply to foreigners alone….Congress has no power, as I said before, to naturalize a citizen. They could not be made citizens by treaty. If they are made so at all, it is by their birth, and the locality of birth, and the general operation and effect of our Constitution…Then, if a negro is a citizen of the United States at all, he is a citizen by birth and by operation of the Constitution..” Sen. Davis, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 598 (1866).

      “What is the meaning of the term “naturalize?” It is investing an aliens with the privileges of a native-born citizen. What is an alien? A foreigner, one born in a foreign country.” Mr. Thorton, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess.pg. 1156 (1866).

      “They have held expressly in several cases which are referred to in the decision I will read in a moment, the right of naturalization under the Constitution referred only to persons of foreign birth, that it had no reference to persons born in the United States.” Mr. Eldridge, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess.pg. 1855 (1866).

      “I ask whether Judge Curtis in the opinion referred to, did not take the same ground in reference to a uniform rule of naturalization I take now, that they were only intended to apply, by virtue of power given in the Constitution, to foreigner, persons not born here – persons who come from another country.” Mr. Rogers, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. pg. 1153 (1866).

      “Believing, as I do, that the Constitution confers upon Congress no power to confer citizenship except on naturalized foreigners, I believe such rights conferred by this act to be in violation of the Constitution…” Mr. Latham, at Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. pg. 1295 (1866).

      “To the inquiry propounded as to the power of Congress over this subject of naturalization I respond that this authority to ‘establish a uniform rule of naturalization’ only confers upon the Federal Government the power to admit ‘aliens,’ that is, persons born out of the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States, to citizenship and does not covey the power to elevate to the rank of citizens persons of an inferior race born within its jurisdiction and allegiance. Mr. Niblack, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess.pg. 3216 (1866).

      “The American definition of the word “naturalize” is found in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, as is as follows: “Naturalization: The act by which an alien is made a citizen of the United States.” Bouvier defines a “Naturalized Citizen” to be “one who, being born an alien, has lawfully become a citizen of the United States under the Constitution and laws.” The same author defines and alien to be “one born out of the jurisdiction of the United States who has not since been naturalized under their Constitution and laws.” Mr. Niblack, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess.pg. 3216 (1866).

      Also, no has suggested that there was a difference between a natural born citizen and a citizen under the Civil Rights Act or 14th Amendment. Rather, they said they meant the same thing or that they were clarifying who could be President. For example:

      “This provision is simply declaratory of what the law now is…. The English Law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward. The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone – natural born and naturalized citizens.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lest Sess. 1116 (1866).

      “in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

      “I told him that that I thought a man was eligible for the office of President or Vice President even if he was a citizen of the Territory of Tennessee if he was a native born citizen of the United States…If he is a citizen of the United States, born within the limits of the United States, he is eligible, no matter whether he was born in a territory that never became a state or born in the District of Columbia, or inside some of the forts of the country.” Rep. Broomall, The Congressional Globe, 2nd Session, 38th Congress, pg.468 (1865)

      “The Constitution of the United States provides that no person but a native-born citizen of the United States, with other qualifications as to age and residence, shall be president of the United States…. Is the Congress of the United States prepared at this time to adopt a proposition that negroes and Indians and Chinese and all persons of that description shall be eligible to the office of President…” Senator Williams, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 573 (1866).

      And, of course, you cite Bingham’s early quotes, not his later quotes such as:

      “Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)

      “That article of Amendment is substantially that all persons born in this land, within the jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to complexion or previous condition are citizens of the Republic.” John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 2nd Session, 39th Congress, pg. 500 (1867)

      Why do you cite Bingham who had nothing to do with the citizenship clause and not the dozens of people who did? The bottom line is no one said one needed citizen parents to be a citizen under the 14th Amendment or that children of aliens were not citizens or natural born citizens. Rather, at least 10 persons said children of aliens were citizens or natural born citizen and no one disputed it. In addition, I believe 11 members said the English rule was also the universal rule.

      The bottom line is Justice Gray said the NBC clause and the first clause of the 14th Amendment meant the same thing and such is the law whether you can accept it or not. His opinion counts, your does not. Why do you post on the Amendment when it is clear you have done no research on it?

      • Slartibartfast says:

        TJ,

        Now, I’m not a legal expert (with a father who went to Harvard Law), but it seems to me that you would have great difficulty rebutting even one of those quotes—let alone all of them.

        Now, just in case you find tackling ballantine’s phalanx of quotes a little too intimidating, I thought I’d give you something easy to explain…

        To wit: what kind of citizen was Mr. Wong? We know that Wong Kim Ark was not a naturalized citizen—Congress was explicitly given the power to provide for naturalization and Congress had passed a law (the Chinese Exclusion Act) which prevented those of Mr. Wong’s race from being naturalized. On the other hand, I assume that you don’t believe that Mr. Wong was a natural born citizen, seeing as how that would mean that President Obama is as well.

        So it seems you must believe that he belonged to some third class of citizen, neither natural born nor naturalized. Now, most birthers claim that this third class was created by the 14th Amendment, but you accept that the 14th Amendment merely affirmed the existing law. So my question is, where is this third class defined in the law? Are there any examples of people being ruled to have been in this third class? Any examples of people demonstrating that they were or were not in this third class? I’m sure we all breathlessly await a brilliant demonstration of your legal acumen on the topic—or at least Miss Farrar does.

        ballantine,

        A baker’s dozen quotes completely contradicting his argument? Geeze—have some pity on the guy… How would you feel if someone did that to quotes that you had worked hard to cherry pick? :-P

        • TJ McCann says:

          Suranis, I do know that a sure sign of crap is a deluge of references in the hope that some **** will stick, with no direct reference nor analysis of those quotes, and such a poor understanding of them that one doesn’t realize what they actually indicate.

          You cite Jay’s opinion in Chisolm and pretend Jay was upholding Monarchy and NOT saying that a citizen is different than subject. Evidently you do not understand the overall reference. Immediately preceding my own quote from Chisolm, Jay indicates:

          “No such ideas obtain here”

          What part of that sentence don’t you grasp? Jay is saying that those monarchical ideas do not apply here in this country! Let me expand on that sentence with what Jay indicates immediately preceding it, making a complete thought:

          The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects

          Beyond a shadow of doubt, Jay is indicating that those British “feudal” ideas do not apply here! Jay then goes on to briefly detail that things vastly changed at the Revolution, with the rejection of the Monarchy along with feudal thought, and the sovereignty devolved upon the people, and the people are not subjects, nor have they any subjects!

          It is solely by the Feudal concepts that Britain forcefully compels all those born on the domain of the Crown to be subjects, and nothing else, certainly not natural law as this country recognizes it. And as I graphically depicted, the structure of our society is vastly different from feudal ones. This is past the point of being deniable, being fundamental to the American condition and an inescapable fact o the “great experiment” of American freedom.

          You go on to say that John Jay cites “as authority” on this Blackstone, and jus soli. However not only is jus soli NOT any part of the citation you provide, but it demonstrates a thorough failure to grasp the case if you believe John Jay’s references rejecting British common law dictrine served as ANY SORT authority in the decision of that groundbreaking American case.

          Of COURSE Vattel recognizes that all people under the rule of a king are citizens. In context, “citizen” is the generic recognition of members of a society. Although it is obvious to say, all citizens are not subjects, but further, under British law, all subjects are not citizens. Vattel is speaking in the general sense of a citizen being a member of a society, but is not saying that citizen and subject are equal simply because both are members in societies. To assert this in any way indicates that “citizens” and “subjects are equivalent, would be a failed understanding of the subject matter, and the Vattel text itself.

          This really shouldn’t be all that ground-shaking, but you seem to think you’re a dog that has found a bone. Good boy. And, yes, I have actually read all of Law of Nations, and more than once, and do understand it.

          As per my response to Kent, no i am not going against what the founders intended. You are relying on what you believe the founders intended, hoping that your circular logic is some sort of rational argument, when it is not. The fact is that not every state granted citizenship upon birth upon that state’s soil, in fact is was a minority that did so. This alone vastly undermines the idea that anyone born on American soil is a “natural” self-evident born citizen, when it was not even the nature of most states to recognize their citizenship alone! The reality of this fact should also stop those dropping quotes saying that it is our custom to give citizenship upon birth on American soil, because those quotes are immediately discredited by the facts themselves.

          Regarding WKA, no, I am not basing my entire thesis on the “wrong interpretation of the term allegiance”. And allegiance is only a “simple concept” to those who examine it superficially and disregard its real implications. Yes it involves protection, but being subject to the law has nothing to do with allegiance to the country, nor citizenship. The only way this becomes ‘reasonable’ is under feudal British common law, where the monarch compels the allegiance and subjecthood by mere presence on his soil. As referenced by Jay, these concepts do not apply here, and they were wrongly introduced by Gray in application to jurisdiction, in defiance of the will of Congress, previous Supreme Cour decisions, and even Gray’s OWN PRECEDENT in Elk v Wilkins (Gray entirely reversed himself), after 111 YEAS of this nations founding which fundamentally involved thorough rejection of these concepts! Also Gray contradicted and went against the intentions of 1866 U.S. statute Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised, the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the 1873 Supreme Court Slaughterhouse decision, the 1873 ruling by the Attorney General that recognized that jurisdiction was complete jurisdiction of allegiance and that “aliens .. are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent” (there’s your jurisdiction), and the June 22, 1874 joint statement by Congress indicating that these United States have not recognized dual allegiance, which would prohibit the children of aliens born on U.S. soil from being recognized with citizens.. in addition to contradicting his own ruling in Elk v Wilkins (NAAA! NO PROBLEM HERE AT ALL! NO SUPPORT FOR ANY OF THIS! LET’S MOCK THOSE TWO-CITIZEN ‘BIRTHERS’!)

          You then proceed to provide a dictionary definition of “allegiance” from LectLaw, which should be of no surprise since it is formulated after the ruling from Wong Kim Ark, and ignoring the fact that temporary and local allegiance by mere presence in the country, is not any sort of “natural allegiance”, by the natural laws of this country, but by the “natural law” of the Crown (which I previously cited) which incorporates the King as a natural conduit between God and man. This is definitely contrary to the principles of this country. This dictionary reference is really a jejune attempt at some sort of argument, but fails via logic.

          The allegiance of mere presence on this country’s soil is merely temporary and local, commanding only a recognition of the laws, and not at all “natural” despite the corruption your dictionary definition indicates.

          Your LectLaw definition also indicates that a person cannot renounce his allegiance” (without permission from the government), but this belief is also contrary to this country’s founders and this country’s fundamental principles, as well as the Law of Nations:

          “That our citizens are certainly free to divest themselves of that character, by emigration and other acts manifesting their intention and may then become the subjects of another power and be free to do whatever the subjects of that power do. ”
          (Thomas Jefferson, as quoted by Webster, p.76)

          This is Jefferson indicating this country’s rejection of Britain’s Perpetual Allegiance, which is integral to the British concept of compelling subjecthood upon anyone born on their soil.

          No, I’m not surprised that the term “local allegiance” is used in Calvin’s case. Evidently you do not grasp that “local allegiance” is not at issue here, but rather the fact of the subjecthood, which British feudal monarchical common law compels by it, is not what these United States recognize, and that subjecthood and all its compulsions are not integral to our recognition of natural law, which inherently rejects the origin of authority any sovereign, including government itself. In this country the citizens are sovereign!

          At issue here are the very founding principles of this country, and the rejection of feudal monarchical compulsion upon us via government. That “500 years” of legal precedent, is not a precedent that we signed on to and support, and in fact we do fundamentally reject it.

          You then ask about the foreign influence upon “McVaigh, Manson, and al-Awlaki”, when these persons obviously do not all suffer from the effect of foreign influence. But further, the intent of the natural born citizen clause is to find a security (not ‘guarantee’) of allegiance (not loyalty) to this country, established by publicly recognized obligation. While allegiance can be established, no one knows what lays in anyone’s heart, so loyalty is not a consideration.

          By your chosen examples to challenge the consideration, it is evident that you do not understand the need for the protection at all. This is further supported by your statement, “Since your definition of perfect Influence is obviously flawed by… “. I was not providing a “definition”, nor was I referencing any sort of “perfect influence”, but rather recognizing the need for protection against “foreign influence” which Jay indicated should be instituted for the Office of President. While your examples were not (all) involving foreign influence, it can be assumed that there are those who are natural born of parents who were citizens, but embrace foreign ideology, many of whom are in Congress. The point is the founders, and John Jay, in his own words, sought “to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners”. Notice this is not a certainty, but only a strong “check”, a barrier.

          I have already shown evidence that the definition of “foreigner” involves those born with foreign allegiance, beyond the definition citied in Minor v Happersett and elsewhere.

          No, it would NOT be “must[sic] likely have been concerned with those with direct ties to foreign governments” given that our government admittedly was actively encouraging people to come to our shores. The concern was for the influence of ideologies supported by those governments, even as indicated by my previous Madison quote. In fact the entire structure of the Constitution itself is to prohibit the government from having the authority to exercise any sort of foreign agenda, even as the Progressive Marxists attempt to do now. (Reference Andrew McCarthy’s “Empty Promise”)

          Explain to me how mere birth on U.S. soil would prohibit that person from foreign influence? It does not do so. Soil is not somehow magical, imbuing those born upon it with the social and cultural values of that society. Soil certainly does not in any way vest that offspring with the values of this country, particularly given that those values originate from the parents, along with a recognized allegiance to the parent’s country(s). Such a person is, by definition of those times, a foreigner.

          You then reference Vatell and say that I have “no proof” the founders even considered Vattel (caveat) in “discussions on citizenship”. You go on to indicate your belief that the reference in Article 1 Section 8 might be a reference to a chapter in a book by Blackstone.

          WOW! No, to enlighten you, the reference in the Constitution is not to Vattels book “Law of Nations”, nor is it to the chapter by Blackstone either. In fact BOTH Blackstone’s chapter and Vattel’s book reference the same international “Law of Nations”, and that is what Vattel’s definition presents, not anything of his own creation, not even the inclusion 10 years after the founding of this nation. The insertion of “natural born citizens” into that definition, in the 1797 publishing, reflects the recognitions actually in play at the time of the forming of our nation, and was likely included in the English translation because of the great impact the American Revolution had on the world. The terms of natural born citizen were already included by Vattel, just the nomenclature “natural born citizen” applied by the American revolutionaries was not. You somewhat recover yourself in actually referencing that “Law of Nations” to which both Blackstone and Vattel are referring. I sure hope that helps, because it’s really a simple concept.

          • Northland10 says:

            As referenced by Jay, these concepts do not apply here, and they were wrongly introduced by Gray in application to jurisdiction, in defiance of the will of Congress, previous Supreme Court decisions, and even Gray’s OWN PRECEDENT in Elk v Wilkins (Gray entirely reversed himself), after 111 YEAS of this nations founding which fundamentally involved thorough rejection of these concepts!

            The issue with jurisdiction in Elk is different then WKA. Elk was born under the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe which had a peculiar relationship with the United States. Therefore, Elk was not within the jurisdiction of the United States. The situation in WKA was different was Wong Kim Ark was born within the full jurisdiction of the US.

            Confused about jurisdiction, read Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 (1886) which was quoted by Gray in WKA.

            Now, as to your comment, against the will of Congress. Here is some of there will during the Civil rights and 14 amendment debates (thanks to Ballentine):

            “A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws….. They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” Senator Howard (author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment), Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

            “”I have always believed that every person, of whatever race or color, who was born within the United States was a citizen of the United States…The Senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen. I know that is so in one instance, in the case of the children of foreign ministers who reside “near” the United States in the diplomatic language. By a fiction of law such persons are not supposed to be residing here, and under that fiction of law their children would not be citizens of the United States.” Senator Wade, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess.2768-69 (1866).

            Have you bothered to read any material from the era?

          • Suranis says:

            First of all you are replying to me in the wrong nested thread. Are you so disturbed you cannot tell the difference between Suranis and Slartibartfarst.

            “You cite Jay’s opinion in Chisolm and pretend Jay was upholding Monarchy and NOT saying that a citizen is different than subject.

            Dude, from reading the entire section it is clear that Jay was saying nothing about a Subject being different to a Citizen. I know this because I can read. It does not actually matter what the passage was about, all we were doing here is establishing that he was not saying that Subject was different to citizen with respect to the obedience and authority of the rule of law. Also, he was not saying that the Soverenity was abolished, he was saying that American citizens were all effectively sovereigns with respect to the law. Sovereigns were subject to the law like everyone else.

            The Opinion is here. Have a read, if you dare

            http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/419/case.html

            Since we now understand that, we can sinply skip over half a page of your lies, bar this…

            “No such ideas obtain here”

            What part of that sentence don’t you grasp? Jay is saying that those monarchical ideas do not apply here in this country! Let me expand on that sentence with what Jay indicates immediately preceding it, making a complete thought:

            “The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects

            Beyond a shadow of doubt, Jay is indicating that those British “feudal” ideas do not apply here!

            Well, congratulations on reading what I posted. However, Once again you edit what Jay actually said and present only half a sentance. which is interesting. Lets look at what Jay actually said

            That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority, and from his grace and grant derives all franchises, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial controul and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such sovereignty. Besides, the Prince having all the Executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.

            So jay is saying that the prince had to be removed AS HE WOULD BE NOT EQUALLY SUBJECT TO THE LAW AS EVERYONE ELSE.

            You;

            Jay then goes on to briefly detail that things vastly changed at the Revolution, with the rejection of the Monarchy along with feudal thought, and the sovereignty devolved upon the people, and the people are not subjects, nor have they any subjects!

            Er, no he doesn’t. He goes on to talk about how in the American system the governors still have authority over the ordinary people just like the princes did, despite the feudal concepts of the right to rule being abandoned.

            Jay;

            From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and preeminences; our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens.

            So, from reading the case, it is clear that you have never read the opinion and that you are talking through your voluminous posterior.

            So back to you

            You go on to say that John Jay cites “as authority” on this Blackstone, and jus soli. However not only is jus soli NOT any part of the citation you provide, but it demonstrates a thorough failure to grasp the case if you believe John Jay’s references rejecting British common law dictrine served as ANY SORT authority in the decision of that groundbreaking American case.

            Dude. In the whole of the opinion Jay rejects the opinion of just one English case. He cites with approval several other cases in English common law AND he cites Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of ENGLAND” as an authority.

            If English law had been rejected outright, Jay sure as hell has a funny way of showing it when he refers to a textbook on the LAWS of ENGLAND to resolve an issue in AMERICA, not to mention talking as though cases in ENGLAND have precedence in AMERICA.

            Is this seeping through your skull yet? There is actually a logic behind what I quoted here…

            Of COURSE Vattel recognizes that all people under the rule of a king are citizens. In context, “citizen” is the generic recognition of members of a society. Although it is obvious to say, all citizens are not subjects, but further, under British law, all subjects are not citizens. Vattel is speaking in the general sense of a citizen being a member of a society, but is not saying that citizen and subject are equal simply because both are members in societies. To assert this in any way indicates that “citizens” and “subjects are equivalent, would be a failed understanding of the subject matter, and the Vattel text itself.

            This really shouldn’t be all that ground-shaking, but you seem to think you’re a dog that has found a bone. Good boy. And, yes, I have actually read all of Law of Nations, and more than once, and do understand it.

            Um, dearling Remember when I said there was a logic to my posts? The reason why I posted this is that your hero Vattel in his examination of English society and law, looked at the English subject and concluded that it was EXACTLY THE SAME AS A CITIZEN in his Law of Nations.

            So Vattel was in effect saying that Subject was the same as citizen. So if you arfe basicly your entire case on the fact that the Framers used Vattels definition of citizen, then you have to admit that they were using the definition of subject in English law. Because Vattel said flat out that it is the same thing.

            And for hilarity

            And, yes, I have actually read all of Law of Nations, and more than once, and do understand it.

            So you understand and agree that The right to free speech should be curtailed and that the right to bear arms should be restricted to the gentry. Good good so did the founders as those were the first 2 amendments… wait what?

            As per my response to Kent, no i am not going against what the founders intended. You are relying on what you believe the founders intended, hoping that your circular logic is some sort of rational argument, when it is not. The fact is that not every state granted citizenship upon birth upon that state’s soil, in fact is was a minority that did so.

            So it wont be any problem to name 5 of the 13 that didn’t, would it.

            Ok I’ll make it easy on you. Name just 2.

            Well?

            Yes, I know you can’t. Because you have refused to do so to anyone else that asked you. Which means this is a complete fabrication. This isn’t Free Republic or Apozzo’s blog, you have to put up or shut up here. And yes I know you have posted on Appozzos blog.

            Mwah Mwah Mwah Mwah Mwah Mwah Mwah Mwah Mwah Mwah Mwah Mwah Mwah Mwah Mwah Mwah Mwah Mwah Mwah n defiance of the will of Congress, previous Supreme Cour decisions, and even Gray’s OWN PRECEDENT in Elk v Wilkins

            According to the treaties of the Indian Nations with the United States, the Indians were not subject to US law. Instead the Indians insisted that they be tried under Indian Law

            So Elk was NOT actually sunbect to the elliegence of the united states. He was, in effect, an ambassador with diplomatic Immunity.

            Sorry and all.

            The allegiance of mere presence on this country’s soil is merely temporary and local, commanding only a recognition of the laws, and not at all “natural” despite the corruption your dictionary definition indicates.

            And that local allegiance is sufficient to create a natural born citizen. See Calvins case. Since we have established above direct from John Jay that English cases have precedence on American Law.

            See the logical progression here?

            Your LectLaw definition also indicates that a person cannot renounce his allegiance” (without permission from the government), but this belief is also contrary to this country’s founders and this country’s fundamental principles, as well as the Law of Nations:

            “That our citizens are certainly free to divest themselves of that character, by emigration and other acts manifesting their intention and may then become the subjects of another power and be free to do whatever the subjects of that power do. ”
            (Thomas Jefferson, as quoted by Webster, p.76)

            This is Jefferson indicating this country’s rejection of Britain’s Perpetual Allegiance, which is integral to the British concept of compelling subjecthood upon anyone born on their soil.

            Congratulations on finding a quote that says that someone can renounce American citizenship. Whoop de do. You really are reaching.

            Unfortunately, even if he did that, he would still be subject to the local allegiance of the United States while he was in American Jurisdiction, just as I, a European Citizen, would be subject to the laws of the US while in its Jurisdiction.

            And that local allegiance is sufficient to create a Natural Born Subject/citizen.

            Logic.

            No, I’m not surprised that the term “local allegiance” is used in Calvin’s case. Evidently you do not grasp that “local allegiance” is not at issue here, but rather the fact of the subjecthood, which British feudal monarchical common law compels by it, is not what these United States recognize, and that subjecthood and all its compulsions are not integral to our recognition of natural law, which inherently rejects the origin of authority any sovereign, including government itself. In this country the citizens are sovereign!

            At issue here are the very founding principles of this country, and the rejection of feudal monarchical compulsion upon us via government. That “500 years” of legal precedent, is not a precedent that we signed on to and support, and in fact we do fundamentally reject it.

            Well your own case establishes that a governor has the authority of a prince when dealing with the people. Thats direct from John Jay. Jay was establishing the bases for the rule of law in a non feudal setting, And he clearly saw cases in England as having Precedent on the laws of America, so Calvins case would have been no exception. In Ireland and the rest of the British empire, Laws of England remained in force till actively overwritten by an act of the new parliament. America is no exception. You can say “we reject it” all you want, but until you find some paper which actually says that, you are paddling a canoe without a paddle.

            So was there an act of parliament that rejected wholesale English common law? Or even just Calvin’s Case?

            Here’s a hint. No.

            You then ask about the foreign influence upon “McVaigh, Manson, and al-Awlaki” mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah
            Marxism you are all traitors mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah rush forever mwah mwah mwah mwah mwah

            The point is the founders, and John Jay, in his own words, sought “to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners”. Notice this is not a certainty, but only a strong “check”, a barrier.

            I have already shown evidence that the definition of “foreigner” involves those born with foreign allegiance, beyond the definition citied in Minor v Happersett and elsewhere.

            No, it would NOT be “must[sic] likely have been concerned with those with direct ties to foreign governments” given that our government admittedly was actively encouraging people to come to our shores. The concern was for the influence of ideologies supported by those governments, even as indicated by my previous Madison quote. In fact the entire structure of the Constitution itself is to prohibit the government from having the authority to exercise any sort of foreign agenda, even as the Progressive Marxists attempt to do now. (Reference Andrew McCarthy’s “Empty Promise”)

            Utter and total carp

            Jay didn’t say anything about extremes or purest forms. (Jay himself had three children born overseas before 1787, two in Spain and one in France.) The only hint Jay gives is “not a foreigner” and no one today, and I think not in 1787, would consider anyone born in the United States to be a “foreigner,” but rather than what I think, let’s examine next who the Framers thought a foreigner was.

            What we have from the Framers is part of the debate over the seating of William Smith in the first Congress. Smith’s eligibility was challenged over the issue of when the Charleston-born Smith became a citizen. James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution, rose to defend Smith saying:

            James Madison,

            It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to examine any other.

            Congressman Smith was seated with only one dissenting vote.

            It is abundantly clear that for Madison determining who is a foreigner and who has loyalty to the country is circumstantially determined by place of birth in the United States and that in the United States parentage doesn’t matter.

            We have the statement of Charles Pinckney, the last delegate to the 1787 Federal Convention to remain in Congress, who also speaking before that body said:

            They [the framers] well knew, that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes [as presidential electors] in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible. . . .

            You put words in Pinckney’s mouth to change “attachment” to “greatest possible attachment” but that is not what he said. Madison explained that allegiance (i.e. attachment) is determined by place of birth and that examination of parentage is “unnecessary”.

            You make one essential error in interpreting the historical material, reading their own notions of “foreign influence” as being those of the Framers. You say that a foreign parent is a foreign influence, and therefore every concern that the Framers expressed about foreign influence (and there were many) equates to a concern about foreign parents. The historical record contradicts that view.

            Pinckney and Col. Mason argued before the Convention the qualifications of a Senator. Madison records the debate on a motion to change the draft time that a Senator must be a citizen from four to fourteen years:

            Mr. Pinkney.

            As the Senate is to have the power of making treaties & managing our foreign affairs, there is peculiar danger and impropriety in opening its door to those who have foreign attachments. He quoted the jealousy of the Athenians on this subject who made it death for any stranger to intrude his voice into their legislative proceedings.

            George Mason highly approved of the policy of the motion. Were it not that many not natives of this Country had acquired great merit during the revolution, he should be for restraining the eligibility into the Senate, to natives.

            The concern with “foreign attachments” focused on those who were not natives or not recent immigrants rather than those with foreign parents. In fact, the word “parent” never appears anywhere in the papers of the Federal Convention relating to eligibility for anything or gauging foreign influence. (In fact, the word “parent” only appears six times and five of those deal with institutions, leaving only one human parent reference, and it is in the context of a parent being a responsible member of society who should be able to vote.)

            Continuing this theme, the debate over qualifications to the House of Representatives also considered a native-born requirement. Again Madison records:

            Mr. Wilson & Mr. Randolph moved to strike out “7 years” and insert “4 years,” as the requisite term of Citizenship to qualify for the House of Reps. Mr. Wilson said it was very proper the electors should govern themselves by this consideration; but unnecessary & improper that the Constitution should chain them down to it.

            Eldridge GerryMr. Gerry wished that in future the eligibility might be confined to Natives. Foreign powers will intermeddle in our affairs, and spare no expence to influence them. Persons having foreign attachments will be sent among us & insinuated into our councils, in order to be made instruments for their purposes. Every one knows the vast sums laid out in Europe for secret services–He was not singular in these ideas. A great many of the most influential men in Massts. reasoned in the same manner.

            Mr seconded the motion. He wished to maintain the character of liberality which had been professed in all the Constitutions & publications of America. He wished to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us. America was indebted to emigration for her settlement & Prosperity. That part of America which had encouraged them most had advanced most rapidly in population, agriculture & the arts. There was a possible danger he admitted that men with foreign predilections might obtain appointments but it was by no means probable that it would happen in any dangerous degree. For the same reason that they would be attached to their native Country, our own people wd. prefer natives of this Country to them. Experience proved this to be the case. Instances were rare of a foreigner being elected by the people within any short space after his coming among us– If bribery was to be practised by foreign powers, it would not be attempted among the electors, but among the elected; and among natives having full Confidence of the people not among strangers who would be regarded with a jealous eye.

            Here again we see the notion of attachment tied to ones native country, not parentage.

            Despite the fact that the natural born citizenship clause itself was not debated by the Convention and no records survive of the committee discussion where it was added, we nevertheless have extensive records of the extended and contentious debate over the office of President. Col Mason noted:

            In every Stage of the Question relative to the Executive, the difficulty of the subject and the diversity of the opinions concerning it have appeared. Nor have any of the modes of constituting that department been satisfactory.

            Presidential eligibility was one of the last items to be decided. After debate, the draft constitution was turned over to the “Committee of Detail” to put their consensus into proper language. On August 22, the Committee of Detail added for the first time language that the President should be a citizen: “he shall be of the age of thirty five years, and a Citizen “of the United States, and shall have been an Inhabitant “thereof for Twenty one years.”

            By the way, I cribbed most of that from Doc Conspiracy, but when someone has already invented apple sauce, you might as well copy the recipe.

            Back to TJ Mullah

            You then reference Vatell and say that I have “no proof” the founders even considered Vattel (caveat) in “discussions on citizenship”. You go on to indicate your belief that the reference in Article 1 Section 8 might be a reference to a chapter in a book by Blackstone.

            WOW! No, to enlighten you, the reference in the Constitution is not to Vattels book “Law of Nations”, nor is it to the chapter by Blackstone either. In fact BOTH Blackstone’s chapter and Vattel’s book reference the same international “Law of Nations”, and that is what Vattel’s definition presents, not anything of his own creation, not even the inclusion 10 years after the founding of this nation. The insertion of “natural born citizens” into that definition, in the 1797 publishing, reflects the recognitions actually in play at the time of the forming of our nation, and was likely included in the English translation because of the great impact the American Revolution had on the world. The terms of natural born citizen were already included by Vattel, just the nomenclature “natural born citizen” applied by the American revolutionaries was not. You somewhat recover yourself in actually referencing that “Law of Nations” to which both Blackstone and Vattel are referring. I sure hope that helps, because it’s really a simple concept.

            Sure its simple. As was clear in the 2 paragraphs I reference from Blackstone (gee logical building again) Blackstones “Law of Nations” were the interrelating laws between nations, basically international law. Vattel was concerned with the internal structures of societies, as well as reasons for war and so forth.

            THE law of nations is a system of rules, deducible by natural reason, and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world a ; in order to decide all disputes, to regulate all ceremonies and civilities, and to insure the observance frequently occur between two or more independent States, and the individuals belonging to each b. This general law is founded upon this principle, that different nations ought in time of peace to do one another all the good they can ; and, in time of war, as little harm as possible, without prejudice to their own real interests

            Blackstone does not look back to some universal lawbook that has existed before for Natural Law, he is simply looking at a system of rules that exist between nations and peoples of different nationalities for resolving disputes, which exist by mutual consent.

            Shocking.

            Well I feel as though I got my butt kicked here…

          • Suranis says:

            Oh the article I cribbed on “Foreign Influence” from Doc C is here.

            http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/09/the-framers-on-foreign-influence/

            All hail the Doc.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            TJ said:

            and the June 22, 1874 joint statement by Congress indicating that these United States have not recognized dual allegiance, which would prohibit the children of aliens born on U.S. soil from being recognized with citizens.. in addition to contradicting his own ruling in Elk v Wilkins (NAAA! NO PROBLEM HERE AT ALL! NO SUPPORT FOR ANY OF THIS! LET’S MOCK THOSE TWO-CITIZEN ‘BIRTHERS’!)

            First off, considering Elk v. Wilkins without recognizing that it deals with the special case of Native Americans is like failing to recognize that to understand Wong Kim Ark one must recognize the Chinese Exclusion Act or to understand Dred Scott and the 14th Amendment one must consider slavery. Only naive fools would think that any analysis that didn’t consider such things were in any way valid. Birthers like yourself (and, don’t kid yourself, you are a birther) never seem to consider the incredibly significant racial issues that were in play when all of these decisions were being made. Can you complete the syllogism? That’s kind of a trick question—if you understand what I meant then you know I just insulted you and if you don’t you’ll make yourself look stupider (if that is even possible at this point) with your reply. I’m guessing you’ll just ignore it—and demonstrate your cowardice and fear…

            Even if Elk meant what your deluded little brain thinks it does, there’s a word to describe SCOTUS cases which conflict with later high court rulings—OVERTURNED. Which means that the holding in WKA is binding precedent in any case.

            Brian H already started explaining how your idea of not recognizing dual citizenship (which is really a way of ceding US sovereignty to other nations) is absurd, but I’ll pile on a little later…

            Have you invited your sycophants, toadies, lickspittles, and hangers-on to observe this thread? If they are watching why haven’t any of them commented? Or did you just make them up out of whole cloth like the idea of your legal “expertise”?

            • TJ McCann says:

              Sure the cases of Elk involves Indians, and Dred, slavery, etc, but the comparison of Gray within Elk is one to that of Indians, in which he is seeking to validate his position on Indians by a parallel comparison to a foreign nation. THAT foreign nation does not involve Indians in the comparison and it would be silly, not to mention an ineffective argument, for it to do so!

            • Slartibartfast says:

              TJ,

              The parallel he actually makes (including the part you conveniently left out), is between Indians (presumably born on reservations that were in US territory) and the children of foreigners born in that foreign nation. Indians who left the reservations and paid their taxes, on the other hand, could make natural born children. Once again, your explanation just makes you look like an idiot. Is your uber-law dad proud of his stupid son?

              Something interesting here, at least to me, is how I knew how to refute this—I actually read the responses to your comments and in the voluminous debunking of your crap by Ballantine (or maybe Suranis… could have been John… or maybe someone else—they’ve all taken you out to the woodshed pretty good), I came across the explanation I paraphrased above (except with references supporting everything—I’m sure TJ will go back and look them up so that his high-powered legal brainz can debunk it all…).

              So, either you didn’t read the critiques of your argument—meaning that you have no intention of participating in an honest debate (in other words, you are a willfully ignorant liar) or you were not smart enough to understand what you read and its significance (i.e. you’re an idiot) or you read it, understood it and decided to (willfully) ignore it (i.e. you lacked the integrity to admit it). The only other alternative is that you read it and were able to refute it and we all know that if you could do that you would have. Is your Harvard-trained father as incompetent and dishonest as the son he raised?

  6. TJ McCann said:

    Under these terms, Obama was then more clearly naturalized by statute, Title 8 §1405 “Persons born in Hawaii”, or naturalized by the corrupt misconstruction of the 14th Amendment, both acts of Congress, given the fact that he was admittedly born with British Citizenship, by right of blood and the British Nationality Act of 1948, as stated on Obama’s own FightTheSmears site, thereby making Obama “NATURALIZED”.

    What a maroon.

    The 14th Amendment is not an “act of Congress”. It is as much a part of the Constitution as Article II. The Fourteenth Amendment clarified who were natural born citizens and righted the wrongs of the Dred Scott decision.

    • John Woodman says:

      Oh. My. Goodness.

      Did TJ McCann really just characterize the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as an “act of Congress?”

      Wow.

    • ballantine says:

      Of course Apuzzo makes this same silly argument even though the Sumpreme Cpurt has said over and over that people born on our soil cannot be naturalized or need no naturalization. The last case was as recent as 1998. The real history is that the primary argument against the civil rights act was that Congress had no power to pass it since the courts had ruled that naturalization could only apply to the foreign born. They argued an amendment must be passed to allow it which is what happened. No one in history has ever argued the 14th amendment naturalized anyone but birthers. I guess when you simply ignore wbat the supreme court and framers of the amendment said anything is possible.

      • TJ McCann says:

        I would like to see you cite the Supreme Court finding that Congress has no power naturalize people born on our soil. If it presumes that we’ve always made citizens of people born on our soil, i.e. PRIOR to the 1898 Wong Kim Ark Decision, please explain how this might happen when our own Congress recognized in joint statement on June 22, 1874, that this country has not recognized dual allegiance. If it that court decision is following Wong Kim Ark, then it really is not all that earth shattering, and should not be worth even referrring to.

        This government cannot grant citizenship to birth by aliens on American soil if it does not recognize dual allegiance. Such a pre-existing allegiance is only removed by deliberative naturalization whereby the person forswears allegiance to the parent’s country(s) and swears allegiance to this. Was Congress merely talking out its ass?

        Our judicially forced recognition of dual allegiance resulting from the Wong Kim Ark decision, a fundamental change of legal recognition taken away illegitimately from Congress, did not change the definition of natural born citizen, and the 14th Amendment did not in any way effect the terms of natural born citizen, which it does not reference. We thus had persons who were “born citizens”, yet incapable of being natural born because they owed allegiance to other countries.

        Contrary to one person’s thoroughly ignorant assertion (Scientist’s), allegiance does not mean “obligation to obey the laws”, which is actually a claim that could only result from the WKA’s attempt to apply temporary and partial “jurisdiction” (not allegiance) by virtue presence on American soil, and distort this to equate to the full jurisdiction involving having no foreign allegiance which was actually intended by Congress and actually applied in the 1866 U.S. statute Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised, the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the 1873 Supreme Court Slaughterhouse decision, the 1873 ruling by the Attorney General, not to mention Gray’s own decision in Elk v Wilkins.

        Contrary to the claim, people are born with the allegiance of their parents, and born into an allegiance of the soil or society they are born into.

        Finally, your references to the 1866 Congressional discussion of blacks under the 14th Amendment are silly and irrelevant given the fact that in the context of those debates, those blacks obviously did not need to be naturalized because they had no country other than this to hold allegiance to! Of course they did not need to be naturalized, being native born on American soil, often for generations, thereby not possibly having any other allegiance. These blacks only needed to have the citizenship they were rightfully owed recognized, and the quotes should be understood in that context!

        • Scientist says:

          “Contrary to the claim, people are born with the allegiance of their parents” Let’s take your definition of “allegiance” as being roughly equivalent to “citizenship”. Suppose 2 citizens of a strict jus soli country come to live in the US and have a child. That child would not acquire any foreign citizenship. They would have no foreign allegiance. They would be, at birth, solely a US citizen, just like TJ McCann. So, under your view, they would have to be natural born citizens.

          This is not a fictional scenario, as many Latin American countries had such laws until very recently. Brazil only granted citizenship to children born abroad to Brazilians in 2007. So, under your arguments, the power rests with foreign governments to determine who is and is not a natural born US citizen. So much for “a strong check” on foreign influence.

          • TJ McCann says:

            Scientist wrote:

            Suppose 2 citizens of a strict jus soli country come to live in the US and have a child. That child would not acquire any foreign citizenship. They would have no foreign allegiance.

            You fail to understand, allegiance once again.

            Allegiance has nothing to do with law. The statutory application of citizenship has nothing whatsoever to do with allegiance. It matters not if no actual citizenship was conveyed to the offspring, they still carry the allegiance of their parents.

            As an example I used previously, Obama’s parent’s marriage might be deemed invalid by the British government, due to the fact that Obama’s father was previously married and Britian does not recognize polygamy. Obama might not have received any citizenship via Brtian at all, but that still would not change the fact that the child developed the allegiance to the father’s country (Kenya), and it did not matter in Obama’s case that he barely knew his father for hours and still put his 2007 Presidential candidacy at risk by traveling to Kenya and influencing the election there, even possibly subjecting hmself to charges under the

            Allegiance is not a fabricated threat, and natural born is not a contrived regeuirement, as it would be if only mere birth on a country’s soil. These are real concerns with significant impact.

            So, under your arguments, the power rests with foreign governments to determine who is and is not a natural born US citizen. So much for “a strong check” on foreign influence.

            No, as I’ve said before, here, and do so again, above, the power to determine who is and is not a natural born citizen DOES NOT rest with foreign governments at all!

            As to the unsupportable theory of jus soli providing natural born status, it does nothing to preclude foreign influence, and actually invites it. John Jay was not an idiot, and his concerns were real, valid, and are still applicable today, and even more so now than the were then.

            • Scientist says:

              Yowzah! Did everyone catch that? TJ now says that allegiance doesn’t require citizenship. All the talk we hear from the birthers about the British Nationality Act of 1948 actually doesn’t matter. Obama could have been born with no British citizenship at all, with ONLY US citizenship from birth to the present. and STILL be ineligible according to TJ.

              So we are finding what allegiance is not in TJ land. It isn’t jurisdiction, and it isn’t citizenship. So what is it? It seems to be some magical thing passed from parent to child. Is it genetic? Well, I’ve never seen such a gene and I have a PhD in Molecular Biology. And besides, it can be changed by naturalization so it is a phenotype rather than a genotype. So what is this allegiance? The only thing I can make out is it is some sense of loyalty to one’s ethnic heritage, a warm and fuzzy feeling. So, all those Irish-Americans, including TJ McCann, who get tipsy on March 17-no White House for you (by the way, McCann means “wolf cub” in Gaelic http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Mccann). If Ireland passed a law giving citizenship to everyone with Irish ancestry, then you are all Irish citizens. But TJ says, it actually doesn’t matter, you may have Irish allegiance anyway. And TJ can deny he has any, but how can we know what is in someone’s heart?

              Or, consider the US-born son of an Italian immigrant. They maintain Italian traditions and he visits family in Italy frequently. The son grows up to be a Senator and runs for President. Turns out, his dad naturalized 3 years after he was born, so he isn’t eligible, according to TJ. But suppose his dad naturalized 1 month before he was born? No problem, then. But of course, Rick Santorum is EXACTLY the same person with the same thoughts and feelings in his heart whether his dad naturalized before or after his birth. He loves Italy no more or less either way. And either way he entitled to claim citizenship under the laws of Italy (though TJ says that doesn’t matter).

              I find this really quite extraordinary. It makes the head spin.

            • Northland10 says:

              Allegiance has nothing to do with the law? Can allegiance exist in anarchy?

        • Northland10 says:

          Even before WKA, Chester Arthur, was sworn in as President of the United States by Chief Justice Waite (of the Minor v. Happersett opinion). Chester’s father was never naturalized. So, it appears they realized even earlier on that born in the country was sufficient (especially if it was of European decent instead of Chinese).

          You keep making claims but provide no facts, rulings, full quotes or examples to back up those claims.

          • Scientist says:

            I’m sure TJ will claim Arthur “hid” the fact that his father hadn’t naturalized, even though he didn’t and naturalizations are matters of public record. And TJ probably doesn’t know about John Fremont, the first Republican nominee, even before Lincoln, whose father was French and announced his intention to return to France when John was a child (though he died before he could). Not a single contemporary source,not even his political enemies sought to tell Fremont he couldn’t be President because his daddy was French.

            Not to mention that Obama announced his candidacy in February 2007 and no one said a word until October 2008. TJ’s “dogma” is apparently a state secret, known only to TJ. All those millions of US-born people have lived their entire lives not knowing they were naturalized until TJ’s great discovery. Amazing!

        • Ballantine says:

          I would like to see you cite the Supreme Court finding that Congress has no power naturalize people born on our soil. If it presumes that we’ve always made citizens of people born on our soil, i.e. PRIOR to the 1898 Wong Kim Ark Decision, please explain how this might happen when our own Congress recognized in joint statement on June 22, 1874, that this country has not recognized dual allegiance. If it that court decision is following Wong Kim Ark, then it really is not all that earth shattering, and should not be worth even referrring to.

          You simply don’t understand what you are talking about. You you think that saying we don’t recognize dual allegiance means that we let other nations decide who are citizens are? Are you really that stupid? So if England said that everyone in the US with a drop of British blood is an English subject, we would pretty much have no citizens? As was pointed out in the report that lead to the Expatriation Act in 1868, as many as 3/5ths of our citizens, including a majority of our native born citizens, were dual citizens and might be subject to a claim of foreign allegiance under the municipal laws of foreign nations. Of course, our view was always that our citizens only owed allegiance to us and hence the Expatriation Act was intended to proclaim that we would protect our naturalized citizens from any claims of foreign allegiance the same way we had always protected our native born citizens. Another way of putting this was that for purposes of Public Law, they owed allegiance only to us.

          As for the Supreme Court:

          “The right of naturalization was therefore, with one accord, surrendered by the States, and confided to the Federal Government. And this power granted to Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization is, by the well-understood meaning of the word, confined to persons born in a foreign country, under a foreign Government. It is not a power to raise to the rank of a citizen any one born in the United States, who, from birth or parentage, by the laws of the country, belongs to an inferior and subordinate class.” Chief Justice Taney, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. at 417

          “It appears, then, that the only power expressly granted to Congress to legislate concerning citizenship, is confined to the removal of the disabilities of foreign birth.” Justice Curtis, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 478 (1857)

          The only thing the majority and dissent appeared to agree on. And the 39th Congress, as I have pointed out, agreed with this. How about Justice Swayne:

          “The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process. To make one of domestic birth a citizen, is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power. There is an universal agreement of opinion upon this subject.” Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866).

          The same can be found in any legal dictionary of the time:

          NATURALIZATION. The act by which an alien is made a citizen of the United States of America. Bouvier Law Dictionary pg. 189 (1843)

          ALIEN, persons. One born out of the jurisdiction of the United States, who has not since been naturalized under their constitution and laws. To this there are some exceptions, as this children of the ministers of the United States in foreign courts. See Citizen, Inhabitant. Bouvier Law Dictionary (1856)

          Naturalization. That process by which an alien becomes a citizen. Analysis of Civil Government, By Calvin Townsend, pg. 325 (1869)

          An alien is one who is born in a foreign country. Analysis of Civil Government, By Calvin Townsend, pg. 325 (1869)

          NATURALIZATION. [Lat. naturalizatio.] The act of investing an alien with the rights and privileges of a native or natural-born subject or citizen.* Co. Litt. 129 a. 1 Bl. Com. 374. 2 Kent’s Com. 64—67. Alexander Mansfield Burrill, A new law dictionary and glossary, pg 737 (1851)

          Alien: In american Law. One born out of the jurisdiction of the United States. Alexander Mansfield Burrill, A new law dictionary and glossary, pg 81 (1871)

          How about Madison:

          “Mr. Madison did not think that Congress, by the constitution, had any authority to readmit American citizens at all. It was only granted to them to admit aliens.” Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856: From Gales and Seatons’ Annals of Congress; from their Register of debates; and from the official reported debates, by John C. Rives, pg. 556 (1860)

          Show me a single person in US history who has ever said someone born on US soil was an alien (other than children of ambassadors).

          • TJ McCann says:

            Ballantine wrote:

            You simply don’t understand what you are talking about. You you think that saying we don’t recognize dual allegiance means that we let other nations decide who are citizens are? Are you really that stupid? So if England said that everyone in the US with a drop of British blood is an English subject, we would pretty much have no citizens?

            Honestly, all hypebole aside, it truly boggles my mind that someone could believe this, and ask these questions, and then assert that I’m the one who doesn’t understand what I’m talking about, while implying that they do.

            Apparently you are so inured to the idea of British and government compulsion upon us that you have no sense whatsoever of the natural rights upon which this nation is based, and certainly cannot recognize that the terms recognized by Vattel are nothing but the most fundamental source of citizenship in every nation.

            NO, by not recognizing double allegiance we would not be allowing “other nations decide who are citizens are”. In point of fact, this conscious rejection by Congress of dual allegiance was these United States insisting that our citizens owe allegiance to this country alone, and no other. As numerous Supreme Court decisions have shown, “one cannot have two masters”, and those where who attempt to float between one nation and this have repeatedly caused havoc.

            If we would have allowed dual allegiance, it would not have removed those divided loyalties, and would have instead simply ignored them. Britain handled this by compelling their allegiance and making it perpetual, unable to be removed, nor overridden by swearing an oath to any other nation. However Natural Law recognizes that those allegiances do still exist regardless of what law, statute, government and Crown might dictate.

            Do you honestly think that disregarding this actual dual allegiance somehow empowered this country, its naturalization and its citizenship? That those foreign allegiances would somehow just disappear and become inconsequential? “Are you really that stupid?” No, allowing dual allegiance, by judicial fiat, undermined them, and undermined this society grossly, and has in current times caused our infrastructure and social service to be bent to the breaking point. And it has allowed the emplacement of an Oval Occupant whose agenda is the collapse of this country, and the transfer of its wealth and industry beyond its borders, so as to advance his agenda of “fundamental change” and punish America for its alleged sins. Obama is not a failure; he’s succeeding at everything he desires, none of which is good for this country.

            England is not saying that “anyone in America”…nor is the consideration “a drop of British blood”, but rather the consideration is the recognition of natural allegiance conveyed to the offspring that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything Britain says or does, and is outside of law and statue.!

            This has nothing to do with the Expatriation Act of 1868, which could only legitimately allow people to expatriate this country, and not remove any other country’s obligation upon those persons; which is even more true of the natural allegiance born of natural law.

            It is important, even crucial, that you recognize that the consideration of dual allegiance has nothing to do with actual statutory citizenship. i.e. law. That allegiance exists regardless of what Act Congress might be inspired to create. Congress does not have the power to remove those foreign allegiances even if it wanted to do so.

            Your claim that, “our view was always that our citizens only owed allegiance to us” is not at all true, and actually reversed. We did not allow or recognize dual allegiance, and thereby any who became a citizen could “only owe allegiance to us”. We don’t have any control over person’s obligations to other nations, nor do those foreign nations to us.

            Your quotes about naturalization really do not have any bearing at all on my recognition of what Gray observed about naturalization, and your shotgun method of trying to find supportive material. all while not providing any analysis of the substance of those quotes, really is not accomplishing anything. You’re making no points.

            • John Woodman says:

              You’re making no points.

              Excuse me, but it doesn’t look that way from here.

              Ballantine has been able to cite numerous historical and legal authorities whose statement support exactly what he says.

              Numerous authorities.

              I hear you talking some fine-sounding theory, but you don’t seem to have the historical and legal authorities who — taken in context — back up your claims.

              So your theories might sound nice, but they seem to be based on your own opinion, and very little else.

              In the meantime, from the information brought forth in this thread we have a growing list of historical and legal authorities whose statements clearly and directly contradict your claim. In other words, these authorities say that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

              These historical and legal authorities include (so far):

              • Senator Jacob Howard
              • Senator Lyman Trumbull
              • Legal expert Mr. Horace Binney
              • Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray
              • and the five Supreme Court Justices who fully agreed with Justice Gray’s Opinion

              Now granted, there were two Justices who disagreed with Justice Gray & co. But those Justices lost that case, 6 to 2.

              I asked you earlier how you justify your opinion in light of the fact that each of these esteemed historical and legal experts all say — quite clearly — that you are completely wrong. So far you have declined to answer that question. Would you like to give it a shot now?

            • TJ McCann says:

              John

              Of course it doesn’t look that way to you, as you suffer from the same problem he has of being incapable of parsing those quotes in context, of being unable to discern the difference of terms like “citizen and subject” (despite this country being founded upon that difference), and “native (one who is wholly native) and native born”. I had to spend a series of emails demonstrating to you that it was Gray himself that recognize an “act of Congress” included Amendments as naturalization despite the quote being there before you.

              And that list? Howard, Trumbull, Binney, and a half dozen Supreme Court across this nation’s history, all stand in my court. Even Gray has had to contract himself in Elk v Wilkins and only ruled Won Kim Ark a citizen (never said natural born) as a result of his parents having established permanent resident and business in the country. He also could not have done so without the Birlingame-Seward Treaty, which allowed Chinese with permanent resident in the U.S. to give of allegiance to expatriate.

              The problem is that you and Ballantine lack discernment, which when coupled with a pronounced difficulty in recognizing fundamental terms and distinguishing nuanced use of their application, results in difficulty recognizing the impact of those quotations provided in the context of their actual usage.

              In regard to quotes by Howard and Trumbull, those quotes with specified and detailed subject discussion do trump those quotes that are generalized and non-specified, which you two seem to invariably glom onto, failing to understand their context.

              And at this point, no one has addressed my list of references showing that jurisdiction is undivided allegiance to this country, which Gray also indicated in Elk v Wilkins.

            • John Woodman says:

              On the contrary, TJ, it is folks like Ballantine and myself, and the other good folks here, who have brought context TO the many quotes taken absolutely OUT of context by birthers such as yourself.

              And that list? Howard, Trumbull, Binney, and a half dozen Supreme Court across this nation’s history, all stand in my court.

              I just want us to be absolutely clear on this. You are proclaiming that of

              • Senator Jacob Howard
              • Senator Lyman Trumbull
              • Legal expert Mr. Horace Binney
              • Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray
              • and the five Supreme Court Justices who fully agreed with Justice Gray’s Opinion

              …none of the above really understood the law, or knew what they were talking about, and you, TJ McCann, do. You are correct, and all of the above-mentioned individuals were wrong.

              That is what you’re saying, right?

            • Suranis says:

              And at this point, no one has addressed my list of references showing that jurisdiction is undivided allegiance to this country, which Gray also indicated in Elk v Wilkins.

              Um… I did.

              I even gave you 14 other quotes, which you forgot to tear apart with your Le-gull Edumucation

              I hate being ignored. My poor ego! Goodbye cruel world…

            • Ballantine says:

              Apparently you are so inured to the idea of British and government compulsion upon us that you have no sense whatsoever of the natural rights upon which this nation is based, and certainly cannot recognize that the terms recognized by Vattel are nothing but the most fundamental source of citizenship in every nation.

              Your problem is that you have decided that Vattel’s rule was seen as the rule of natual law when, of course, no one in the United States ever said that. It is simply a fact that no framer, no early scholar, no court in history has ever said Vattel’s rule was relevant to our law of citizenship or allegiance. If it makes you feel good to think Madison, Story, Kent, Rawle, Dane, Bouvier, Swift and pretty much everyone in the 14th Amendment Congress was wrong, I guess we can’t stop you. However, the reality is that no one in the United States or England thought allegiance decended from one’s parents. In fact, jus soli was usually stated to be the universal rule including, as I have shown, by 10 members of the 14th amendment Congress, two of which, Howard and Morrell, said it was the law of nature. Show me a single authority that said otherwise prior to 1866. Doesn’t exist. Doesn’t matter as you have decided that when people talked of persons being born with a foreign allegiance they meant children of aliens and no amount of authority saying you are wrong will change your mind.

              It was the policy of both the United States and England that children born of citizens or subjects outside their nations owed allegiance to the place of birth and were only citizens or subjects for municipal purposes if they returned to the United States or England. It is simply absurd to think that anyone in America would think a child born in the US to British parents owed England allegiance if even England didn’t.

              Your discussion of dual citizenship makes no sense at all. You can’t find any actual authority to support your theory about children of aliens not being citizens so you pretend everyone agreed with you that jus sanguinis was the law of nature when, of course, no one did. Our State department argued with foreign nations from the beginning of our Republic over the claims of foreign nations on the allegiance of our citizens. You, of course, have not read the debates on the Expatriation Act because the entire debate was about protecting our citizens from claims of foreign allegiance as it was pointed out that as many as 3/5th of our citizens were potentially dual citizens. Thus, when they said our citizens only owe allegiance to us, they meant we didn’t recognize any claims of allegiance from foreign countries. It is clear you really have done no research on these topics.

              As for naturalization, again it is simply a fact that no court has ever said someone born on US soil is naturalized and you of course cannot cite anything to the contrary. Justice Gray made this point emphatically and the Court has re-affirmed it multiple times since. All you can say is no analysis was provided with quote after quote after quote saying you are wrong. When quotes unambiguously say you are wrong, there is no need for analysis. You simply keep making statements that are simply wrong as a matter of history.

            • John Woodman says:

              It is simply a fact that no framer, no early scholar, no court in history has ever said Vattel’s rule was relevant to our law of citizenship or allegiance.

              Let’s put it this way:

              TJ: Name ONE Framer of the Constitution who has said that they relied on Vattel’s rule for citizenship in defining the term ‘natural born citizen.’

              Note that I am not asking you for a Framer who spoke glowingly of Vattel in general. We know that there is a lot of Vattel’s philosophy that was NOT adopted in our early Constitution and laws. For example, as I recall, Vattel was a strict gun-control advocate. He would never have allowed our cherished Second Amendment.

              So give us ONE documented, genuine quote from any Framer of the Constitution who says they relied on Vattel for their concept or definition of natural born citizenship.

              Secondly: Give us ONE prominent legal scholar from early America who says the Framers relied on Vattel’s concept for natural born citizenship.

              Third: Give us ONE court in United States history which has ruled that the Framers of the Constitution were referring to Vattel’s concept of citizenship when they wrote the words ‘natural born citizen’ in our Constitution.

              And if you can’t do that, then it is an admission that you have no actual real evidence at all to back up your claim that they were referring to Vattel’s concept in the Constitution.

              In other words, you pulled it out of… somewhere. But it wasn’t history, and it wasn’t genuine American law.

            • John Woodman says:

              Note: Really, in order to be well justified, you ought to be able to come up with five or six quotes in each category.

              But I’m not even asking for that.

              Just ONE, from each category, is what I’m looking for.

              Surely that should be easy for you, brilliant legal and historical genius that you are.

  7. Scientist says:

    I wonder if TJ McCann is a pal of Mike Godkin, who showed up at Doc C’s site a week or so ago. He has also written a “paper” covering similar ground. He asked Doc for criticism and got it by the truckload. And, at the end, after some 700 posts or so, nothing-Godkin still thinks his “paper” is without flaw and is the last word on the topic. But what is he going to do with his “paper”? What is TJ going to do with his? What are the other 463 folks who have, I’m sure, written “papers” going to do with theirs? Suppose TJ crowns himself the victor here, so what? Judges don’t agree.

    • John Woodman says:

      That’s actually what I expect of TJ: To show up, to argue a bunch of points, to have all of those arguments shown to be complete BS by the facts and evidence presented by you good folks who participate in the debate, and then to declare that he has “won.”

      It’s Mario Apuzzo behavior: spin, spin, spin, twist, twist, twist, deny, deny, deny.

      One of the great quotes from Apuzzo is, “You’ve proven nothing.” When Apuzzo says that, you know that you’ve pinned him with such an utterly devastating bit of factual evidence, so directly and irrefutably contradictory to his claim, that he can’t even figure out any creative way to twist and manipulate words to make it even remotely sound as if the evidence is in his favor. So all he can do is baldly assert, “You’ve proven nothing.” Because at that point, there’s nothing further, aside from that bald assertion of denial, that he can say without looking like an absolute, utter fool.

      To show you how far Apuzzo’s word-twisting creativity (and utter dishonesty) extends: When shown that major early legal authority St. George Tucker stated clearly that all of the important citizenship laws of both Virginia and the entire United States were in full agreement with the principle in English common law whereby the children of aliens were natural-born subjects, Apuzzo baldly claimed that Tucker’s footnote referred NOT to the sentence that Tucker attached it to — but to the sentence AFTER the one where it appeared!

      Yes, he actually argued that a footnote to a sentence had no connection to that sentence at all, but referred instead to the NEXT sentence in Tucker’s legal treatise, which it was NOT attached to.

      In any event, I expect McCann to do the same thing: Appear here, get his butt kicked all the way up one side of Pike’s Peak and down the other, then go away and “declare victory.” Then maybe he can go off to his own site if he has one, like Mario, and sit there with a bunch of loser sycophants, and endlessly repeat the exact same claims that were thoroughly debunked here, as if he were a great sage.

      So I’m not under any illusions about McCann’s future behavior. You can bring a hyena into the house and try and “tame” it, but it will always be a hyena, because that’s what it is, and it’s not capable of changing. Nor do I expect McCann to be capable of changing his beliefs or his claims. I think someone (gorefan?) asked him what it would take for him to change his mind. I don’t recall whether he got an answer. I didn’t see one, but I’ve only been skimming these threads.

      But the value is not in convincing McCann or any other birther. The value is in those who come and visit and read both sides and see which side actually has the facts and evidence to back them up, and which side is either clueless while imagining themselves to know what they’re talking about, or deliberately blowing smoke, or both.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        John,

        I was the one that asked TJ what it would take to change his mind (and told him what it would take to change mine). My expectations are pretty much the same as yours (which is fine by me—I like participating in the ass kicking as much as anyone), but TJ may surprise us.

        I’d like to take the question and turn it around on you with a twist: you obviously did change your mind on this issue—did you go into the investigation with a predetermined criterion to falsify your previous opinion or was the evidence (or lack thereof) just so overwhelming that you had no other reasonable and honest choice?

      • TJ McCann says:

        You may want to take off our zebra referee’s jacket, and stop trying to call the fight in the beginning of the event.

        If you’re in the fray, then add something of substance. I myself am not the topic of discussion.

        I’m still not a birther, and the places you’ve resided across the country no more makes you a Conservative, than my location in Valley Forge, only 40 minutes from Carpenter’s Hall, and birth while my father was in Harvard Law, makes me an original revolutionary or gives me implicit knowledge of original intent, and the law. I’m not Apuzzo either.

        I realize you may go into apoplectic fits in refraining from casting your disparaging epithets, and guilt by (false) association tactics, but going cold turkey will assist you in actually finding some substance.

        • gorefan says:

          TJ,

          “At the time of this adoption, and also long thereafter, few states recognized mere birth in U.S. soil to result in even citizenship, so thereby these states would not have been able to provide a “natural born citizen” President by those means. ”

          Can you document this statement. Can you show us the actual laws that make this plain.

          Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey and New York incorporated the English Common Law into their Constitutions, Rhode Island and Connecticut did not draft constitutions but continued to operate under their Colonial Charters (we know Connecticut was a jus soli state because of the work of Zephaniah Swift), Virginia passed a jus soli law (drafted by Jefferson).

          So what were the laws in the other states? Can you provide examples of the citizenship laws from these states? Were existing laws (prior to 7/4/1776) no longer in effect? Did the states essential start from scratch, having to create all new laws?

        • Slartibartfast says:

          TJ,

          I think you misunderstand John’s role in this—he’s not the referee, nor is he going to provide substance. Just like the court in Minor declined to answer the doubts, he has declined to debate with you. You’ve been given plenty of substance from myself and others (and I’m sure more will come)—tackle that before you start whining about John. You decided to play on his home court—I think he has the right to cheer for his side (in fact, it’s his blog so he can say whatever he pleases…).

          Do you have anything to say about my interpretation of holding, dicta, precedent, Minor, and Wong Kim Ark? Or any of the criticisms of your reasoning from others? How about your position on the citizenship “timelines” of the following:

          George Washington (b. Feb 11, 1731 Julian or Feb 22, 1732 Gregorian in Westmoreland County, Virginia)

          Thomas Jefferson (b. Apr 13, 1743[ns] in Goochland County, Virginia—presently Albemarle County)

          St. George Tucker (b. July 10, 1742 in St. George, Bermuda)

          Alexander Hamilton (b. Jan 11, 1757 or 1755* in the West Indies)

          * I assume this is some sort of Schrödinger’s cat scenario where the uncertainty principle prevents our knowing the exact time he was born… :-P

          Sorry I didn’t give you any information about their parents, but I don’t believe it is relavent to the US citizenship of any of these men, so, if you do, you’ll have to look it up for yourself.

          I’ll give you my take on their allegiance in my next post—and I’m very interested to hear what you think about these men’s citizenship.

        • John Woodman says:

          1. It’s my site. I’ll comment if I want to. I frankly don’t plan on engaging in any of the actual arguments, but I may well skim through and take note of occasions on which you make a total, absolute fool of yourself, as you’ve done at least twice already.

          The first of these was when you — claiming to be an expert of such extraordinary knowledge and wisdom that you didn’t need to even read any of the 300 or so pages documenting many months of careful research and analysis before declaring it all null and void — referred to the 14th Amendment as an “act of Congress.”

          Do you have any idea what an idiot such a breathtaking gaffe makes you sound? Do you not understand that a Constitutional Amendment becomes a part of our Constitution itself, and as such it supersedes all laws that our Congress may make?

          The second occasion was when you, the world’s greatest legal expert, referred to obiter dicta as “orbita dicta.” That one made you sound just like Archie Bunker. Remember him? The guy on the TV sitcom back in the 70s who would go off on some diatribe, obviously considering himself an absolute authority on some topic when he couldn’t even get the basic terminology of his subject right?

          That meme was frequently played to hilarious effect on the sitcom, All in the Family, and honestly, it is hardly less amusing here.

          2. I love the “I’m not a birther” claim, all while preaching the birther legal theology. Keep that one up.

          And you may be no Apuzzo either, but from here, you sure seem to act a fair bit like him so far.

          3. I never claimed that the places I’ve resided necessarily makes me a conservative. In fact, if you want to know the truth — in northeast Arkansas where I grew up, I can’t think of anybody I knew who wasn’t a Democrat… albeit I do think they were all probably what you might call “conservative” Democrats back in the 1960s and early 70s.

          But the places I’ve lived have shown me a lot of America, and yes, I spent all my developing years in the smaller-town South.

          When I reached 18 — actually, just before — I moved to east Texas to attend university. I don’t remember the process of choosing the Republican Party over the [correction:] Democratic Party of (as far as I recall) both my parents and my mom’s best friend. But I do remember that Reagan vs. Carter was an absolute no-brainer for me. My first vote was cast for Ronald Reagan, and I’ve voted for conservatives ever since.

          Anyway, I’m enjoying the show from the sidelines, and look forward to more.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            John said: ” I don’t remember the process of choosing the Republican Party over the Democrat[sic] Party of (as far as I recall) both my parents and my mom’s best friend.”

            I believe you meant to say you chose the Republican party over the DemocratIC party… One is a casual slur (which I’m sure is innocently made), the other is the proper name of the political party you oppose.

            Just sayin’… :-P

          • John Woodman says:

            Eek! Egads! Busted!

            That’s the second time I’ve made that mistake, and it’s the second time I’ve been busted for it.

            For the past year, I am pretty sure I have consistently referred to the Democratic Party by its correct name.

            Do you know why I did it this time? I am pretty sure I do.

            I’m just almost certain that I used the term this time because that’s what my Mom’s Democratic friend called it.

            Thinking back to the days of my mom, and my dad (he died in 1979) and my mom’s best friend Mae, back in small-town Arkansas in the 1970s, put my mind on them, and things they talked about — my mom’s friend used to say that the Democrats were for the little guy, and the Republicans were for the big guy.

            And I am just almost certain that she referred to her party by the term I originally used.

            Anyway, great catch there — as Pogo used to say: I is covered with rue.

          • John Woodman says:

            Yes, the more I think about it, the more sure I am that while they weren’t nearly so vocal like my mom’s friend Mae, both my Mom and Dad always voted for Democrats.

          • TJ McCann says:

            “It’s my party, I’ll cry if I want to!”
            :)) snort!

            • John Woodman says:

              Hey, if you don’t like me commenting on my own site, which I spent a year and a half building, you know what you can do.

        • John Woodman says:

          And Slartibartfast is right — I’m not a referee. I might express an opinion as to how I think things are going. But as far as I’m concerned, readers are free — encouraged even — not to go by any opinions I might express, but to follow the arguments for themselves and use their own judgment as to who fares well in the debate, and who does not.

          As always, I encourage readers to look at both sides and dig out the references and the original sources for themselves.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            Uh oh! Now I’m worried that TJ’s flunkies, sycophants, and lickspittles are going to use their judgement to see through my feeble efforts to attack the fortress of TJ’s reasoning. What ever shall I do, John?

  8. Slartibartfast says:

    Wow! I thought I’d better jump in before all of the good critiques are taken… (thanks guys!).

    I’ll state my opening position a little later (so TJ can provide evidence that tears it to shreds ;-) ), but I thought I should make a point about a legal concept that TJ seems to misunderstand…

    Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve watched a lot of Law and Order on TV… :-P

    TJ said (emphasis mine):“Saranis[sic], regarding your quotation from Ainslie v. Martin, which would be recognized as irrelevant orbita[sic] dicta, our country is founded on the principle that the individual citizens are sovereign, and we are the masters of our government, with the Declaration clearly indicating that the sole legitimate purpose of that government being to protect the individual freedoms of Life, Liberty and Happiness.”

    and

    As is precedent in Minor v Happersett, never undermined by Wonk[sic] Kim Ark, “aliens” or “Foreigners” are recognized to be those who are not born on a country’s soil to parents who were its citizens.

    First off, unless you are referring to a digital voice recording on the International Space Station (and, even then, it should have been “orbiter” :-P ), the term you want is obiter dicta. Just sayin’…

    My understanding is that judicial decisions are broken down into two parts: the holding and the obiter dicta. The holding (also know as the ratio decidendi) is the main part of the decision which is binding on lower courts and later courts while the dicta is discussion by the court which was not necessary to arrive at the decision and is not binding. Both parts of the decision can be cited in legal arguments, but more weight, in general, attaches to the holdings. This is a paraphrase of the post Holdings, Dicta, and Stare Decisis by guest blogger David Drumm on the blog of Constitutional scholar and noted civil libertarian Jonathan Turley. The subject is discussed thoroughly in the article and the 1,350 comments on the thread—TJ, for your convenience you may assume that I agree with anything said on that thread by Nal (Mr. Drumm’s pseudonym), Vince Treacy, or Slartibartfast (well, maybe not Slarti…).

    Now, Minor v. Happersett is a case about voting rights (Virginia Minor claimed that her citizenship should allow her the right to vote). The holding in the case is that citizenship did not guarantee sufrage (for people that don’t know everything like TJ, that means the right to vote). To come to this conclusion the court wasn’t required to know the citizenship status of Ms. Minor—it was true (at the time) based on their judicial rationale whether Ms. Minor was a citizen or not. However, since Ms. Minor was the person bringing the case (and it would have been moot had she not been a citizen), the court established that a person in Ms. Minor’s circumstances was, unquestionably, a natural born citizen—something necessary for Ms. Minor to have standing to bring the case, but not necessary to justify the court’s answer to the question about voting rights and citizenship in front of the court. In other words, it was part of the obiter dicta, not the holding. Furthermore, while the court went on to mention vague doubts about the natural born citizenship of other classes besides those born to citizen parents on the soil, it explicitly declined to specify what the law was in those circumstances. So not only is the Minor “definition” you reference a part of the dicta rather than the holding, but it does not exhaustively define natural born citizen, but rather states that a specific group of citizens are members of that class. Furthermore, were this “definition” a part of the holding, it would have been overturned. The Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution (which was not an act of Congress, by the way… ;-) ) overturned Minor like the 14th Amendement (also not an act of Congress) overturned the Dred Scott decision. In both cases lawyers can no longer cite the holding as binding precedent.

    As if this weren’t enough, the SCOTUS (in case you didn’t know) isn’t bound by its previous decisions. In other words, if Minor created binding precedent regarding the definition of natural born citizen, then the definition presented by the court in Wong Kim Ark (at least to the extent they conflicted) had already overturned it even before the 19th Amendement.

    As a mathematician, I believe of the importance of defining one’s terms, so please let me know how you disagree with my interpretation (I’m sure you disagree ;-P ) so I can try to justify the parts you don’t accept. After all, agreeing on the meaning of terms is sine qua non for any honest debate, don’t you think?

    How am I doing so far?

    • John Woodman says:

      Oh. My. Goodness.

      Did TJ McCann, the great and authoritative legal expert, really just refer to the fundamental legal term obiter dicta, “things said in passing,” or “sayings by the way,” as “orbita dicta”?

      Wow.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Not to be confused with orbiter dicta which refers to, for instance, James T. Kirk’s captian’s log… :-P

    • BrianH says:

      Slartibartfast wrote:

      To come to this conclusion the court wasn’t required to know the citizenship status of Ms. Minor—it was true (at the time) based on their judicial rationale whether Ms. Minor was a citizen or not. However, since Ms. Minor was the person bringing the case (and it would have been moot had she not been a citizen), the court established that a person in Ms. Minor’s circumstances was, unquestionably, a natural born citizen—something necessary for Ms. Minor to have standing to bring the case, but not necessary to justify the court’s answer to the question about voting rights and citizenship in front of the court. In other words, it was part of the obiter dicta, not the holding.

      I agree with your point here, though I’m going to add a bit since I think it can be strengthened a bit in a few ways.

      There are differing legal theories as to what constitutes the “holding” (ratio decidendi) of a case. But generally it consists of i) the material facts and ii) the reasoning and legal principles applied to those facts leading to the court’s decision. In the Minor case, the Court stated the question at hand this way:

      The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.

      So Virginia Minor’s citizenship I contend is a material fact (not merely a matter of standing). However, the particulars of that citizenship (i.e., whether it was as “natural born” or “naturalized”) is immaterial. Thus, what the Court has to say on the parameters of whose is (or is not) a “natural born citizen” is obiter dicta. And that’s manifestly so because Virginia Minor’s argument would be the same argument — and the Court’s decision the same — were she to have been a naturalized citizen. The Court was merely showing that Mrs. Minor, under pre-Fourteenth Amendment common law, was undoubtedly a citizen, but observing that before the adoption of the Amendment citizenship alone did not entail a right of suffrage. That being the case, the Amendment did not confer any greater ‘privileges and immunities’ than had existed previously.

      That Birthers like TJ McCann can enshrine that excerpt from Minor in gold-plate and then turn around and dismiss statements from cases like Ainslee v. Martin as “dicta” (as was done in his/her second comment in this thread) is just one of a laundry list of logical fallacies committed already on this thread.

      • gorefan says:

        There is the decision by the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit in United States of America v. John Allan Crawley, 837 F.2d 291

        “So instead of asking what the word “dictum” means we can ask what reasons there are against a court’s giving weight to a passage found in a previous opinion. There are many. One is that the passage was unnecessary to the outcome of the earlier case and therefore perhaps not as fully considered as it would have been if it were essential to the outcome. A closely related reason is that the passage was not an integral part of the earlier opinion–it can be sloughed off without damaging the analytical structure of the opinion, and so it was a redundant part of that opinion and, again, may not have been fully considered. Still another reason is that the passage was not grounded in the facts of the case and the judges may therefore have lacked an adequate experiential basis for it; another, that the issue addressed in the passage was not presented as an issue, hence was not refined by the fires of adversary presentation. All these are reasons for thinking that a particular passage was not a fully measured judicial pronouncement, that it was not likely to be relied on by readers, and indeed that it may not have been part of the decision that resolved the case or controversy on which the court’s jurisdiction depended (if a federal court).”

        Even if the Minor court held that Minor was a citizen, it did not need to decide if she was natural born and the single sentence about the definition of natural born “can be sloughed off without damaging the analytical structure of the opinion”.

        • John Woodman says:

          Excellent point, sir.

        • TJ McCann says:

          The appellant Virginia Minor, indicated that she was a citizen and thereby entitled to the rights of being a citizen.

          To answer the case, the Court had to consider what a citizen was, and what that meant, which includes the recognition of the fundamental source of citizenship needing no statutory establishment, natural born citizen. No it is not dictum, but rather fundamental to the court’s decision thereby precedent, and in fact other court’s have cited Minor recognizing this … which would explain why Gray never said anything to undermine the definition from Minor after citing.it.

          • gorefan says:

            Cite the other opinions that say that Minor defined NBC.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            Sorry, but Brian H already debunked this upthread—that Ms. Minor was a citizen was part of the holding, that she was natural born was dicta. It doesn’t matter anyway as WKA trumps Minor inasmuch as they conflict with each other.

          • John Woodman says:

            To claim that it was necessary to define the status of children born in the United States to non-citizen parents, which Virginia Minor manifestly and unequivocally was not, in order to adjudicate her case, is one of the most asininely stupid claims I’ve even seen birthers make.

            That being the case, any commentary by the Court on the status of such children was necessarily dicta.

            Now most folks would probably leave it at that. In my earlier article, though, I dug deeper and asked what kind of dicta it had to be.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              John said: “one of the most asininely stupid claims I’ve even seen birthers make”

              It’s getting hard to tell what the most asinine things that TJ has said are—there are just so many… I don’t know what rock this guy crawled out from under, but I’ve rarely seen so much arrogance with so little justification for it…

          • Ballantine says:

            Well, TJ has made clear he doesn’t understand what holding and dicta are. The specific holding of Minor was that citizenship was irrelevant to the right to vote and hence determining her citizenship was irrelevant and unnecessary. Of course, her citizenship was admitted as a stipulated fact and never argued or briefed. In fact, there is nothing in the record that speaks of the status of her parents. Sadly, TJ isn’t smart enough to see that the entire discussion of citizenship had nothing to do with whether Virginia Minor was a citizen. Sad that people like TJ don’t even understand what Minor said and, of course, can make no argument that it is precedent. No one in history has every cited Minor as relevant to the status of children of aliens and no on ever will except ignorant birthers.

            And, of course, Gray did agree with Waite that “natural born” was defined by the common law. The difference is Gray spent 21 pages explaining that children of aliens were covered under the common law both in England and the United States while Waite expressly declined to address the status of children of aliens. Amazing that these idiots cite a case as precedent on the point the court expressly declined to address.

            • John Woodman says:

              Amazing that these idiots cite a case as precedent on the point the court expressly declined to address.

              It truly is amazing. It defies the most basic rules and the most basic common sense of interpreting a legal case. And yet they are so driven to “prove” their desired conclusion that they do it.

              Sadly, TJ isn’t smart enough to see that the entire discussion of citizenship had nothing to do with whether Virginia Minor was a citizen.

              Don’t you mean had nothing to do with whether she was a natural born citizen?

            • Ballantine says:

              No, the discussion was about whether women had always been citizens. Minor’s primary argument was that she was a citizen under the 14th Amendment and that voting was a privilege of 14th Amendment citizenship under the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. Waite’s answer was that women had always been citizens, voting was never a privilege of citizenship as women have never had the right to vote, the 14th Amendment did not add any privileges to citizenship, therefore the 14th Amendment did not grant anyone the right to vote. To make this point, Waite cited five different examples showing that women had always been citizens. The first example was that women were always natural born citizens.

              It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

              What Waite is saying is that if “all persons” under the 14th Amendment includes women, the argument Minor was making, then “all children” does as well and hence women were always natural born citizens.

              Waite then gave four more examples of women always being citizens that had nothing to do with Minor, i.e., he argued they were always citzens under the naturalization acts, the homestead act, for jurisdictional purposes and under state laws of descent.

              That women were always citizens is clearly part of the rationale of the case. However, I don’t think one can argue any one of these examples as necessary to make such point, and, of course, there was no need to address the status of children of aliens, only to point out that the class of persons there was no doubt about included women.

              Minor’s citizenship was a stipulated fact admitted by defendant in the original pleading, and even if it wasn’t, the court had no need to determine if she was a citizen since the court concluded such citizenship was irrelevant. For example, the court below did not mention her citzienship status at all. It also ruled it was irrelevant.

      • John Woodman says:

        Brian, welcome back.

        It would appear we have a gentleman here who is in need of being schooled regarding the accurate analysis and implications of cases such as Minor v Happersett and US v Wong Kim Ark. Although we do have a number of able commentators here already, I am thinking that you may also be well able to assist in that process. ;-)

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Brian,

        If I understand the playbook of TJ, soop-ur lee-gull jean-yus, since you have disagreed with my analysis, I should denigrate you and make vague and baseless accusations regarding how obviously wrong you are. Here goes…

        Shame on you for pointing out that only the part that TJ needs to be binding precedent is dicta in Minor! You don’t really expect anyone to believe your entirely plausible reasoning, do you?

        Well, do you?

        Okay, I suck at this… I guess I’ll have to leave the idiocy to TJ.

        • BrianH says:

          I certainly don’t expect TJ to deal with my argument, since there’s simply no way one can offer a definition of obiter dicta that doesn’t cover that excerpt from Minor. It’s absolutely critical to the Birther world-view that the excerpt constitute some binding “definition” that is a clear affirmation of the supposed original Vattelian meaning to the NBC phrase; so Birthers simply can’t and won’t discuss any argument that would vitiate the status of that excerpt.

          So, TJ will do what all Birthers do about now: stay really, really quiet on this point and keep bringing up other issues in the attempt to divert attention away from the obvious problem that the hallowed Minor “definition” is really just a bit of obiter dicta, and thus it can’t carry the argumentative load Birthdom heaps upon it.

  9. John Woodman says:

    This is fun, but I’ve got to get back to work for a while.

    I’m not being paid to believe in the power of my dreams. :lol:

  10. Slartibartfast says:

    TJ,

    Until you start to answer some of my questions (please, feel free to take your time ;-) ) I’m going to take a look at your magnum opus and provide you with a little of my naive feedback…

    Let’s get a sneak preview:

    In the second, Justice Gray quotes from a
    pamphlet entitled “Alienigenae of the UnitedStates”, by Horace Binney,which used the term “natural born” in connection with a child of a citizen, but not in connection with a child of an alien parent.:

    The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it isgiven personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.

    —Binney’s statement, as cited by Gray U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

    While Binney references both children as citizens, only the child born of a citizen is referenced as “natural born”.

    Okay, let’s look at what the words actually mean:

    The child of an alien, if born in the country,

    Pretty straightforward—and it certainly applies to the circumstances of President Obama’s birth (although I would note that the phrase “the child of a citizen, if born in the country” would also apply to the president’s birth). I assume we agree on what this means.

    is as much a citizen

    To me, this means equality. At the very least is means not less of a citizen—this isn’t rocket surgery or brain science, it’s just simple logic and semantics, right? So if citizen A has a right or privilege of citizenship that citizen B doesn’t have, then we cannot say that citizen B is as much a citizen as citizen A, can we? Glad we got that straight.

    as the natural born child of a citizen

    Okay—this seems pretty straightforward. This, too, applies to President Obama (he is, after all, the natural born child of a Dr. Dunham, who’s US citizenship throughout her life has been documented via FOIA requests). So let’s call citizen A the child of Dr. Dunham, a (natural born) US citizen, and citizen B the child of Barack Obama Sr., a native of Kenya and British subject (no f—ing clue if he was natural born ;-) ). If citizen A can grow up to be president and citizen B can’t we’ve got a problem—and not just that both are different ways of looking at President Obama—the right (or privilege) of being eligible for the presidency is, after all, a right or privilege of citizenship and, as such, we can’t say that citizen B is as much a citizen as citizen A if citizen A has a right that citizen B does not. In mathematics we call this proof by contradiction or reductio ad absurdum, and what it means is that I’ve just proven that you are wrong about what this sentence means. That’s a real problem—if I were you, I’d start looking to try to rebut this proof, but, if you were me, you’d understand that it cannot be done (any more than you can refute the Pythagorean theorem). I can’t wait to see the sage response of a master of logic and the law such as yourself.

    , and by operation of the same principle.

    Well, we already know the outcome, but I’m a sucker for some denouement… So, both citizen A and citizen B are citizens for the same reason. Well, this must mean that the reason for their citizenship is a trait they share in common. The thing is, one is born of a citizen parent and one is born as an alien parent—so that can’t be the reason for either of their citizenship… Wait a sec! They were both born in Hawai’i! So the principle must be that they are both citizens by virtue of being born in the US. There’s a name for this type of reasoning, too—it’s called the “pigeonhole principle” and it, too, is a form of proof.

    That’s right, I just PROVED that you were wrong.

    Twice.

    How do you like them apples Harvard?

    Just out of curiosity, John, is there some sort of mercy rule here? I mean Ballantine, Suranis, and Scientist just whaled on the poor guy (I may have kicked him when he was down a bit, too… ain’t I a stinker?) and now it turns out that I was able to come up with two independent proofs that TJ’s theory is incorrect from a single sentence that he quoted in his magnum opus. Who knows how much more opportunity for pwning the rest of the 11 pages of TJ’s insight and wisdom will provide? How many in context quotes to refute TJ’s arguments do you think Ballantine could find? How many of the quotes TJ has used could Suranis show were taken out of context (I’m guessing… “all of them”). What about when Scientist pokes around asking TJ for the evidence that would exist if he were right? We’re not even sure that TJ has an inkling of how far in over his head he is. What if he still thinks that he is our intellectual, legal, and factual superiors (or whatever it was)? That could be very embarrassing—I mean it could scar the poor boy for life. Even if, by some twist of fate (say, we all get hit by meteors), TJ could actually win this debate, he would meet with the most hideous fate of all—Miss Farrar coming on to him.

    Oh, the humanity…

    • John Woodman says:

      Slartibartfast,

      Normally I would say have some mercy. In a case in which someone has come on here with the arrogance to declare in no uncertain terms that he is in every way the intellectual superior of those who disagree with him, and that those who disagree are in every way his intellectual inferiors, I’m afraid I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for what he gets.

      Since the conversation has turned to Horace Binney, I’d like to see you go into the details of what else Horace Binney said in his treatise, the part that birthers like him never mention. Probably he’s never read that particular passage. Do you think you might school TJ with that a bit?

      • Slartibartfast says:

        John,

        Being a naive layman (who doesn’t like scouring old legal essays for proof of the obvious [i.e. that TJ is the most brilliant, well-informed, and honest law-knowing-person there is]), I had no idea what you were talking about, but it turns out that the internet (which is not, as you might have thought, a dumptruck, but a series of tubes… ;-) ) can be used to look stuff up and someone out there has a website with a handy-dandy site guide that easily led me to an article which had the following quote from Binney’s essay (I highlighted a portion and discussed it below as TJ the great and wise said that a quote doesn’t count otherwise ;-) ):

        “But the law of France rejects the principle of the English law, and of our own laws, that birth within the limits and jurisdiction of France, makes a Frenchman, or a natural-born citizen or subject of France, absolutely, and provides only for the acquisition of that character by the child so born, on his complying with certain formalities in the course of the year that ensues his arrival at the epoch of his majority.

        So, to give my poor understanding of this passage, the Frenchies—wantonly disregarding peer pressure from the US and England—don’t regard the children of furriners, born on French soil, as natural born unless and until they jump through some hoops like a poodle in a show. Now, according to TJ the wise, I’ve hardly got the chops to get through high school, but it seems to me that this pretty clearly implies that children of aliens, born in the US or England, are regarded as natural born, absolutely. But we’ll probably have to wait for TJ to give an authoritative interpretation to us dummies…

        Was that what you wanted?

        • Ballantine says:

          Of course that is what it means, at least in English. Clearly stating such is the law of England and the United States and the “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” meant the same thing. For those who can’t read English, maybe not.

          Binney said there were two types of citizens:

          “born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States.”

          Look familiar. The first part is obviously what he called “natural born citizens” and is nearly idential to the 14th Amendment. In fact, Senator Raymond suggested such language.

        • John Woodman says:

          Yeah. Horace Binney was clearly saying that there was a common, shared principle BOTH of English law and of our own American law, that birth “within the limits and jurisdiction” of the country made a “natural born citizen or [natural born] subject” “ABSOLUTELY.”

          But you also have to look at the CONTEXT of the quote, which is something that birthers like TJ here fail to do again and again and again. And the CONTEXT is that Horace Binney — in the exact same treatise referred to by TJ — is speaking about the children of foreign citizens, who are residing within a country in which they do not possess citizenship.

          So to condense his statements, Binney CLEARLY says that the position of English law is that children born within England to resident aliens are natural born subjects, and children born within the United States to resident aliens, citizens of other countries, are natural born citizens.

          Binney thus directly and absolutely refutes TJ’s claim.

          I wanted to ask TJ: TJ, who do you think is the greater authority on the citizenship law of the United States — yourself, or early American legal expert Horace Binney, who authored The Alienigenae of the United States Under the Present Naturalization Laws, and whom you have quoted?

          So now we have — at the least — Senator Howard, Senator Trumbull, and the esteemed Mr. Horace Binney, all of whom clearly and directly contradict TJ’s claims, and say that he’s full of it.

          TJ, how do you deal with these direct contradictions of your claims, by the very authorities that you quote? And why do you seem to think that you know better than:

          • Senator Howard
          • Senator Trumbull
          • Mr. Binney
          • Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray
          • and all of the OTHER FIVE United States Supreme Court Justices who fully agreed with Justice Gray’s Opinion?

        • TJ McCann says:

          Read the French,. Natural born isn’t mentioned in there, and when they reach the age of majority is hardly “absolutely”, much less does it only involve meeting “certain formalities” when that citizen status (not natural born) is entirely forfeit forever if no positive act of affirmation is done by the individual in one year’s time.

          Binney was putting out what is undeniably only his own opinion on common law, and is essentially propaganda, which is even his own denial of the profound rejection of British Common Law in both the American and French revolutions.

          • Suranis says:

            You know, this reminds me of a funny story. One time a classmate om nine when i was in college in college went up to our classics professor and asked him for a Latin translation of “the Oddessy.” After a bit of back and forth the professor looked straight at him and just said “it was written in Greek” The guy said it was like the bottom falling out of his world, he felt like such a fool.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              A mentor of mine told me a story about how he, as a young post-doc, was eagerly telling a professor about the newly discovered protein “Timeless” and how it was used to immortalize cells in his research—before finding out that the person he was talking to was the Nobel laureate who developed the technique…

              It is a pity that TJ doesn’t understand how embarrassing his overestimation of his own expertise really is. Hopefully some day someone will be able to rub his nose in his profound ignorance so that he can begin to learn from his mistakes.

          • Northland10 says:

            Read the French,. Natural born isn’t mentioned in there,

            Umm.. Yeah. The French refers to French law which Binney is describing as different than the system in American, and British Common Law. The French describes the process for a native born, of aliens, to become a citizen. His obvious complaint is not whether or not it is Natural born in France but whether children of Americans, born in France, would be lacking citizenship.

            If he is the child of an American father, what is he under these circumstances? Not a citizen or subject of any country whatever.”

            You might call it a propaganda piece, but the piece is an argument for dealing with foreign born children of Americans. It was well settled the birth in this country was sufficient.

            And until TJ starts providing some sort of authority for his claim, such as courts treating Minor as precedent on citizenship (or anything, due to the suffrage amendment), I can only believe he knows he is wrong and is just a troll.

            He still does not get the simple fact that agreeing that the law is what it is and the President is eligible to be well, President, does not mean he hast to like the law or the President.

          • John Woodman says:

            The fact that the French law doesn’t use the terms “natural born” or “absolutely” at any point only highlights Binney’s use of those terms in regard to both English and American law. It only serves to amplify the contrast.

            Unlike French law, the laws of England and America make the child born on the soil of each respective country a “natural born subject” “absolutely,” and a “natural born citizen” “absolutely.”

            As for meeting “certain formalities,” of course the French law doesn’t use that term either. But Binney’s use of the term to describe the French requirements

            …that, in the event that he is residing in France, he declares his intention to fix his domicile there; and that in the event that he is residing abroad, he makes application to fix his domicile in France, and establishes such domicile in France within one year of making such application.

            …is a perfectly fine description.

            I’m not sure what TJ wants.

            Binney was putting out what is undeniably only his own opinion on common law, and is essentially propaganda, which is even his own denial of the profound rejection of British Common Law in both the American and French revolutions.

            Ah! Here it is. Finally TJ is beginning to face reality, at least in regard to Horace Binney. But note how he handles reality: Any authority who disagrees with him is putting out “undeniably only his own opinion.” Because Binney (who wrote in 1853 and certainly had no horse in any Presidential qualifications race) doesn’t say what TJ wants, anything he says is “essentially propaganda.” Because TJ doesn’t agree with Binney, he accuses well-known, well-respected legal scholar Binney of “denial of the profound rejection of British Common Law in both the American and French revolutions.”

            Binney’s words are so clear, and his rejection of TJ’s bullshit so complete, that all non-lawyer TJ McCann III can do is claim that he is the legal genius, and Harvard-educated Horace Binney — who had a brilliant 50-year legal career, “was recognized as one of the leaders of the bar in the United States,” and who was personally mentored by Pennsylvania Constitutional Framer Jared Ingersoll — is the kook.

            Now when you start making those kind of ludicrously idiotic claims, you know it’s totally over. In fact, when you consider the long list of genuine, nation-leading authorities that TJ has to claim are the kooks instead of him, it’s been over for a good while now.

            If TJ has any sense, he’s desperately looking around for a way to exit with a shred of dignity intact. The best exit, of course, is just to quietly disappear. That way he doesn’t have to admit to being an idiot. But as far as the dignity goes, I’m afraid that’s mostly gone. TJ will kid himself that we took it from him. The fact is, I tried to tell him up front. I think several of us tried to tell him up front. It was his own insistence at butting his head against the truth that has resulted in the headache, and it is only his continued head-butting of the truth that has amplified it.

          • John Woodman says:

            Hey, TJ! You said that Father of the Constitution James Madison was “shortsighted.” You accused Framer-mentored distinguished legal expert Horace Binney, whose words were taken so seriously by Congress that they passed the 1855 Naturalization Act at his request, of writing “propaganda.”

            I thought I might give you someone else to cut down as well. How about Founding Father, Framer, and chief author of the Federalist Alexander Hamilton — who says you’re full of hooey in your claim that we rejected the English common law so thoroughly that it’s irrelevant when it comes to Constitutional interpretation?

            When writing about the Constitutional meaning of direct and indirect taxes, Hamilton wrote:

            “[W]here so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language [that is, the LAW] of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.”

            Huh. Now I wonder what Hamilton meant by “that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.” Do you think he might have meant… England? Or are you so determined to fling absolute BS that you’re going to try and make the case he was referring to Switzerland?

            Judge Sandford also later stated (1844) that terms in the Constitution are to be understood in reference to their definitions from the English common law. He noted that the Framers of the Constitution provided no definition for the terms “impeachment, felonies, treason, bribery, indictment, cases in equity, bankruptcy, attainder, and writ of habeas corpus,” “all of which were unknown even by name, to any other system of jurisprudence than the common law.”

            Now… I wonder if there is a term relevant to Presidential eligibility which is completely “unknown even by name, to any other system of jurisprudence than the common law.”

            Wait… I think I have it. How about… “natural born?”

            • gorefan says:

              Chief Justice Marshall also told us to read English law to understand the principles of pardons.

              “The constitution gives to the president, in general terms, “the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States.

              “As this power had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance; we adopt their principles respecting the operation and effect of a pardon, and look into their books for the rules prescribing the manner in which it is to be used by the person who would avail himself of it.” Chief Justice Marshall, in United States v. Wilson 1833

            • Northland10 says:

              The founders that TJ claims rejected English Common Law must not have communicated their intentions well, since, the Americans who went off to Texas failed to get the memo:

              From Article 4, Constitution of the Republic of Texas (1836):

              SEC. 13. The Congress shall, as early as practicable, introduce, by statute, the common law of England, with such modifications as our circumstances, in their judgment, may require; and in all criminal cases the common law shall be the rule of decision.

              The only comments about citizenship were a naturalization clause (rather simple process, provided you were white) and that those already in Texas were citizens. There is nothing about those born in Texas.

              After going through the Texas Constitution, I am reminder of another fact that I am rather certain TJ does not understand. Unlike his current nativism, much of the early history of our country highly encourage immigration. I have to go back and check Benjamin Franklin’s writings, but I do remember him discussing the need for immigration. In my opinion, tossing up barriers to immigration, such as not accepting the native born children of immigrants as citizens, does not encourage the higher levels of immigration they sought.

            • Scientist says:

              Northland: Yes, soli is well-adapted to societies that want to integrate immigrants. That is why it almost universal in the Western Hemisphere. I have posted this map before, but TJ ignores it because it is inconvenient to his argument
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jus_soli_world.png
              While some of those countries-Canada and the English-speaking Carribbean- come from the Common Law traditions, the Spanish and Portuguese-speaking republics do not. Yet they found it useful, so they adopted it.

              TJ ought to consider that you can learn a lot about your own country by looking around it as well as in it.

            • John Woodman says:

              Wait, gorefan — you’re saying that the famous Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall said in 1833 that we should consider the laws of England in order to understand what the term pardons meant, as used in the Constitution?

              But TJ tells us the common law and other laws of England are completely irrelevant — that we totally rejected all that English stuff.

              I suppose we can add Chief Justice Marshall to the long list of major authorities who say TJ is full of it.

            • TJ McCann says:

              Woodman wrote:

              Hey, TJ! You said that Father of the Constitution James Madison was “shortsighted.”

              You really need to become an adult and abandon your childish thoughts. While Madison is regarded as the “father of the Constitution” that is really a sophomoric and elementary school perspective, and is really not accurately applied. While Madison was instrumental in the drafting of that document, adult historians recognize Madison was not such a father to our philosophy.

              The fact is, as a result of Madison’s experience in the Virginia legislature, he believed that the states had entirely too much authority, and Madison supported the full transition of sovereignty from the individuals and states, to the federal government.

              Madison was virtually the only delegate who wanted to deprive the states of sovereignty completely, which he considered the only solution to the problem of the disorganized Articles of Confederation. Thus, it is not surprising to see that what Madison argues is virtually identical to British Common Law government, where the government is entirely sovereign and projected upon the individual.

              While Madison’s “Virginia Plan” was influential in getting the debate started before the convention, virtually all of what Madison argued for therein was rejected.

              For Madison to actually have been the “father of the Constitution”, it would require more than just an altering the Articles of Confederation, and would required a thorough change in the character of the national compact, with citizens citizens and states no longer sovereign. It would even necessitate nullifying or ignoring all the claims made in the Declaration of Independence, of the citizen being sovereign, and the sole purpose of government being to protect those individual rights.

              As recognized by historian Gordon Wood, most of what was controversial structure in the Virginia Plan, was removed, and any of the rest had been commonly accepted for decades as basically necessary for a functional government.

              Madison was, however, influential in getting many of the anti-federalists to switch their votes against ratification, and in so doing promised that he would advance a Bill of Rights. However, as previously noted, our Bill of Rights is quite different from that of Britain’s with its sovereign government, and our own rights are inherently innate to the individual, declared off limits to that government.

              This is a part of reality which even wikipedia covers. I suggest you go read it, and stop spouting juvenile platitudes.

              Woodman wrote:

              You accused Framer-mentored distinguished legal expert Horace Binney, whose words were taken so seriously by Congress that they passed the 1855 Naturalization Act at his request, of writing “propaganda.”

              Accused? No, Binney was by his own statement engaging in an effort of promote British common law in our government’s recognition of those born overseas.

              And that 1855 Nationalization Act was NOT done at Binney’s request, and certainly not of necessity. The closest it came to recognizing any of his recommendations was that citizenship was automatically granted to alien wives of U.S. citizens… and that really was not covered in Binney’s pamphlet at all.

              While the 1855 Act did make children of those born overseas to citizen parents, themselves citizens, this was nothing new to the 1790, 1995, 1798, or 1802 naturalization acts, the last of which states:

              and the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States.’

              Thus the 1855 act only remedied the confusion of those who believed “and now are” only applied to those who were citizens or born, on that 1802 date, … which probably includes many people who believe the 1790 Act actually awarded natural born citizen status upon those born overseas… before the Constitution was even dry.

              Curiously the only “argument” provided by Binney in regard to this 1802 law, if it can even be described as Binney’s argument, is his quotation of Chancellor Kent indicating, “the the whole of the statute provision is remarkably loose and vague in its terms, and it is lamentably defective in being confined to the case of children whose parents were citizens in 1802, or had been so previously.”

              Conspicuously, Biney himself at best says, “The reason for those very restrictive words in the enactment, ‘now are or have been,’ the writer has not been able to ascertain.”

              As I’ve previously indicated, “and now are” actually does not institute the date 1802, but is intended to be read generally, with “now” being interpreted equivalent to “henceforth”.

              This reference by Binney is hardly an argument to sway congress, certainly not an urgent one, and Binney perhaps should have recognized that the problem was not at all the “restrictive words” but rather his own limited interpretation thereof. Apparently Binney was not so certain of this that he felt compelled to offer his own analysis.

              Had Binney done a more thorough analysis of other legislation as well as this, he would not have repeatedly misstated that the 1790 naturalization act had the proviso, “that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons who had never been resident in the United States”, when that act actually insisted that the fathers must have resided in the United States, for the children to obtain citizenship, and not the children themselves.

              This screwup by Binney is what led to his note on citizenship “descending”, which Gray inappropriately quoted from Binney’s second version, of three.

              The 1790 naturalization act actually indicates in that proviso:

              “Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…”

              The obvious purpose of this proviso regarding the father, was simply to ensure that we did not establish an estranged body of citizens overseas who had never resided in this country, and had no real contact with the country.

              Thus, in two naturalization acts, we have Binney’s own conspicuous failures to understand the acts, with the failure involving the 1790 Naturalization Act actually resulting in 3 versions of his pamphlet, and resulted in the note cited by Horace Gray in WKA with Binney’s analysis of his own screwup!

              You really need to have a much better grasp of both the facts, and the history. Your repeated salutation of Madison as the “father of the Constitution” is only garnering you disrespect from those who actually know history.

          • John Woodman says:

            Hey, TJ! We’re nowhere near running out of distinguished authorities who state quite clearly that you’re full of crap.

            How about William Rawle, early American legal expert, US District Attorney for the State of Pennsylvania, first President of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, trustee of the University of Pennsylvania for 40 years?

            Not to mention — a personal friend of one of our most prominent, most important Founders and Framers — Benjamin Franklin.

            Here’s what Mr. Rawle said:

            …he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.

            But don’t sweat Rawle too much. Or James Madison. Or Alexander Hamilton. Or Horace Binney. Or all that long list of Supreme Court Justices, including Sandra Day O’Connor, who stated that the current President was “CLEARLY” a natural born citizen due to his birth in Hawaii.

            As I say, we have plenty of other distinguished authorities who also all agree that you’re full of crap.

            • JRC says:

              Love it. You guys are great. (Excluding TJ)

            • John Woodman says:

              Welcome to the party, JRC!

              TJ’s been schooling us on the meaning of “natural born citizen.”

            • gorefan says:

              Rawle goes on to explain the qualifications for President,

              “Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”

              Place of birth creates the relative quality of being natural born.

            • John Woodman says:

              Yes, his wording is a bit awkward in that particular sentence, but it is quite clear.

              Here’s the entire paragraph, for context:

              The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that he so continues till the age of discretion, when he is at liberty to put himself under what government he pleases. How far the adult possesses this power will hereafter be considered, but surely it would be unjust both to the state and to the infant, to withhold the quality of the citizen until those years of discretion were attained. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.

              So once again, we have a clear, unambiguous, and absolute rejection of TJ’s claim by one of the most authoritative figures imaginable — in this case, an early American legal expert, with a 50-year very distinguished career, who was a personal friend of Founder and Framer Benjamin Franklin.

              It cannot be emphasized too much how authoritative some of these sources are. We have James Madison, Father of the Constitution. We have Alexander Hamilton, Founder, Framer, and the principal author of the Federalist Papers — who tells us to look to the laws of England when interpreting the terms in the Constitution. We have Ben Franklin’s friend, who is so crystal-clear that TJ can do nothing other than throw up his hands in dismay. Unless, of course he wants to accuse him of being “shortsighted,” as he accused Madison, or of being a “propagandist,” as he accused Horace Binney, the protege of Constitutional Framer Jared Ingersoll.

              And we haven’t even gotten to Thomas Jefferson’s good friend yet. Or to a gentleman who was a friend of every single one of our first six Presidents.

              Out of all of our nation’s Founding Fathers, who were the most important? The following are at the top of most people’s lists:

              • George Washington
              • Thomas Jefferson
              • James Madison
              • Benjamin Franklin
              • Alexander Hamilton
              • John Adams

              And we have someone quite close to every single one of these persons, who brings good, solid evidence against the birther claim. Not to mention the long succession of other distinguished experts who followed, who absolutely contradict it.

              And yet we have utter amateurs like TJ, who show up and claim to be experts, and claim to be speaking up for those same Founding Fathers, and who claim to be patriots, all the while twisting the words of virtually every real authority in American history who has ever spoken on the matter.

            • TJ McCann says:

              Generally speaking, at the time of William Rawle, any person born in any of the states, would have been a natural born citizen, because to reside in those states, their parents were required to take an oath to the State, and to forswear all other allegiances.

              So generally speaking, at the time spoken, Rawle’s unspecified comments, “said in passing”, are generally true, however when taken out of the context and applied to contemporary times, where no such allegiance is established to take up residence, they are not.

              This is why “context” is important, and off-the-cuff statements, said without qualification, are really irrelevant, as those are offered within the context of those times, and even then are not necessarily true or accurate.

  11. Slartibartfast says:

    TJ,

    I was doing a little more poking around in the evidence of your brilliance (and I found a couple interesting things…) when I noticed this in your conclusion:

    “As was true of our Founders, who had to grandfather themselves to be President”

    So I guess my original assertion, if true, kind of destroys your whole argument, right?

    Bummer.

    In the words of my friend Sarah: “Sucks to be you.”

  12. TJ McCann says:

    Slarti

    The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.

    I am really astonished that I even have to explain this to you, or anyone for that matter. You have not “PROVED” me wrong at all; you have only DEMONSTRATED the limit of your grasp.

    The child of an alien if born in the country, , is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen

    Here Binnery recognizes that the child born of a alien, if a citizen, is as much a citizen, is as much a citizen as the the natural born child of a citizen.

    What Binney is comparing is the citizenship quality of both cases. Both are citizens. The United States only recognizes in law and equity, one type of citizen – citizen. We do not have any laws recognizing natural born citizens receiving ANY, right that citizens do not. Binney is saying they are both equally “citizens”, and they are.

    Curiously (actually not), Binney only attaches natural born in association with the child whose parent is a citizen. This is not just the matter of a hypothetical scenario where the child of the alien parent just does not happen to be a natural born, but is stating that the natural born status of the offspring is tied with the citizenship of the parent. This severely undermines the contention that Citizenship of the parents does not matter for natural born citizen status of their offspring… in this country.

    If citizen A can grow up to be president and citizen B can’t we’ve got a problem—and not just that both are different ways of looking at President Obama—the right (or privilege) of being eligible for the presidency is, after all, a right or privilege of citizenship and, as such, we can’t say that citizen B is as much a citizen as citizen A if citizen A has a right that citizen B does not.

    Your major flaw of understanding is you clinging to an egalitarian belief that is nowhere applied to opportunity to be President, but is taught in elementary school to young children. Being eligible for the office of Presidnet is neither A RIGHT , nor privilege of citizenship. It’s not even a right for those who are citizens, but not by naturalization. They’re citizens too , aren’t they? “Rights” are those things which one can do on one’s own, and certaintly do not involve any obligation from others to enact those rights. “Rights” have nothing whatsoever to do with opportunity to hold an office, particularly not the office of President.

    In fact the singularly powerful mandate of Article II demands that “NO PERSON except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of President”, indicating it is anything BUT an egalitarian right extended to all citizens.

    Article II does not merely exclude naturalized citizens, it does not merely exclude born citizens, but also excludes those having become citizens despite being born overseas (by terms you yourself recognize). What of their “rights”, if there is a right to be President? The fact is there is no such “right” to be President, and this only requires a High School level education to recognize, but it does require leaving behind Elementary School levels of thought behind.

    I could direct you to a highly reputed constitutional attorney’s discussion of the fact that citizens do not even have the right to vote for a constitutionally ineligible candidate, but rather a constitutional obligation to not vote for them, however this discussion would be well beyond your pay grand.

    Slarti wrote:

    , and by operation of the same principle.

    Well, we already know the outcome, but I’m a sucker for some denouement… So, both citizen A and citizen B are citizens for the same reason. Well, this must mean that the reason for their citizenship is a trait they share in common. The thing is, one is born of a citizen parent and one is born as an alien parent—so that can’t be the reason for either of their citizenship… Wait a sec! They were both born in Hawai’i!

    This is only your assumption of what Binney means by “and by operation of the same principle”, or a highly prejudicial interpretation of Binney’s statement based upon your own bias.

    In point of fact, Binney does not anywhere indicate, nor imply, what that “same principle” might be. However it might easily be interpreted that the “same principle” evidently does not involve the “same details of birth”. In fact the only details of birth Binney inserts is that, in one case the parents are alien and the child is only a citizen, evidently not natural born, and in the other case the parent is a citizen and the child is natural born. This seems to compellingly indicate, by the terms which Binney indicated as relevant to his comment, that natural born status involves consideration of the parent’s citizenship status.

    I don’t presume to indicate with certainty what that “same principle” might be, and Binney himself did not deem it important enough to clarify. However “the same principle” might mean that both the natural born, and non-natural born child are recognized as citizens, so by the “same principle of citizenship”, they each as much citizen as the other.

    There is absolutely ZERO support for your biased conclusion founded only in your elementary school belief that ability to be President one day is a right, thereby making your “Proof” that I was wrong, itself wrong. So I guess “it sucks to be you”, but good luck completing High School.

    • Northland10 says:

      TJ, you make claims and say everybody is wrong but I see a glaring lack of any authority for your claims.

    • Scientist says:

      TJ said: “At the time of this adoption, and also long thereafter, few states recognized mere birth in U.S. soil to result in even citizenship”

      I’m still waiting for a list of which states did and did not automatically grant citizenship to those born “in US soil” at the time of adoptiion (wouldn’t ON US soil be more appropriate, since IN the soil is more associated with death than birth?). There were only 13 states at the time, so that shouldn’t be hard.

      I hate to keep harping on this, but it’s quite important. If, let’s say, New York did, but North Carolina didn’t, we could then explore which model was adopted nationally. If on the other hand, as I believe is the case, they all did, then your entire argument would amount to a load of hooey (that’s a technical legal term).

      • BrianH says:

        TJ: “At the time of this adoption, and also long thereafter, few states recognized mere birth in U.S. soil to result in even citizenship”

        Lynch v. Clarke (N.Y. Chancery, 1845): “When our National Independence was declared, the citizens of this and the other States were subjects of Great Britain. Upon the Revolution, they were at liberty to continue their allegiance to the crown and retire from the country, or to remain and adhere to the independent states. Theose who adhered, were thenceforth citizens of the respective states. Foreigners arriving here intermediate the Declaration of Independence and the adoption of the constitution, became citizens or continued aliens, according to the laws of the several states where they resided; and the children of aliens born here during that interval, became citizens in those states, because, as will be presently shown, the common law was in that respect, the law of all the states.” (N.Y. Legal Observer, Vol. III, p. 241)

        There appears to be a considerable gulf between claim and reality.

  13. It is illustrative to examine what contemporary scholars had to say about the Wong Kim Ark decision as it pertains to presidential eligibility. A while back I found that one of the most brilliant young attorneys of the time, William D. Guthrie of Columbia College, wrote this about the Wong Kim Ark decision as part of his lectures on citizenship:

    “The phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ in this clause has occasioned considerable difficulty. If the parents of a child born in the United States were citizens the meaning was clear. But what was to be the status of a child born in the United States of Indians or of Chinese or other alien parentage? In the leading case of Elk v Wilkins it was decided that an Indian born a member of one of our Indian tribes still existing and recognized as such even tho he had voluntarily separated himself from his people, and taken up his residence among the white citizens, but who did not appear to have been naturalized or taxed, was not born in the United States subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and was not a citizen. He was born subject to the jurisdiction of his tribe. This decision left in uncertainty the legal status of all others born in the United States of alien parentage. Was their citizenship to be determined by the common-law of locality of birth or was the rule of the civil law as to the allegiance of the parents to control? This question was not settled until a few weeks ago thirty years after the amendment adopted thus showing how slowly constitutional law develops the life of a nation. The common law rule has been finally affirmed by the Supreme Court in the recent case of the United States v Wong Kim Ark. The Supreme Court held that a child born in this country of Chinese parents domiciled here is a citizen of the United States by virtue of the locality of his birth. The whole subject is discussed at length in the opinions of this case. The effect of this decision is to make citizens of the United States, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in United States of alien parents and permanently domiciled here, except the children of the diplomatic representatives of foreign powers; and therefore, a male child born here of alien Chinese subjects is now eligible to the office of President, altho his parents could not be naturalized under our laws.

    (Literary Digest, Funk and Wagnalls 1899)

    Note especially the part in bold. Even though presidential eligibility was not at issue in the case Guthrie realized that the Court ruled WKA was indeed a natural born citizen and was entitled to the Constitutional privileges as such.

    The issue in the Wong Kim Ark case was clearly whether or not he was a “natural born citizen”. That fact was recognized even after the lower court ruling by Judge Morrow before the case was decided in the Supreme Court. This is what the American Law Register and Review said in 1896:

    Citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment – A decision one of the district courts of California delivered on the third of January brings to the consideration of the legal profession a not only of great importance but one also of much nicety. One Wong Kim Ark, was born in 1873, in the State of California, of parents who, though at that time residents here, were subjects the Emperor of China. His parents continued to reside here 1890, when they took permanent leave. Wong Kim Ark remained in the United States until 1894 when he departed on a visit to the land of his race. In August 1895, he returned, and applied to the Collector of the Port to be permitted to land, and his application was refused upon the sole ground that was not a citizen of this country. Upon this refusal, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed for him in the district court where it was held by Morrow, J. that having been born here, he was, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a natural born American citizen and was being unjustly restrained of his right to return to this country

    In the same 1896 article the author even notes that the Supreme Court failed to settle the issue in Minor v Happersett:

    At Common Law if the parent be under the actual obedience of the king and the place of the child’s birth be within the king’s obedience as well as in his dominion the child becomes a subject of the realm. But by International Law birth follows the political status of the father and of the mother when the child is illegitimate. So that it is quite evident that the proper solution of the difficulty rests upon the discernment of the true scope of the meaning of the word jurisdiction as it appears in the Constitution in the clause referred to.

    This case is not altogether a new one but has been previously decided in three cases in inferior courts, Lynch v Clark ,1 Sandf Ch NY 583 1844,; Gee Fook Sing v United States, 49 Fed Rep 146 1892; In re Look Tin Sing, 21 Fed Rep 905 1884; in the last of which the opinion was rendered by the present Justice Field of the Supreme Court all three adopting the Common Law rule viz that birth within the realm is conclusive. The question seems never to have been before the Supreme Court of the United States for decision. It has however been incidentally there and in one case, Minor v Happersett, 21 Wall 168 1874, they refused to decide the point and in another The Slaughtcr House Cases, 16 Wall 73 1872, they,by a dictum, construe the clause in direct conflict with the decision of Field J when in the lower court. It is worthy of note that Justice Field dissents in the latter case.

    My advice to TJ McCann is to do some real research and quit inventing his own facts and history.

    • Slartibartfast says:

      RC,

      Beautiful find on the contemporary analysis! I wonder how TJ will explain this? Was Guthrie on Justice Gray’s payroll? Were they both on Soros’ payroll? Does 2 + 2 = badger? Enquiring minds want to know…

    • TJ McCann says:

      The only thing failed to be settled by Minor v Happersett, is if those born on American soil are even citizens, if the parent’s citizenship are not taken into consideration – then there were “doubts”.

      The Waitte court went on to say in did not need to resolve those doubts in regard to this case, because Virginia Minor was indeed a citizen.

      Contrary to your article, the Court did in fact resolve what a natural born citizen was, birth on a country’s soil to parents who were citizens, and indicted regarding this there were “no doubts”.

      Therefore any indication by that article that the court failed to resolve what was a natural born citizen, is either a grossly errant article, or their failure to specify that what that Court failed to resolve was the mere citizenship of those who were born, when there was no consideration given to the citizenship of the parents. Sloppy inaccuracy on the part of an article, does not create lack of any binding precedent on the part of the Minor v Happersett decision.

  14. BrianH says:

    As to the topic question, one can argue that at the time of the founding of this nation, the United States appropriated unto itself that which formerly appertained to England. Thus, English properties became U.S. properties, etc. And most significant to the discussion, English colonists became U.S. citizens. Now, so far as I can tell, there was nothing enacted at the time by which this transference took place. It was just taken to be so. So, for example, the Declaration of Independence refers to “fellow citizens” (plus, as John Woodman and others have discussed, there were statutes and other materials throughout this period in which “subject” and “citizen” were used interchangeably). And as court cases have later discussed, it was largely just a shift in terminology from “subject” to “citizen” reflecting the change of government.

    So the argument can be made that “natural born subjects” who were loyal to the independence effort simply became “natural born citizens,” as all that was English became American. Viewed this way, the “grandfather” clause was not a necessity and more of a “clarification” to avoid the technical argument that “natural born citizen” pertained only to those born after the nation’s creation. (And each of the first nine presidents was born on what would become U.S. soil upon the nation’s founding.).

    So the question posed presents a latent ambiguity. The grandfather clause was “used” insofar as one posits that those first nine would not have been deemed “natural born citizens.” It was not required or used if one makes the counter-argument.

    I’m not aware there is historical evidence to shed much light on this.

    • Slartibartfast says:

      Finally! Someone addressing the topic! Boo-yah!

      To remove the ambiguity (about which you are absolutely right), how about: Would George Washington, et al. have been eligible for the presidency had the grandfather clause been stricken from the Constitution by a hypothetical 0th Amendment? I’m sure this can be stated more elegantly, but I believe this at least removes the ambiguity (and the hypothetical doesn’t disturb the historical record of the Constitutional debate).

      I agree that we have a limited amount of data to work with—The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution (including Amendments 1-10 and 14* and records of the debates), and the lack of any indication (statute, judicial ruling, or record) of any natural born subject of the 13 colonies being somehow naturalized. I believe that if the natural born subjects of the 13 colonies did not become the natural born citizens of the several states as a result of the DoI (and the Revolutionary War), that any alternate flow of citizenship would have left some evidence as people would have needed to be told (the generation who fought the Revolution probably valued their citizenship greatly—if the birthers had arisen in their day they wouldn’t have been a problem… they would have all been killed in duels). The focus on isolated facts and inability to construct a plausible scenario fitting all of those facts is a hallmark of conspiratorial thinking. But I’m not a Soopur Legal Jean-yus like TJ.

      * TJ has been good enough to agree that this was merely declarative of existing law, although he has not, of yet, told us when said law came into existence (if not with the DoI).

      • BrianH says:

        Would George Washington, et al. have been eligible for the presidency had the grandfather clause been stricken from the Constitution by a hypothetical 0th Amendment?

        In that hypothetical, arguing for his eligibility under my “natural born subjects became natural born citizens” suggestion becomes harder to maintain (though I’ll grant it’s a somewhat weak argument to start; just not an implausible one). The amendment (just taking that reality as the only guide with no legislative history, etc.) by removing the one category then suggests that “citizen . . . at the time of the adoption” and “natural born citizen” are completely distinct categories, and thus George wouldn’t qualify under the NBC phrase. Whereas when they are put together originally, there’s more room to argue they are overlapping terms as to those first generations. The order of the phrases may be noteworthy. At the time of drafting, those born after the founding of the nation wouldn’t be eligible for the presidency for another 25 years or so. Why put the NBC phrase first and then the “citizen . . . at the time of the adoption” phrase — which covers those presently eligiible — second? That seems to reverse chronological relevance and suggests perhaps that the second phrase was added to make sure they and theirs weren’t excluded.

        • Slartibartfast says:

          Um… I guess that proves that it doesn’t remove the ambiguity.

          What I want is to ask the question: If the Constitution read:“No person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”, would George Washington have been eligible? I’m not sure what the best hypothetical path to getting there is, but we are assuming that the clause was removed (for whatever reason), but its meaning to the Founders was never in question (i.e. they wanted it out instead of in but they agreed on what it meant).

          Does that completely confuse the matter? :mrgreen:

          • BrianH says:

            That is the question I thought you were originally about to ask, till I got to the hypothetical amendment part. But phrased this way, the ambiguity as to the meaning of “NBC” is still front and center. G.W. would have been eligible if it were understood that the former NBS’s of England were by operation of independence and the new nationhood now “NBC’s.” He would not be eligible if it were understood only persons born since 1776 were NBC’s.

            And, yes, I get the technical argument that one can’t be “natural born” as to a nation not yet existing. But look at this from another, more psychological perspective. This is a generation with deep ties to the land; many of whom had cleared forests and tilled the soil; who claimed property rights as to this land; who spilled their blood in liberty’s cause. Would they not have viewed themselves as “natural born” — having inalienable rights relating to this place from birth? Which would they have most closely identifed themselves: as akin to “natural born subjects” — themselves “natural born citizens?” Or more like foreign immigrants who have since been naturalized? I think clearly it’s the former.

            So I don’t think the argument that — had Article II read as you’ve phrased it about — G.W. would have been clearly ineligible is airtight. Which is why I think the debate question is flawed, as the grandfather clause was “used” or “required” (or not) depending on how one resolves the ambiguity. But resolution of that rests on speculation as to how persons would have understood a Constitution drafted differently than how it actually was.

            • John Woodman says:

              This brings up some interesting thoughts, and interesting question.

              How would the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution have regarded themselves?

              Would they have considered themselves “natural born citizens” of the United States, or not?

              I personally imagine this conversation, which one might have been able to have with pretty much any of the Founders or Framers:

              Questioner: “So do you consider yourself to be a “natural born” member of this community, this nation?

              Framer [stares in disbelief before replying]: “Why, hell, yes. Of course. You see that house over there? That’s where I was born. My mother gave birth to me in front of the fireplace on a cold winter’s day, assisted by the neighbor down the road. I climbed that apple tree every summer day once my chores were done. I have never lived anywhere else but here.”

              Questioner: “So do you consider yourself a ‘natural born subject’ or a ‘natural born citizen’?”

              Framer: “Under the British, we were called ‘subjects.’ Now we are ‘citizens’ of a free country, so yes, I am a ‘natural born citizen’ of North Carolina and of these United States.”

            • John Woodman says:

              So, the next question is: Is the following conversation imaginable:

              Questioner: “So do you consider yourself to be a ‘natural born’ member of this community, this nation?”

              Framer: “Well, I really can’t be a ‘natural born citizen’ of the United States, since the United States did not exist when I was born.”

              Is the question conceivable? Yes. In fact, we have a record of a person who took that position, although he was not among the Framers of the Constitution. His name was David Ramsay. He had a very good and self-interested reason for taking that position, which was that if he could push that doctrine, and get it believed, then he would have been able to get a political opponent, William Loughton Smith, who had beaten him in the election for the US House of Representatives, declared ineligible.

              He even printed his citizenship doctrine, which claimed Smith was ineligible, into a little booklet and had it distributed to members of the House, who were going to have to vote on the matter of Smith’s eligibility.

              And what was the response to Ramsay’s claims and views on citizenship, from his contemporaries (which included Father of the Constitution James Madison and other Founders?) Did they say, well, yeah, Ramsay’s right?

              Not hardly. They rejected Ramsay’s claims a stunning 36 to 1. That’s just about as absolute a rejection as is even possible.

            • TJ McCann says:

              Questioner: “So do you consider yourself to be a ‘natural born’ member of this community, this nation?”

              Framer: “Well, I really can’t be a ‘natural born citizen’ of the United States, since the United States did not exist when I was born.”

              Is the question conceivable? Yes. In fact, we have a record of a person who took that position, although he was not among the Framers of the Constitution. His name was David Ramsay. He had a very good and self-interested reason for taking that position, which was that if he could push that doctrine, and get it believed, then he would have been able to get a political opponent, William Loughton Smith, who had beaten him in the election for the US House of Representatives, declared ineligible.

              How quaint! A conflagration of falsehoods all pointing to the same inaccurate conclusions. It could be said to be “ignorance to an end”, or is it dishonest to an end? I let this drivel sit for 3 days to see if anyone of the sycophant toadies had the intellectual honesty and personal integrity to correct it, but none did.

              Why ever would they be considering natural born citizen regarding the House of Representatives when that consideration is not applied there? In fact, they were not!

              Ramsay was among other things a historian, and his 1789 article indicated who the original citizens were the “original citizens” were, and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. This shows quite clearly that the two-parent requirement is not a fabrication of Donofrio and Apuzzo, and the “birthers”, contrry to what the simpering idiots of this site continually want us to believe.

              In fact Ramsay’s objection to William Loughton Smith’s election was that he has not been citizen of the United States for the “past seven years”, as is required for the House.

              Curiously there is no mention of natural born citzen regarding the House, nor the Senate, which should have been a dead giveaway after Woodman’s claim it involved being a natural born citizen of the United States.

              Woodie, you have to be brain dead to conclate “citizen” for seven years, in regard to the House of Representatives, to natural born citizen, only tied with the Office of President, but nice try.

              Smith lived abroad at the time the country became the United Sates. Yes, they did rule in favor of Smith, indicating that birth is the criterion of allegiance. However Smith, as a result of that birth, like virtually all the nation’s founders, was born on King George’s soil, not America’s, and thereby bound in perpetual allegiance to the Crown as a result of that soil, which is why the Grandfather Clause exists in the first place.

              Furthermore, the decision in Smith’s favor, argued by Madison, was really was not about jus soli at all, but rather jus sanguinis inheritance. because Smith’s birthright was to South Carolina and his ancestors were among the first founders there.

              Conspicuously, the only “birthright” citizenship recognized by Madison at this time, was not from birth on American soil, not jus soli, but rather from birth to parents who were members of this community, jus sanguinis.

              No birthright as a result of being born on American soil is mentioned.

              Claiming this was in any way about natural born is so flat0ut dishonest, that you should remove yourself from the field at this time..

            • John Woodman says:

              TJ,

              Nice try at a straw man argument: Claim that the other guy made some ridiculous claim that he in fact did not make. Then kick the stuffings out of the fake ridiculous argument, and claim you’ve defeated the other guy’s claim.

              “Wow, what a big, smart debater! Look how easily he destroys his opponent’s argument!”

              Only it’s all complete BS. I never claimed that natural born citizenship is required to serve as a US Representative.

              But again, there two kinds of citizenship, and two only. Both kinds — natural born citizenship and naturalized citizenship are mentioned in the Constitution.

              And no other. There is no third kind of citizenship.

              NOBODY ever contended that William Loughton Smith was a naturalized citizen. He was born in America. So either Smith was a natural born citizen, or he was not a citizen at all.

              Now the only alternative to your making a straw-man argument is that you are a complete idiot who doesn’t even understand what I was saying.

              So which is it: Was it a straw-man argument, or are you a complete idiot?

            • Slartibartfast says:

              TJ,

              To make your case, you need to have a third class of citizens in addition to natural born and naturalized—something that is completely missing from the Constitution and the law (with the possible exception of Rogers v. Bellei which doesn’t help you a single bit as the exception is irrelevant to President Obama ). No Article, no Amendment, no statute, no ruling*, no record, no evidence that TJ and his birther buddies haven’t made it up out of whole cloth. Sorry, but once again, you lose—just like your ideas will lose each and every time they are tried out in a court of law.

              *well, there is one: the Dred Scott decision, but you’re not going to get very far saying that the majority opinion in Dred Scott is still good precedent.

            • John Woodman says:

              Would now be a good time to note that — just as Scott v Sandford was thoroughly overthrown and trashed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Minor v Happersett was totally, thoroughly overthrown and trashed by the 19th Amendment to the Constitution?

              Beats me how these idiot birthers think decisions that were annihilated by amending the Constitution could even serve as “binding precedents” today.

            • gorefan says:

              TJ

              “Ramsay was among other things a historian, and his 1789 article indicated who the original citizens were the “original citizens” were, and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. ”

              Can you cite the passage of Dr. Ramsay’s dissertation where he uses the term “natural born citizen”? I cannot find it.

            • ballantine says:

              Well, TJ has repeated all the other pathetic claims so it isn’t surprising he would bring up Ramsey, a sore loser who tried to overturn his lost election with a paper ignored by everyone and never cited by anyone. No serious person would cite Ramsey as authority and no one ever has,

              Even more pathetic, Madison’s words are clear as can be. He stated there were two rules, jus soli and jus sanguinis and stated as clear as can be that we followed jus soli. To try to twist his words to say the opposite of what he said simply show what you are.
              He said one owed “allegiance to the particular community in which he was born” and in English such is not sanguinis.

              “Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States;”

              In the English language there is no dispute what this means. At this point it is just clear you are either stupid or dishonest. I thinking stupid at this point.

        • TJ McCann says:

          What I indicated was that the 14th was intended to only be declarative of existing law, creating no new citizenship, nor citizenship means.

          However refersing that does not mean that the distortion of the 14th means that it was still declarative of what the law had been.

          If the existing law really had been that all those born on American soil (exclusive of Ambassadors) were American citizens, then so many in the congressional debates would not have had to exhibit astonishment that it would make citizen children of alien parents, and there would not be laws, and Supreme Court rulings specifically indicating otherwise of those offspring of alien parents.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            Just keep chumming the water TJ…

            I’ll stop by to pick up any bits that are left later…

          • John Woodman says:

            Wrong again, TJ, old chum.

            The sponsors of both the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 were very clear in their understanding and in their statement — see especially statements by Senator Trumbull, but I’m not going to look them up for you — that he understood that THESE MEASURES WERE MERELY A DECLARATION OF THE LAW AS IT ALREADY WAS.

            • TJ McCann says:

              Nonsense. There was no universal recognition of citizenship terms. George Mason recognized this as far back as in the Constitutional Convention:

              George Mason believed that, since citizenship criteria varied widely among states, mere citizenship alone might not adequately protect against foreign influence:

              The states have formed different qualifications themselves for enjoying different rights of citizenship. Greater caution would be necessary in the outset of the government than afterwards. … If persons among us attached to Great Britain should work themselves into our councils, a turn might be given to our affairs, and particularly our commercial regulations, which might have pernicious consequences. The great houses of British merchants would spare no pains to insinuate the instruments of their views into the government. (Elliot, p.413-414)

              Some states, like South Carolina, had not really drafted any citizenship laws. Sme states such as Virginia, had jus soli laws, provided there was an sworn allegiance to the state. In the absence of state citizenship laws, federal (United States) citizenship is conferred only to persons born in the United States, of parents who are U.S. citizens.

              There was no “Law as it already was” and declaring there was such is grossly inaccurate.

            • Northland10 says:

              Again TJ, you make the claim and provide no citation. Since you have been asked to provide authority to your claim yet you provide none while making the same claim, I can only assume that you know there is no authority. This is dishonest and unethical .

            • Suranis says:

              Good thing the Majotity of the states had Just sanguinius laws eh? Which ones were they again, TJ old chap?

            • TJ McCann says:

              That’s fine…. declaratory of the law as it already was.

              But that law did not award ipso facto citizenship to those born on American soil, and those 1888 Civil Rights Act and 14th Amendment, they BOTH were interpreted for THIRTY YEARS in the law “declaratory as it already was” , with these both even preceded by Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised, which agreed with this conclusion, and followed by cases such as Elk and Slaughterhouse, which not only agree but also demonstrate that considerations of Ambassadors, Indians, and Aliens are excluded from citizenship by the same principle.

              Only by Wong Kim Ark did a minority of this country attempt to distort our history, and the founder’s intent so as resubmit us to British Feudal laws and corrupt our government.

            • Ballantine says:

              See, if you want ot make statements that jus soli wasn’t the law prior to 1866 you have to actually cite some authority that says that and, unfortunately, all legal scholars of any significance, all statements from our attorney generals and secretary of states and all court cases on the subject prior to 1866 said you are wrong. You have simply created your own reality disconnected in all respects with actual history.

              And no, not everyone interpreted the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment for 30 years following adoption according to you. Justice Swayne made the only judicial interpretation of the Civil Rights Act in 1866 and said it was declaratory of the common law and jus soli. In fact, the majority of post-Amendment authority, including multiple debates in Congress and authority such as IN RE LOOK TIN 200. Circuit Court of the U. S. 2d Circuit, (1873) or Mackay v. Campbell 16 F.Cas. 161, 167 (D.C.SING, 21 F. 905, 907 (C. C. Cal. 1884), The United States v. Susan B. Anthony, 11 Blatohford, Or. (1871).; James Kent, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Commentaries on American Law, (1873) and Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, By United States Dept. of State, pg. 1192 (1873) clearly support the jus soli interpretation though it is true that there were contrary opinions in the decade before Wong Kim Ark. Your side lost.

              Again, to claim Elk supports you at this point, when it has been pointed out that such case says nothing about children of aliens and in no ways say they owe a foreign allegiance, and was written by Justice Gray himself, simply shows you are dishonest. Before, we might think you are ignorant, but you no longer have such excuse. I guess all you have is unsupported obiter dicta in Slaughterhouse, known as one of the worse cases in history, that was trashed in holding by the Court in Wong Kim Ark. Whatever Justice Miller was thinking, no one in the 14th Amendment Congress supported his dicta and the majority of the Court expressly rejected it in holding. No one who understands law would ever cite such a case. Sorry you can’t face reality.

            • John Woodman says:

              Ballantine is quite correct.

              As usual.

              And please — if you want to avoid facepalms — it was the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Not the Civil Rights Act of 1888.

            • Ballantine says:

              Some states, like South Carolina, had not really drafted any citizenship laws. Sme states such as Virginia, had jus soli laws, provided there was an sworn allegiance to the state. In the absence of state citizenship laws, federal (United States) citizenship is conferred only to persons born in the United States, of parents who are U.S. citizens.

              I didn’t see this before. It is utter gibberish. Again, why would you say something you have no authority to support? Virginia had plain jus soli. No sworn allegiance to the state was required for the native born. Here was the statute in place when the Constitution was adopted:

              “Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That all free persons, born within the territory of this commonwealth; all persons not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under the act intituled “An act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth;” and also all children wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner herein after mentioned; and that all persons, other than alien enemies, who shall migrate into this state, and shall before some court of record give satisfactory proof by oath (or being quakers or menonists, by affirmation) that they intend to reside therein, and also take the legal oath, or affirmation, for giving assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth (which oaths, or affirmations, the clerk of the court shall enter on recorded, and give a certificate thereof to the person taking the same, for which he shall receive the fee of one dollar) shall be entitled to all the rights, privileges, and advantages of citizens, except that they shall not be capable of election or appointment to any office, legislative, executive, or judiciary, until an actual residence in the state of two years from the time of taking such oaths, or affirmations, as aforesaid, nor until they shall have evinced a permanent attachment to the state, by having intermarried with a citizen of this commonwealth, or a citizen of any other of the United States, or purchased lands to the value of one hundred pounds therein.”

              Again, no problem for people who understand English. The other states adopted the common law until changed by statute and no state changed the jus soli rule for more than a half century in any manner. I suggest you look at the case law of the time which, without exception looked to the common law. Do you have even a single authority to the contrary? Of course not.

            • John Woodman says:

              Thanks for catching that.

              TJ spews such a large quantity of unsupported nonsense, representing his own opinions as “fact,” that it’s almost hard to catch it all.

    • Suranis says:

      An on topic post!?!?!?!

      INFIDEL!!!

      • Slartibartfast says:

        Hush up Suranis, you’ll scare him off…

        Brian,

        Don’t mind the Irishman—he just came to catch some birthers cherry picking and chew some bubblegum… and he’s all out of bubblegum.

    • gorefan says:

      Between the time Jay wrote his letter and the addition of the grandfather clause, there was a debate over making it a requirement that senators must be native born. James Wilson who was born in Scotland, argued that this was unfair to people like himself.

      “Mr. WILSON said he rose with feelings which were perhaps peculiar; mentioning the circumstance of his not being a native, and the possibility, if the ideas of some gentlemen should be pursued, of his being incapacitated from holding a place under the very Constitution, which he had shared in the trust of making. He remarked the illiberal complexion which the motion would give to the System, & the effect which a good system would have in inviting meritorious foreigners among us, and the discouragement & mortification they must feel from the degrading discrimination, now proposed. He had himself experienced this mortification. On his removal into Maryland, he found himself, from defect of residence, under certain legal incapacities which never ceased to produce chagrin, though he assuredly did not desire & would not have accepted the offices to which they related. To be appointed to a place may be matter of indifference. To be incapable of being appointed, is a circumstance grating and mortifying. “ August 9, 1787, Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention.

      The combination of the NBC clause and the grandfather clause could be the influence of Jay’s latter and a desire to accomodate people like Wilson, Hamilton and the half dozen other delegates who were not native/natural born (including Robert Morris the only guy to score the hat trick – he signed the D of I, the Art. of Confed. and the Constitution).

      BTW, in the debate over ratification of the Constitution in New York, it was proposed to add several amendments to the Constitution. One of these proposed the addition of a council to advise the President,

      “Resolved, as the opinion of this committee, that the Congress should appoint, in such manner as they may think proper, a council to advise the President … and that no man should be elected a counsellor who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and who is not either a natural-born citizen, or has not become a citizen before the 4th day of July, 1776. July 5, 1788

      There were citizens in the country before July 4th, 1776?

      • Slartibartfast says:

        gorefan said: “There were citizens in the country before July 4th, 1776?”

        That’s certainly my contention—thanks for supporting it! ;-)

      • John Woodman says:

        Obviously in the opinion of that body, there were citizens prior to July 4, 1776.

        Now if that is really true, then there were also natural born citizens prior to July 4, 1776.

    • Scientist says:

      They had to have considered the territory occupied by the US to have been the US even before the country existed. Why do I say this? Because of the requirement for 14 years residency. When Washington took office in 1789, the US was at most <13 years old, even if you count the earliest date of July 1776 (and much younger if you count the British surrender in 1781 or the adoption of the Constitution in 1788). Note that the grandfather clause does not supercede the residency requirement. So, I would say that they considered anyone born within what later became the US to be a natural born citizen.

      My understanding is that the grandfather clause was largely for the benefit of Alexander Hamilton, who had been born in the West Indies, and who would almost certainly have become President if not for that unfortunate encounter with Aaron Burr.

  15. Slartibartfast says:

    TJ said:

    Slarti

    “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

    I am really astonished that I even have to explain this to you, or anyone for that matter.

    Personally, I’m astonished that you keep up your bald faced lies even after they are repeatedly debunked.

    You have not “PROVED” me wrong at all; you have only DEMONSTRATED the limit of your grasp.

    Do tell…

    The child of an alien if born in the country, , is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen

    Here Binnery recognizes that the child born of a alien, if a citizen, is as much a citizen, is as much a citizen as the the natural born child of a citizen.

    You might notice the work I emphasized: “descend”—what do you think that means in context? I think it means that citizenship is not inherited from the parents—something that pretty much nips birtherism in the bud…

    What Binney is comparing is the citizenship quality of both cases. Both are citizens. The United States only recognizes in law and equity, one type of citizen – citizen.

    No, they have both kinds: country and western. Wait a sec… I mean naturalized and natural born. You still haven’t told us where you are getting the third class of citizen your theory requires—perhaps you can just stipulate that it was pulled from your backside and we can move on…

    We do not have any laws recognizing natural born citizens receiving ANY, right that citizens do not.

    Um… “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;” It kind of seems like we do…

    Maybe I should cut you some slack, after all, it’s not like this quote is at the top of this pag… um… er… never mind.

    Binney is saying they are both equally “citizens”, and they are.

    Yes, they are—but under your interpretation they wouldn’t be.

    Curiously (actually not), Binney only attaches natural born in association with the child whose parent is a citizen.

    If you look at the context of the Binney quote (which was in a previous post of mine), it is quite obvious that Binney believes that the children of aliens are natural born in both England and the US. Given that greater context, your theory requires him to change his position in the space of a paragraph—do you really expect anyone to swallow that pile of crap?

    This is not just the matter of a hypothetical scenario where the child of the alien parent just does not happen to be a natural born, but is stating that the natural born status of the offspring is tied with the citizenship of the parent.

    Actually, look at the quote above—he explicitly says that natural born status does not descend from the parents. Are you ever going to learn that cherry picking just makes you look like a moron when someone digs up the context? I’m guessing not…

    This severely undermines the contention that Citizenship of the parents does not matter for natural born citizen status of their offspring… in this country.

    Absolutely—in Bizzaro World.

    If citizen A can grow up to be president and citizen B can’t we’ve got a problem—and not just that both are different ways of looking at President Obama—the right (or privilege) of being eligible for the presidency is, after all, a right or privilege of citizenship and, as such, we can’t say that citizen B is as much a citizen as citizen A if citizen A has a right that citizen B does not.

    Your major flaw of understanding is you clinging to an egalitarian belief that is nowhere applied to opportunity to be President, but is taught in elementary school to young children.

    Since Ob*ts (I’m using asterisks for the “dirty” words like you asked, John :mrgreen: ) have dug up literally hundreds of civics texts that say anyone born here can grow up to be the president and birthers have come up with exactly zero that say otherwise (not to mention the overwhelming legal and scholarly evidence…), I’m thinking that the flaw in your reasoning is that you believe your own bovine waste.

    Being eligible for the office of Presidnet is neither A RIGHT , nor privilege of citizenship.

    Really? Let’s see what the dictionary says…

    Right: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way

    So a legal entitlement to hold the office of POTUS (or run for the office of POTUS) would seem to qualify…

    Privilege: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people

    That seems to apply as well. I guess you are just wrong. Again. Sorry, but if you think this debate is going well for you then you are pitifully unaware.

    It’s not even a right for those who are citizens, but not by naturalization. They’re citizens too , aren’t they?

    Correct—presidential eligibility is a right which attaches to some citizens and not others. It is why a natural born citizen is more of a citizen than a naturalized citizen—she is a member of a privileged group.

    “Rights” are those things which one can do on one’s own, and certaintly do not involve any obligation from others to enact those rights. “Rights” have nothing whatsoever to do with opportunity to hold an office, particularly not the office of President.

    I wish, just for a moment, you could understand just how much of an idiot you sound like. You clearly don’t understand even the simplest legal terms and principles.

    In fact the singularly powerful mandate of Article II demands that “NO PERSON except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of President”, indicating it is anything BUT an egalitarian right extended to all citizens.

    It is egalitarian—just not inclusive. All persons born under the jurisdiction are included—so the poor, the tired, the huddled masses yearning to be free can come here (like the Jindal’s*) and their child can grow up to be president. Just the sort of egalitarian principle on which one might build a nation of immigrants… (incidentally, your bigotry against immigrants comes through loud and clear).

    * Although Bobby probably blew his shot with a really bad speech…

    Article II does not merely exclude naturalized citizens, it does not merely exclude born citizens, but also excludes those having become citizens despite being born overseas (by terms you yourself recognize).

    There seems to be honest disagreement regarding children of citizens born overseas (unlike children of aliens born on US soil), but I think the question is moot as no court will ever rule someone like John McCain ineligible—nor will their opponents try to use it against them (unless they are incredibly stupid—so I guess you might).

    What of their “rights”, if there is a right to be President? The fact is there is no such “right” to be President, and this only requires a High School level education to recognize, but it does require leaving behind Elementary School levels of thought behind.

    Eligibility to be POTUS is a right of natural born citizens. How can you possibly be daft enough not to understand that?

    I could direct you to a highly reputed constitutional attorney’s discussion of the fact that citizens do not even have the right to vote for a constitutionally ineligible candidate,

    People have the right to vote for whomever they want to—but, if such a candidate won, their opponent would have standing to challenge in court (and they would win), their slate of electors could be challenged (likely successfully) and a single Senator and Representative could challenge the certification of the electoral vote (which hasn’t been done in almost 8 years, by the way…). There is no evidence that an ineligible candidate could get through all of these checks—even if they had an opponent stupid enough not to use their ineligibility against them.

    but rather a constitutional obligation to not vote for them, however this discussion would be well beyond your pay grand.

    It’s “pay gradE” you twit. You know, I may know the least about the law of any of the Ob*ts (and John) here, but you make me look like a peer of the greatest justices ever to sit on the SCOTUS.

    Slarti wrote:

    , and by operation of the same principle.

    Well, we already know the outcome, but I’m a sucker for some denouement… So, both citizen A and citizen B are citizens for the same reason. Well, this must mean that the reason for their citizenship is a trait they share in common. The thing is, one is born of a citizen parent and one is born as an alien parent—so that can’t be the reason for either of their citizenship… Wait a sec! They were both born in Hawai’i!

    This is only your assumption of what Binney means by “and by operation of the same principle”, or a highly prejudicial interpretation of Binney’s statement based upon your own bias.

    Actually, if you go to Binney’s essay that was quoted in WKA, it is clear that the principle is jus soli citizenship. Unless, of course, you’ve got enough cognitive dissonance in your head to completely scramble your reason… Oh. Never mind.

    In point of fact, Binney does not anywhere indicate, nor imply, what that “same principle” might be.

    Except that he did and I quoted it above. Idiot.

    However it might easily be interpreted that the “same principle” evidently does not involve the “same details of birth”. In fact the only details of birth Binney inserts is that, in one case the parents are alien and the child is only a citizen, evidently not natural born,

    Actually, in context he makes it clear that children born of aliens in the country are natural born.

    and in the other case the parent is a citizen and the child is natural born.

    ALSO.

    This seems to compellingly indicate, by the terms which Binney indicated as relevant to his comment, that natural born status involves consideration of the parent’s citizenship status.

    Unless, of course, you read the paragraph from which the quote is taken—in which case you are shown to be completely full of sh*t.

    I don’t presume to indicate with certainty what that “same principle” might be,

    Because you are too stupid, willfully ignorant, and dishonest to admit that it is jus soli.

    and Binney himself did not deem it important enough to clarify.

    Since he had already done so earlier in the paragraph…

    However “the same principle” might mean that both the natural born, and non-natural born child are recognized as citizens, so by the “same principle of citizenship”, they each as much citizen as the other.

    I think I’ll go with Forrest Gump on this one—stupid is as stupid does. You’ve shown yourself to be pretty stupid here.

    There is absolutely ZERO support for your biased conclusion founded only in your elementary school belief that ability to be President one day is a right,

    Repeating a statement that you can in no way support doesn’t make it any more true.

    thereby making your “Proof” that I was wrong, itself wrong. So I guess “it sucks to be you”, but good luck completing High School.

    Thanks, but since getting my high school diploma I’ve gotten a bachelor’s, two master’s and a phd—I think that’s plenty. You, on the other hand, whatever your qualifications in other fields might be, have chosen to flaunt your ignorance on a subject of which you have no expertise nor understanding.

    What a maroon.

  16. Slartibartfast says:

    TJ,

    Exactly what sort of citizen was Wong Kim Ark?

  17. Slartibartfast says:

    John

    Of course it doesn’t look that way to you, as you suffer from the same problem he has of being incapable of parsing those quotes in context,

    Projection.

    of being unable to discern the difference of terms like “citizen and subject”

    Wishful thinking.

    (despite this country being founded upon that difference), and “native (one who is wholly native) and native born”.

    Rectal pull.

    I had to spend a series of emails demonstrating to you that it was Gray himself that recognize an “act of Congress” included Amendments as naturalization despite the quote being there before you.

    Doubling down on idiocy.

    And that list? Howard, Trumbull, Binney, and a half dozen Supreme Court across this nation’s history, all stand in my court.

    Provided your court is purely delusional—every US court including SCOTUS stands with us—as do all of the men you mention and many, many more.

    Even Gray has had to contract[sic] himself in Elk v Wilkins

    He could not have contradicted himself—he would have overturned his previous judgement, but if you understood why Mr. Elk was different that Mr. Wong (hint: one was an Injun and one was a Chinee), you would know that he didn’t even do that. To not stipulate that Mr. Elk was Native American and that it was a significant fact due to the law at the time is incredibly dishonest—in other words, par for the course for a birther like yourself.

    and only ruled Won Kim Ark a citizen (never said natural born)

    He ruled him “natural born” and “a citizen” and anyone with a 3rd grade reading level would understand from his writing what he meant, but for someone claiming to be a lee-gull sooper-duper jean-yus to not admit that he could not have been naturalized (due to the Chinese Exclusion Act) and refuse to explain how he has created a third class of citizen which is no where mentioned in the Constitution or judicial rulings is nothing short of contemptible.

    as a result of his parents having established permanent resident and business in the country.

    Sorry dude, but “domiciled” is dicta—it is not needed to arrive at the holding. Idiot.

    He also could not have done so without the Birlingame-Seward Treaty, which allowed Chinese with permanent resident in the U.S. to give of allegiance to expatriate.

    Now you’re just spewing gibberish…

    The problem is that you and Ballantine lack discernment,

    Serious projection.

    which when coupled with a pronounced difficulty in recognizing fundamental terms

    WARNING! WARNING! Irony level increasing to dangerous levels!

    and distinguishing nuanced use of their application, results in difficulty recognizing the impact of those quotations provided in the context of their actual usage.

    Okay guys, serious question: Which is stronger in TJ: the arrogance, the ignorance, or the idiocy?

    In regard to quotes by Howard and Trumbull, those quotes with specified and detailed subject discussion do trump those quotes that are generalized and non-specified,

    Ah, you mean the quotes with the context that show your interpretations to be completely wrong…

    which you two seem to invariably glom onto, failing to understand their context.

    And all of the irony meters suddenly explode

    • John Woodman says:

      Wow.

      Rectal pull.

      Have you ever noticed that TJ here makes bald assertions of what United States law supposedly is:

      “being unable to discern the difference of terms like “citizen and subject” (despite this country being founded upon that difference), and “native (one who is wholly native) and native born”.

      …and completely fails to cite any authority that supports his position?

      In this case, his position is that there is some huge distinction between the terms “native” and “native born.”

      And what’s his authority for making that claim? You’re right. He pulled it right out of thin air, or elsewhere. Because he certainly didn’t get it from any solid, credible, contextually-accurate, identifiable evidence.

      In other words, it’s his opinion.

      Unbacked by any authority whatsoever, except that TJ has (supposedly) Superior Legal Acumen (TM).

      And then — when faced with numerous real, genuine, historical and legal authorities that directly and flatly contradict his claim — including known and recognized legal experts, United States Senators, and US Supreme Court Justices — he says that he’s smarter than they are.

      • John Woodman says:

        By the way, this is the perfect formula for completely insulating oneself from any possibility of becoming any smarter:

        1. “I am a genius; therefore, my opinion is correct.”

        2. “I didn’t come here to learn anything. And if others have extensively researched and written on the topic, I can safely ignore whatever they have written, and go ahead and pronounce that they are wrong without even having read their analysis.”

        3. “Whoever disagrees with me is a blithering idiot. And if a lot of people disagree with me, then they are all, necessarily, blithering idiots.”

        4. “My opinions don’t require any justification or sources, outside of my own rationalization.

        Because I’m right.”

        5. “When a long list of authorities, most or all of whom have literally decades more experience in the subject than I do, flatly contradict me, it is not because I might be wrong. It is because I am smarter than all of the authorities are, and they are all wrong.”

        It’s perfect.

        No real evidence is required for TJ to justify his position. He already knows he’s right.

        And it doesn’t matter what the evidence on the other side is. It doesn’t matter how strong that evidence is. And it doesn’t matter how much of it there is.

        Because it doesn’t match what TJ already knows to be correct.

        So therefore, it’s the evidence that is wrong, and not his theory.

        Given those parameters, there’s no pathway by which TJ can be convinced of anything, other than his own cherished opinion.

        Because TJ’s opinion is so darn good it has no need of any real supporting evidence.

        And any and all evidence, any and all facts, any and all reality, that contradicts TJ… is just… “wrong.”

      • Northland10 says:

        And what’s his authority for making that claim? You’re right. He pulled it right out of thin air, or elsewhere. Because he certainly didn’t get it from any solid, credible, contextually-accurate, identifiable evidence.

        In other words, it’s his opinion.

        TJ keeps trying to tell Ballentine that Howard, Trumbell, et al, that they agree with TJ or Ballentine is pulling it out out of context, but TJ never provides any authority for this. I do recall him saying at some point that he is using some sort of “limited context.” Sounds to me he is installing his own context to make it say what he wants it to say.

        In other words, he uses his opinion as the context.

        • TJ McCann says:

          No, i do not use “opinion” as conext, nor do I cherry pick the quotes.

          The fact is generalized comments from Trumbull and Howard are quite obviously trumped by the specific and narrowly applied comments about “full alleigance” and owing no allegiance to any other country. It should be obvious that a generalized comment does not trump specified comments.

          Not only is the true, but the substance of these comments is, as I present them, fully supported by other legislation of the time, the Supreme Court opinions in Slaughterhouse and Elk v Wilkins, the ruling by the Attorney General, and also the joint statement made by Congress that the United States have never recognized dual allegiance, in addition to those specified comments by Trumbull and Howard.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            TJ,

            Claiming to understand what is said in Elk v. Wilkins without understanding the context of the legal status of Native Americans at the time is asinine. Cherry picking (taking quotes out of their native context in order to distort their meaning—something you have quite the penchant for doing) is a logical fallacy and has no place in an honest debate (something, by the way, that you seem incapable or unwilling to participate in).

        • Ballantine says:

          More gibberish. Unambiguous statements expressly stating the children of aliens are citizens, that everyone is included but children of ambassadors, that natural born subject and citizen mean the same thing trump your ambiguous statements about “full alleigance” and “owing no allegiance to any other country” that were made with respect to indians deemed born in a quisi foreign country. So you think Trumbull and Gray in Elk wanted to exclude persons owing allegiance to a foreign country. Now you need to show they thought children of aliens owed allegiance to a foreign country and you cannot as they both would say elsewhere one owed allegiance to the country of his birth and that children of aliens were citizens. After all the unambiguous quotes that I cited you particularly about Trumbull, you are showing yourself to simply be a dishonest person.

          Do you think anyone in England thought someone born on their soil other than a child of an ambassador owed a foreign allegiance. Of course not, the native born owed allegiance solely to England, and any foreign nation trying to claim such allegiance might have a war on their hands. England didn’t care about the laws of other nations and no one thought jus sanguinis was some rule of universal law as anyone born outside of England was an alien unless naturalized. Now, if you want to argue the law was different here you need to cite authority showing that people thought children of aliens owed a foreign allegiance and unsupported dicta in Slaughterhouse and the opinion of one attorney general, both of which were overruled in WKA is very little argument. Why not cite some other attorney generals and scholars such as the ones before 1866 that would have influenced the members of the 39th Congress:

          The 4th section of the act of April 14, 1802 (Rev. Stat., § 2172) (making children of naturalized persons citizens, and extending citizenship to children born abroad to citizens), “is only a municipal law, and can have no effect beyond the jurisdiction of this country, and especially in Holland, if it should be in conflict with the local law of that country. If, therefore, Johannes (whose citizenship was contested) voluntarily placed himself within Dutch jurisdiction, his rights and his obligations must be measured by the laws of Holland and not by the laws of the United States.” Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wendell, Sept. 7,1854. MSS. Doni. Let.

          “Although, in general, it is not the duty of the Secretary of State to express opinions of law, and doubts may be entertained of the expedience of making an answer to your inquiries an exception to this rule, yet, I am under the impression that every person born in the United States must be considered a citizen of the United States, notwithstanding one or both of his parents may have been alien, at the time of its birth.” Secretary of State Marcy, 1854.

          Attorney General Black, in 1859, held that “a free white person born in this country of foreign parents is a citizen of the United States.” 9 Ops. Atty. Gen. 373.

          “The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is, in fact, made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. …As far as I know, Mr. Secretary, you and I have no better title to the citizenship which we enjoy than ” the accident of birth” —the fact that we happened to be born in the United States. And our Constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic. If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the ” natural born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance. That nativity furnishes the rule, both of duty and of right, as between the individual and the government, is a historical and political truth so old and so universally accepted that it is needless to prove it by authority.” Attorney General Bates, Opinion of Citizenship, (1862)

          “If, therefore, by the laws of the country of their birth, children of American citizens born in that country are subjects of its government, I do not think that it is competent to the United States, by any legislation, to interfere with that relation or, by undertaking to extend to them the rights of citizens of this country, to interfere with the allegiance which they may owe to the country of their birth while they continue within its territory, or to change the relation to other foreign nations which, by reason of their place of birth, may at any time exist. The rule of the common law I understand to be that a person “born in a strange country, under the obedience of a strange prince or country, is an alien” (Co.Lit. 128b), and that every person owes allegiance to the country of his birth.” Attorney General Hoar, 1869.

      • TJ McCann says:

        The French of Vattel supports that position, the use of indigenous (indigenes – those who are indigenous) alongside “natives” (those who are native) support this position.. .and a fundamental grasp of the applied and nuanced use of the English language over its entire history support this position! Vattel didn’t just write “natives AND indigenes” but rather “natives ou (OR) indigenes”, indicating that natives are the same thing as indigenous people. One being born on a country’s soil obviously does not result in an indigenous offspring.

        Your utter failure in context is a result of your repeated, pronounced inability to grasp that nuanced application, much less consider that context! Your entire 300 pages of brain-numb soliloquy are rife with these errors.

        • Suranis says:

          So why did the court in Venus Write “Native or Indignes” rather than “Native or Natural born” 30 years after your perfect translation of Vattel was published if everyone knew what that meant and it was just 40 years since the founding?

          And since we are talking about the native french, which youa re suddenly an expert in, lets point out that Vattel did not write Parents. He wrote “Parens.” Parens in 18th century french meant “Blood relatives.” That means that a proper translation would be “…from Blood Relatives who are citizens.” not “from Parents who are citizens” Its not my fault that Birthers saw a T that wasn’t there.

          So lemme think. Did Barack Obama have blood relatives who were citizens…

        • Ballantine says:

          Is this supposed to make sense? Seriously, you are rambling. Simply put, you cannot show a single framer, or indeed a single legal authority prior to the Civil War that connected the term natural born citizen to Vattel. Such authority simply does not exist. And, as I have shown, no one in the 14th Amendment Congress supported his definition either.

        • Slartibartfast says:

          TJ,

          Why should the naive opinion of someone who has already demonstrated an inability to understand the difference between holding and dicta, someone who doesn’t understand that an Amendment is a part of the Constitution (in fact, every Amendment is superior to everything that came before it), be given any credence whatsoever? While all of the available evidence suggests that we adopted the rule descending from Calvin’s case rather than Vattel, I would point out that even if we used Vattel’s rule, President Obama would still be eligible. Vattel used the word “parens”—which translates to “ancestors” rather than “parents”*. President Obama was born on the soil of US ancestors. Whether you go to Vattel or Coke (like just about everyone in this whole freaking hemisphere!), the answer is the same: President Obama is a natural born citizen by virtue of being indigenous to the United States.

          * you can find support for this statement here.

          • Suranis says:

            I didn’t actually think of Blood relitives = ancestors, but it makes perfect sense when you think about it

        • Northland10 says:

          Apparently, TJ, you were never taught when you go to someone’s house or event, it is considered extremely rude to insult and disrespect the host. Character includes being civil even when you disagree, especially to him who is nice enough to let us play here.

        • John Woodman says:

          The French of Vattel supports that position, the use of indigenous (indigenes – those who are indigenous) alongside “natives” (those who are native) support this position.. .and a fundamental grasp of the applied and nuanced use of the English language over its entire history support this position!

          TJ’s point here was that “the French of Vattel” supports his claim that there’s some huge distinction between “native” and “natural born citizen.”

          I’m sorry, but the last time I checked, the meaning of English-language words and phrases like “native” and “natural born” was not defined by obscure paragraphs in 18th-century books written by some Swiss philosopher. Particularly when absolutely no historical relationship between that philosopher’s passage and the phrase “natural born citizen” exists at all prior to the usage of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution, and when the only translation of one of his (French) words can’t be reasonably linked to the US Constitution, either.

          I mean, really. WHAT has this guy been smoking?

          • John Woodman says:

            Oh: I should add that the historical record, that the words “native” and “natural born citizen” were often used entirely synonymously, is perfectly clear.

            I could meticulously document this, but one only has to do a google advanced books search on, say, the period of the late 1700s and early 1800s, to verify the fact.

  18. @ BrianH

    My compliments for your posts at Apuzzo’s blog. I notice he has been promising for a month to post the latest news on the Pupura case and has yet to post a copy of the denial order on September 5th, which I obtained a few days later from the court. He mentioned the denial briefly in a comment but has barely mentioned the case since. The comments have dried up there since most of us left.

    • BrianH says:

      Thanks, R.C.

      Were it not for a comment Andy made about the denial of cert. that I barely caught skimming through the postings, I would have thought the appeal still pending. There was but one terse comment by Mario and total silence by the rest of his minions. They all just kept “proceeding forward” as if nothing had happened.

  19. I have not read all of TJ McCann’s comments but has he addressed the fact that every judge who has been presented with the proposal that a natural born citizen must be born of two citizen parents has said “WTF? Really, judges have used terms like “without legal merit” and “frivolous” to describe the theory. Why? Because it is silly and was invented by a crackpot attorney whose career as a litigator is nonexistent. I recently reread the entire Ankeny decision from Indiana. It is amazingly well written and compelling. It is easy to see why judges in 2012 are citing it in the ballot challenge cases.

    • BrianH says:

      And “WTF” would be a suitable acronym for “what total fallaciousness” or “witness this folly” or “wingnvtvm tvrpis flatvs” (smelly wingnut bombast).

      Ya have to love how they can then in the next breath proclaim that none of the cases have dealt with the “two citizen parent” argument on the merits. (And what, pray tell, was that opinion in Ankeny talking about?)

      I’m just sort of killing time here waiting for Mario to release my latest post from moderation. I love how he often keeps it hung up there to first give himself time to deliver the requisite ad hominem.

    • TJ McCann says:

      You mean lower court judges… not Supreme Court judges.

      Ever time the Supreme Court has spoken on the issue, a half dozen doing so directly over this country’s history, their recognition has invariably involved recognition of the parent’s citizenship, even Wong Kim Ark, which did not undermine the precedent from Minor v Happersett in any way.

      The fact is this country’s primary motivation for its foundation was to indicate that we were NOT subjects, and not subject to Britains perpetual allegiance compelled by the mandate of the Crown, which is the authority from where mere birth on the soil originates from!

      • gorefan says:

        Explain the following:

        In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

        In February, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”

        In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.

        In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

        In May, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

        In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

        In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

        In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”

        In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”

        In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”

        In June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

        In March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

        In March, 1791, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

        • Ballantine says:

          Or how about this:

          Proposed Consitution Amendment, Massachusetts Legislature, June 29, 1798, reported in Acts and laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, prg. 211 (1897)
          RESOLVE REQUESTING THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDING, THAT NONE BUT NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS BE ELIGIBLE TO CERTAIN OFFICES.
          Whereas it is highly expedient, that every constitutional harrier should be opposed to the Introduction of Foreign Influence, into our National Councils, & that ye Constitution of ye United States should be so amended as to effect and Secure in ye best manner ye great objects for which it was designed: Resolved that the Senators & Representatives of this Commonwealth in the Congress of the United States, be, and they hereby are requested to use their best endeavours, that Congress propose to the Legislatures of the several States, the following amendment to the Constitution of the United States, viz. “That (in addition to the other qualifications prescribed by said Constitution) no person *hall be eligible as President or Vice President of ye United States nor shall any person he a Senator or Representative in ye Congress of ye United States except a natural born Citizen ; or unless he shall have been a Resident in the United States at ye time of ye declaration of Independence, and shall have continued either to reside within the same, or to be employed in its service from that period to ye time of his election.”

          No, of course, no one thought “citizen” and “subject” meant the same thing excpet most of our scholars, court, legislature etc. For example:

          The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ‘subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.” State v. Manuel 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838)

          “And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land…” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1836)

          “In my opinion it is a great error, and the fruitful parent of errors, to suppose that citizens belong exclusively to republican forms of government. English subjects are as truly citizens as we are, and we are as truly subjects as they are. Imperial France (following imperial Rome) in the text of her laws calls her people citizens.—(Les Codes Francais, book 1, tit. 1, ch. 1, and notes.) And we have a treaty with the present Emperor of the French, stipulating for reciprocal rights in favor of the citizens of the two countries, respectively.—(10 Stat., p. 996, art. 7.) It is an error to suppose that citizenship is ever hereditary. It never “passes by descent.” It is as original in the child as it was in his parents. It is always either born with him or given to him directly by law. Attorney General Bates, Opinion of Citizenship, (1862)

          “The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.” Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)

          “It requires all senators to be thirty years old, and prohibits any but a natural born subject from being president.” State v. Foreman, 16 Tenn. 256, 335–36 (1835).

          “The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795)

          “An alien may, by becoming naturalized, be entitled to all the privileges of natural-born subjects; except that a residence of seven years is required to qualify an alien for a member of Congress, and that no person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.” The Law Library, Vol. 84, pg. 50 (1854)

          “But the law quce nihil frustra, never casts the freehold upon an alien heir who cannot keep it: even a natural born subject or citizen cannot take by representation from an alien, because the alien has no heritable blood through which a title can be deduced.” McClenaghan v. McClenaghan, 20 S.C. Eq. (1 Strob. Eq.) 295 (1847).

          “Nor by the common law could a natural born subject or citizen transmit lands by descent to another, immediately, through the blood of an alien.” Banks v. Walker, 3 New York Leg. Obs. 340 (1848).

          “But the law of France rejects the principle of the English law, and of our own laws, that birth within the limits and jurisdiction of France, makes a Frenchman, or a natural-born citizen or subject of France, absolutely,…” Horace Binney, American Law Register, 2 Amer.Law Reg. 208 (February 1854).

          “First — Persons, who are born in a country, are generally deemed citizens and subjects of that country. ” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the conflict of laws, pg. 48 (1933)

          “Indeed for a considerable period after the revolution, the word subject was used as synonymous with citizen. Thus in the declaration of rights in the constitution of Massachusetts, the word subject is several times introduced, where we should now use citizen. So in Mass. St. 1784, c. 72, s. 10, a punishment is enacted for kidnapping “any subject of this Commonwealth, or other person lawfully residing and inhabiting therein.” In this passage the word subject can have no other meaning than that ot citizen. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” American Jurist and Law Magazine, January, 1834

          “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)

          “The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ‘subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1117 (1866)(quoting State v. Manuel)

          “They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country.” Senator Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

          “It is a principle of universal law that every person born in a country, and not a slave, is a citizen or subject of such country, and unless excluded by special laws is entitled to all privileges or citizens or subjects. ” Sen. Davis, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. pg. 182 of Appendix (1866)

          “We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition…..” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1117 (1866).

          But we know everyone is wrong and TJ is right because someone said “full allegiance” when talking about indians born in a quisi foreign nation.

      • Northland10 says:

        Where have they said this? Give specific examples.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        TJ,

        WKA didn’t undermine the NON-BINDING precedent (i.e. dicta) from Minor—namely that the native born child of citizen parents was natural born—, but, in no case, can Minor prevail if in direct conflict with the holding in WKA. Pretending (or, even worse, believing) that this isn’t the case makes a mockery of your supposed legal expertise. Any real lawyer who saw such a statement (that prior dicta superseded a SCOTUS holding) would likely dismiss the author as an idiot—at least in reagard to their understanding of the law—and they would be right to do so. By being ridiculous, all you are doing is inviting ridicule and demonstrating your lack of integrity. Is that really your intent?

        • TJ McCann says:

          Slarti,

          It the recognition in Minor of natural born citizen was not at all dicta, but rather binding precedent. Natural born citizen is limited to discussion of qualification for the Office of President, but rather is a fundamental form of citizenship, which was the focus of Minor.

          The Gray court only recognized Ark as “a citizen of the United States” because his parents had permanent residence and employment here, never concluding Ark to be natural born, nor contingent thereupon.

          Ark being natural born was NOWHERE a part of that case’s holding. (*IF you think otherwise, please do cite specifically where it references such in the conclusion). The recognition of one’s parents having a permanent residence and business in this country has nothing to do with natural born.

          You must be sad to learn that numerous “real lawyers” and court cases cite the recognition of Minor and “natural born” as precedent.

          Tough darts…

          • Suranis says:

            What cases, tough guy? Sirley you should be able to name three. Just like you can recide a couple of the states that did not grand birthright citizenship at the time of the founding.

            And if WKA did not made Ark an NBC, how come Justice Fuller based pretty much his entire objection on the fact that the ruling made Ark eligible for the presidency and how that was a really bad idea.

          • Northland10 says:

            Name one court case that cite the recognition of Minor and “natural born” as precedent.

          • gorefan says:

            Why did the appellants believe that Wong Kim Ark was declared a natural born citizen by the lower court ruling?

            • John Woodman says:

              To expand that, if I might:

              TJ: Six of the Supreme Court Justices in the Wong case declared that Mr. Wong was not only a “citizen,” but also “natural born” (yes, I know you’ll claim that isn’t true, but it is — see the entire article on the Wong case at this blog).

              The other two Justices — the minority with whom you agree — complained that the ruling would make Wong eligible to run for President of the United States.

              Therefore, ALL EIGHT Supreme Court Justices unanimously understood that the ruling in US v Wong Kim Ark meant that Wong was a natural born citizen, which meant he would be Constitutionally eligible on reaching age 35 and residing 14 years in the US, to run for President.

              Do you agree with the eight Justices in Wong, or do you disagree?

              If you agree with the Justices, then it is clear that this case decided that the children born on US soil of parents who are not US citizens, are Constitutionally natural born citizens, and eligible to run for President.

              If you disagree with the eight Justices, then please explain why you think that you know better, are smarter than, and understand United States law better than ALL EIGHT of these Justices on the United States Supreme Court.

              Thank you. Good day.

          • John Woodman says:

            Wong’s already been discussed here, in detail, and your bogus claims in the paragraph above shown to be a pile of cow chips.

            Of course you wouldn’t really know about that, since you couldn’t be bothered to read the content of the site.

          • ballantine says:

            LOL. That is your analysis of holding and dicta. Again, you clearly do not understand what these terms mean. Please explain why? You cannot. Simply a fact that every modern court treats WKA as precedent and ignores the dicta in Minor, a case that wasn’t about citizenship. I laid out a detailed analysis of the case upthread if you want to learn but you don’t. Again, no one has ever said Minor was relevant to the status of children of aliens and such argument has been laughed out of every court. Why do you pretend to be an expert in things you don’t understand?

      • John Woodman says:

        Ever time the Supreme Court has spoken on the issue, a half dozen doing so directly over this country’s history, their recognition has invariably involved recognition of the parent’s citizenship, even Wong Kim Ark, which did not undermine the precedent from Minor v Happersett in any way.

        I’m sorry. I’m reading back through here, and I just can’t let this slide without comment.

        What an enormous load of horse manure. First of all, Minor v Happersett gave no “definition” for “natural born citizen.”

        If it had given a “definition” (which it didn’t) any such definition would quite CLEARLY have been obiter dictum.

        And even if it had given a definition (which it didn’t) and even if it hadn’t been obiter dictum (which it would have been) any such birther-definition “precedent” would have been overruled by US v Wong Kim Ark, which clearly found Wong to be not only a “citizen” but also “natural born,” and therefore clarified that children born on US soil, even of parents who were not and could not themselves become US citizens, are natural born citizens and eligible to run for President upon meeting the other Constitutional requirements.

        So the entire sentence is one big, fat, enormous load of absolute hooey.

        Oh — and by the way — you do realize that Minor v Happersett was completely overturned by the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Right?

        • Northland10 says:

          “would quite CLEARLY have been obiter dictum.”

          But TJ said it was orbita dictum not obiter dictum so its different. Right?

          Since Gray did not specifically say, the decision in Minor was wrong on the citizenship paragraph, and since the 19th amendment did not state that NBC was born on soil only, then Minor is still binding then. Justice Waite proved this by swearing in President Arthur. Luckily, Gray was paid off to cover for Waite.

          It all makes perfect sense because I say so.

      • John Woodman says:

        Reading back through in sort of my final run-through here. I notice that TJ was never able to produce the slightest evidence to back up this claim:

        Ever time the Supreme Court has spoken on the issue, a half dozen doing so directly over this country’s history, their recognition has invariably involved recognition of the parent’s citizenship, even Wong Kim Ark, which did not undermine the precedent from Minor v Happersett in any way.

        That last phrase is particularly jarring. It is like a sudden and total disconnect from reality. It’s kind of like talking to someone at a dinner party, and you think you’re having a rational conversation. You’re talking about who did better in yesterday’s Presidential debate. And then she leads forward and confides, “I had such a wonderful conversation with the White Rabbit last night. You know, the one that Alice knew. He comes to me, you know.”

        Oh….kay. At that moment, you smile and mumble something about needing to go to the bathroom.

        TJ continues:

        The fact is this country’s primary motivation for its foundation was to indicate that we were NOT subjects, and not subject to Britains perpetual allegiance compelled by the mandate of the Crown, which is the authority from where mere birth on the soil originates from!

        Okay. I’m not sure I would put it exactly that way. I think I would more say that we wanted to be free from the tyrannies of a particular King. I don’t know that we had any huge gripe with the basic system itself, until it was abused by one King George III. Or, to put it another way, I didn’t realize that a philosophical aversion to “perpetual allegiance” was the driving force behind the American Revolution. And here I thought it had to do with being taxed out of our skulls while being denied representation and reasonable self-government.

        In any event, let’s say that the fact that we just hated the idea of “perpetual allegiance.” Let’s say the Revolution was really launched by pitchfork-waving colonists carrying signs that read, “Down with Perpetual Allegiance!”

        That still wouldn’t mean anybody had any particular beef with the children born on US soil of non-citizen parents being natural born citizens.

  20. TJ McCann says:

    The clowns on this blog (and elsewhere) mock and ridicule this supposedly unfounded group they call “birthers”, abusing the names “Apuzzo” and “Donofrio” as if they were fringe lunatics whose arguments are not factually and historically based, when these mockers and ridiculers are really only themselves ****wits without any real idea of the facts and history.

    In 1881 Prentiss Webster published A Treatise On the Law Of Citizenship In The United State, in which Webster argues that there are two schools of thought regarding the philosophical and conceptual basis for the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. The disagreement over the meaning “natural born citizen” in Article II is only one specific aspect of this larger disagreement.

    It should be recognized that the publication of Webster’s Treatise in 1891 was 23 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, and seven years before Gray’s decision in the Wong Kim Ark case, which hinges entirely on the application of British common law to these United States 111 years after this nation’s founding.

    Webster recognized one school of thought as indicating that the principal philosophical and conceptual foundation of the United States founding documents was English common law. However according to the other school, the US founding documents were based on pan-European “natural law” theory, as exemplified by the reference in the US Constitution to the “law of nations”.

    Those who believe that pan-European “natural law” theory was the principal framework the Founders used to establish the philosophy of the Constitution and government of the United States, generally agree that there were some principles, concepts and terms also borrowed from English common law, so this is not in contention. The crux of the disagreement is focused primarily on whether the terms and concepts involving citizenship are based on English common law dictate, or based on the “law of nations” developed in Europe based on natural law principles. The acquisition of citizenship by mere birth on soil is not a party of any natural law principles, but rather feudal in origin.

    Those who reject the idea that “natural born citizen” means “born in the country, to parents both of whom are citizens of that country” argue that the term “natural born citizen” is simply the Americanized form of the term “natural born subject” as defined in English common law, and essentially synonymous. They argue that the term was Americanized by substituting the word “citizen” for “subject”—and thereby disavow by principle the great motivation that led to the formation of this country, inherently rejecting the British common law and its feudal base.

    Webster writes of the application of British Common Law:

    These rules are the outgrowth of municipal statutes, and, as such, involve the question of citizenship, in continuous conflict.

    This should be avoided, and the practice of modern days will show the impracticability of the theory of the derivation of citizenship from birth on this or that inanimate piece of ground, whether in the country of one’s parents, or on foreign soil. Such a theory had its origin in the feudal law, on which the principles of this country were not grounded, and, while it may be argued that it finds place in the English common law, it must not be forgotten that “our ancestors brought with them, and claimed as their birthright its general principles, and adopted that portion of it only which was applicable to their situation.”

    The conclusion reached in the following discourse will be that citizenship is conferred by descent.

    The quotation toward the end of the above text is taken from Van Ness vs Pacard and is repeated in numerous other court decisions, :

    The common law of England, is not to be taken, in all respects, to be that of America. Our ancestors brought with them, and claimed as their birthright its general principles, and adopted that portion of it only which was applicable to their situation.”

    What our ancestors did not adopt and claim as their birthright is the feudal social system and its compulsory rules stemming from our lives being bound by presence of the soil belonging to the King. It should be clear by the Revolutionary war and War of 1812 that Americans reject those feudal principles as “applicable to our situation”.

    While citing this same quotation, The American Law Review, 1889, Volume XXIII, in “Acquisition of Citizenship”, indicates of jus soli:

    According to Sir Vernon Harcourt, who puts it very correctly, “the rule of determining nationality in England was purely of feudal origin.” The rule of jus soli meant a personal relation as between a sovereign and subject, precisely as we have seen was the practice in German international common law. It was structural in the feudal form of government. The source of government in this country was not feudal; it was this theory of government which we combated, and we founded our government, “as instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” For this reason a doubt may safely be said to exist whether the rule of acquisition citizenship de jure soli which was feudal in its origin was ever adopted with its full force and effect in this country. Chief Justice Marshall laid down the rule to be: “The American citizen who goes into a foreign country, although he owes but a temporary and local allegiance to that country, is yet, if he performs no other act changing his condition, entitled to the protection of his own government; but his situation is completely changed when by his own act he has made of himself subject to a foreign power.”

    Even by Chief Justice Marchall’s own words, and by our form of government, temporary and local allegiance of being on soil is insufficient to serve as a de facto deliberate act of naturalization, and we do inherently reject the feudal form of government, which would compel citizenship (subjecthood) to those born upon that soil.

    Given these long-recognized considerations, even before Wong Kim Ark, back to this country’s origins, those of you who routinely and habitually mock Apuzzo, Donofrio, and the two-parent requirement, branding them as ignorant and liars, perhaps pause and reconsider your own foolish and ignorant approach before others do brand you as tories, traitors, and more. You have only taken the short road, on the short bus, to embrace what this nation was founded on rejecting.

    • gorefan says:

      This is the same argument made in the Wong Kim Ark case. English Common Law won.

      That’s why Chief Justice Fuller wrote in his dissent,

      “And it is this rule [English Common Law], pure and simple, which it is asserted [in majority opinion] determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted.”

      And later,

      “Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

      The English Common Law side won, which is why Chief Justice Taft wrote,

      “The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.” Ex Parte Grossman

    • John Woodman says:

      The clowns on this blog (and elsewhere) mock and ridicule this supposedly unfounded group they call “birthers”, abusing the names “Apuzzo” and “Donofrio” as if they were fringe lunatics whose arguments are not factually and historically based…

      Um… that would be because Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio are fringe lunatics whose arguments are not factually and historically based.

      Leo Donofrio confesses to having been a abuser of drugs (including both ecstasy and “magic mushrooms”) who used to go by the handle “Burnweed” and had a “failed law career” — Donofrio’s words, not mine.

      He’s also a 9/11 Truther (“I don’t believe the official 911 story and I don’t trust the Government at all in that regard”) who previously publicly claimed that he personally was the manifestation of the Holy Spirit of God on earth (the “Paraclete”) and that the drummer in his favorite rock band was the Messiah.

      And he publicly told people that, and publicly claimed that, with a straight face.

      As far as his legal scholarship goes, when I started checking his claims, a pattern began to emerge. Authorities that he claimed backed him did not such thing. I first noticed this personally when I went out and actually read the book he referenced by legal scholar Frederick van Dyne — only to discover that not only did van Dyne not support Leo’s claims (as Leo had claimed), van Dyne’s overall conclusion in the book actually contradicted and refuted Leo’s claim of what the scholar had said.

      That experience was only the beginning. Every time I’ve checked out a major claim by Leo Donofrio at the actual source, the source has never supported Donofrio’s claim. Readers of this blog can delve into the details themselves; Mr. Donofrio’s nonsense has been pretty extensively discussed at this blog.

      As far as Mario Apuzzo goes — I have already noted above in this thread the depth of dishonesty to which Mr. Apuzzo has gone in order to try and defend his BS. I would say that insisting that a footnote referred to the sentence AFTER the one it was attached to is pretty dishonest — wouldn’t you, TJ?

      And that’s the depth of dishonesty used by your hero Apuzzo. It has been documented right here, at this blog, and it’s undeniable for anyone who really wants to look it up. (Hint: See the article which reveals that early American legal expert St. George Tucker — among so many other authorities — directly and unequivocally contradicted and refuted Apuzzo’s birther claims.)

      As far as natural law goes, yes — the term “natural born citizen” did derive from natural law. It just wasn’t the theory of natural law you claim it was. And in fact, both historically and legally there is no evidence to support your claim, as you yourself have shown by failing to produce any real evidence whatsoever of a connection between Vattel’s “natural law” and the term “natural born citizen,” even when directly challenged to do so.

    • BrianH says:

      TJ states: Those who reject the idea that “natural born citizen” means “born in the country, to parents both of whom are citizens of that country” argue that the term “natural born citizen” is simply the Americanized form of the term “natural born subject” as defined in English common law, and essentially synonymous. They argue that the term was Americanized by substituting the word “citizen” for “subject”—and thereby disavow by principle the great motivation that led to the formation of this country, inherently rejecting the British common law and its feudal base.

      Why persons like Donofrio and Apuzzo receive the caustic comments they do is because they (like you, apparently) persist in this view that we’re still in 1891, with these two supposed alternate theories of Constitutional/citizenship jurisprudence holding equal credence. But the U.S. Supreme Court has told us which view is the correct one when it comes to the question of the birth citizenship status of a person born in the U.S. of alien parentage. That case is U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, where it’s stated:

      “The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.”
      ***
      The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]
      ***
      In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

      There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

      So as to the Constitutional term “natural born citizen,” our Supreme Court has adopted the view that it is to be understood by analogy to the English common law term “natural born subject.” And along the way, the court in WKA expressly rejected the U.S. Government (and dissenting opinion) appeal to Vattel and the “law of nations.”

      So what makes the likes of Donofrio and Apuzzo such utter fools is their head-in-the-sand denial that the question as to which supposed “theory” is correct has been squarely answered. (Now, I can’t speak as directly as to Mr. Donofrio, with whom I’ve had no direct interaction; but this is most certainly true as to Mr. Apuzzo.) Mario has several times insinuated I’m denying the principles of the revolution by asserting that “natural born citizen” should be understood by analogy and reference to the English “natural born subject.” That is just utterly stupid given I’m merely noting that the SCOTUS has analyzed the question precisely this way.

      When they come into court brandishing these wordy briefs that attempt to exalt Vattel to the forefront (while at the same time doing a spin job on WKA to suggest it need not be considered), they look foolish.

      And one can add to that bit of foolishness their assertion that — as to the question of President Obama’s birth status — the Minor case (as case which didn’t present at all the question of the citizenship status of a person born in the U.S. to an alien parent(s)) somehow has more analytical and precedential value than Wong Kim Ark (a case which spent 40+ pages analyzing that very question). As any first-year law student could tell you: “they’ve got it backwards.”

      So, yes, don’t expect anyone to retract previously issued opinions any time soon. They are warranted.

    • Suranis says:

      Whoops sorry wrong place

  21. Suranis says:

    Mainly becasue its too late here to hunt down a book bu an author who is so obscure that he does not have a wiki page, nor is the book online that I ccan find, so we can read how much stuff you are taking out of context.

    So I’ll just bury you in distinguished quotes by distinguished writers from around that time period saying you are full of manure. Ready?

    George Washington Paschal, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DEFINED AND CAREFULLY ANNOTATED, (1868)

    “By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Consitutution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”

    Sen. Trumbull (author or the Civil Rights Act of 1866), April 11, 1871, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

    “All persons born in the limits and under the actual obedience of the United States were its “natural-born citizens”; and it is in this sense that the phrase is used in section one of article two of the constitution.”

    John Joseph Lalor, Cyclopædia of political science, political economy, and of the political history of the United States, Volume 2, pg. 948 (1883)

    “So, also, any person born of a foreign father in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, may be a natural- born American citizen, if he choose. In these doubtful cases the person may choose the country of his father or the country of his birth. So that a person may be a natural-born citizen of the United States, without being a native of the United States.”

    Albert Orville Wright, An Exposition on the Constitution of the United States, (31st Ed.) (1888).

    “There is no uniform rule among nations by which the nationality of effect of birth a person may be determined from the place of his birth. England and America claim all who are born within their dominions as natural-born subjects or citizens, whatever may have been the parents’ nationality.”

    Henry Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 1889 edition.

    “Natural-born Citizens, those that are born within the jurisdiction of a national government; i.e., in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens, temporarily residing abroad.”

    William Cox Cochran, The student’s law lexicon: a dictionary of legal words and phrases : with appendices, Pg. 185 (1888)

    “Citizens are either natural-born or naturalized. One who is born in the United States or under its jurisdiction is a natural-born citizen without reference to the nationality of his parents. Their presence here constitutes a temporary allegiance, sufficient to make a child a citizen.”

    Theodore Dwight, Edward Dwight, Commentaries on the law of persons and personal property, pg. 125 (1894)

    “Citizens may be divided into two classes : natural born and alien born. Natural-born citizens are of two kinds: native born—those born of either American or alien parents within the jurisdiction of the United Slates, and foreign born—those born of American parents without the Jurisdiction of the United States.”

    John Clark Ridpath, The standard American encyclopedia of arts, sciences, history, biography, geography, statistics, and general knowledge, Volume 8, pg 3058 (1897).

    “The children of aliens, born in America or in England, are entitled to all the privileges of natural-born citizens.”

    William Story, Edmund Bennett, A treatise on the law of sales of personal property, pg. 17 (1871)

    “The common law rule upon the subject of citizenship by birth was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards under the articles of confederation, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally adopted;8 with this qualification, however, that, prior to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution, neither the negroes of the African race, who, at the time of the Declaration of Independence, had been imported into this country and sold and held as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were embraced within the rule.”

    I’ll be kind and let the others take your carp apart.

    • John Woodman says:

      Suranis, I think you need to boldface this from Senator Trumbull’s quote as well:

      “There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”

      When Trumbull says there are ONLY two exceptions to the universal application of this principle, THAT MEANS QUITE SPECIFICALLY THAT THE CHILDREN BORN ON US SOIL OF NON-CITIZEN PARENTS ARE NOT ONE OF THOSE EXCEPTIONS.

      In other words, Senator Trumbull makes it absolutely clear here that all children born on US soil of non-citizen parents are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. There’s simply no getting around that in his statement.

      And yet TJ here, and the rest of the idiot birthers, take ambiguous comments about allegiance and insist that those ambiguous comments absolutely confirm their stupid birther doctrine — while they studiously ignore the MANY quotes that directly contradict and shoot down their stupid birther doctrine.

      And then they claim that those who don’t buy their total, absolute BS and snake oil are “blithering idiots.”

      • Suranis says:

        That quote was from George Washington Paschal, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DEFINED AND CAREFULLY ANNOTATED, (1868) sadly, but Trumbull’s quote, which is below his name, is pretty clear cut in any case.

        • John Woodman says:

          Actually Suranis, those words were spoken by Senator Lyman Trumbull on the floor of the United States Senate, on April 17, 1871, while he was talking about his role in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Yes, he was reading from Paschal’s Annotated Consitutution. But he was quoting from it because he agreed with the statement made. There is not the slightest intimation that he had any disagreement whatsoever with the quote he was reading.

          So yes, that is actually a quote, and a statement, from Senator Lyman Trumbull.

          • Suranis says:

            Thanks. I haven’t looked that closely at the debates in a long time so I didn’t realize that was there.

            But yes. he would not have quoted it if he did not agree with it. Much like our certified genius TJ does not quote complete paragraphs or even complete sentences.

      • TJ McCann says:

        Nice to see you didn’t learn a damn thing from the historical comment of Webster in his book, and still have to rely on your drooling knee-jerk epithets like “birther” and ad hominem attacks. You are instead incapable of recognizing that there are two schools of thought, one of which relies entirely on feudal monarchical demands and dismisses the hard-won freedoms we established in the formation of this country. This begs the question what you actually are “conserving” in believing you’re Conservative; it sure as hell are not the principles of this country.

        I see our resident tantric child has found his red crayola crayon today, for all the more personal attention, and wrote:

        It is simply a fact that no framer, no early scholar, no court in history has ever said Vattel’s rule was relevant to our law of citizenship or allegiance.

        Let’s put it this way:

        TJ: Name ONE Framer of the Constitution who has said that they relied on Vattel’s rule for citizenship in defining the term ‘natural born citizen.’

        Quite undeniably you are learning impaired. It was not “Vattel’s Rule”. It was not even written by Vattel himself! Ten years after the formation of this country, those who were translating Vattel’s work into English recognized that the terms used by Vattel summed up the conditions of natural born citizen as recognized by our founders. And lo and behold, when published, not a one of those founders wrote a treatise on how those terms were wrong! Despite all their well documented and stored writings, nowhere do any of this nation’s founders take issue with the definition provided in that Vattel translation.

        The Truth is Vattel did not make up the definition himself, and did not make up the terms, because they are undeniably fundamental to real and natural citizenship. The 1797 translation only documented what was recognized at the time.

        And would you look, those legal scholars that judged Minor v Happersett agreed, providing the same definition from Vattel’s translation.

        “What better way to insure attachment to the country than to require the President to have his American citizenship through his American Father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and be removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return later in life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.” -

        Charles Pinckney (Continental Congress (1777-78 and 1784-87)
        and S.C. state legislature (1779-80, 1786-89, and 1792-96)
        signer of the Constitution of the United States

        “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

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

        “As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”
        Representative Bingham

    • TJ McCann says:

      Suranis, if you weren’t such a moron, then you would have clicked on the link and seen that you can download the book there, at the link.

      Of course if you had any sense about you, you would recognize that my post clearly indicated that those on the other side, ya know, the side of the Constitution and not British common law, actually recognize that there are people that believe otherwise, so quoting a whole slew of them is not any sort of an argument, and this ignores that you do not have any analysis of the quotes to put them in any context.

      But beyond that, if you’re going to support the feudal, British common law jus soli definition of natural born subject dictated by the Crown, then you probably would be smart (which you weren’t) in leaving out quotes that say one can be born overseas of parents who are citizens and still be natural born, as this is jus sanguinis – heritage, and not the case you are arguing.

      • Suranis says:

        Sigh. I did click on the link.

        If you weren’t such a moron oou might have noticed the lovely sigh on the left that said, and I quote

        No eBook available

        And no-one is selling the print version.

        So you get to waffle from a book that no-one can refute your misquotes from. I guess you got pretty burned when I started tipping your whole argument apart using Chisholm V Georgia and basically proved that Jay was not saying anything remotely like what you were putting in His mouth. That must have hurt.

        As for this one I REALLY would like to see what this guy had to say about natural Born Citizenship, which is why you don’t want anyone to read the book I imagine.

        And I notice you completely ignored, yet again, all my quotes stating flat out that “Birth on soil = NBC regardless of the parents” and all you have is some vauge BS theory about “well they rejected feudalism so therefore they must also have rejected NBC too, right?”

        If so, how come Jus Soli was the rule in Ireland till 2004? Last I checked Ireland was not a feudal society. Australia too ditched it the year before. you want to claim that Australia is a feudal society? And how about all those countries that practice Jus Soli to this day, bot all of which had anything to do with England. You know, like the entirety of South America. They all feudal? How come Vattels universal laws didn’t apply there, despite them beeng ruled by Spain and Portugal and not being contaminated by the hated British?

        And here’s a map!

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jus_soli_world.png

        England by the way repealed Jus Soli in 1984, and is still a semi-feudal society. Which leads one to the conclusion that rejecting feudal laws does not mean rejecting Jos Soli. And it is obvious that simply breaking from Britannia and hating Britain did not invalidate their laws. No-one has accused the Irish as admiring all things British and yet we still had Jos Soli 60 years after gaining independence.

        And where are all the cases that cite Minor as meaning that 2 parents are needed for NBC? So far you haven’t cited one. Nor have you cited ONE state that did not practice birthright citizenship despite claiming that a majority did so.

        So, do your Conservative friends call you pathetic too?

        Oh, one final thing. Regarding your Just sanguinius bs, how come they specified that people born abroad with 2 citizen parents could be NBC. SURELY if that was the case then they would have no need to talk about birth on soil at all, considering that anyone born anywhere to 2 Americans would be an NBC, so birth in the US would be irrelevant in that case. Or are people born on US soil to citizen parents EXTRA SPECIAL NBCs?

        I love that birther logical contortion.

      • Ballantine says:

        Pretty pathetic. Your argument appears to be the handful of authorities you have count while the multitude of authority Suranis and others here cite don’t. All you can do is claim the multitude of contrary authority is out of context even though you make no attempt to show that. A truly pathetic argument. The facts are the two parent theory was a fringe theory that arose in the late 19th century with a small number of adherents. They lost their argument in the supreme court. It is simply a fact that for every single authority you cite, we can cite 10 unambiguously citation saying you are wrong and we include all the most famous scholars of the 19th century. You simply cannot accept that the vast majority of scholars and members of the 39th Congress said you were worng.

  22. Slartibartfast says:

    I had a 505 error, so this response got orphaned… (I’m not even going to try to find its proper parent)

    Northland10,

    You know, I am constantly amazed at the non-existant common courtesy of the birthers. Unless they were all orphans (and thus not eligible for the presidency in their own mind) their parents should be ashamed of the incredibly poor job of child rearing they’ve done.

    TJ,

    Are you proud of this thread? Have you shown it to your Harvard lawyer father that’s in Who’s Who? Do you think that he would be proud with what his son has put on display here? I doubt it—I doubt you’ve even given the link for this thread to your sycophants, lickspittles, toadies, and hangers-on. You wouldn’t want them to see you getting your ass kicked this badly, would you?

    By the way—what is your position on orphans? Adoptees? My birth certificate (the only one that I am entitled by law to get) has my adoptive parents on it, not my birth parents. I’m over 35 and have lived in the US all of my life—am I eligible to be POTUS? If you were my opponent in a presidential race, would you take me to court?

    • John Woodman says:

      I had a 505 error, so this response got orphaned…

      I got a 505 error too. The entire web site temporarily crashed, right after TJ made his comment that had 3 major points in it.

      One point was pretty darn well informed for a birther (bringing forth the Prentiss Webster treatise) but of course it took no note of the historical context in which the Webster treatise was written. And it was entirely ignorant of the fact that we’ve already evaluated that particular 15-to-20-year period, are well aware of the “birther” bent during that period, and have found that when it comes to citizenship doctrine, that brief period is the sole “outlier” in all of American history.

      The second point was wrong and ill-informed. But it was a reasonably understandable mistake for someone who thinks he knows what he’s talking about, but doesn’t.

      And the third major point was frankly one of the most idiotic things, one of the worst birther faux-pas ever posted at this blog. I’ll post some details later as to why.

      It was seconds after that, that the web site crashed.

      Coincidence?

      • Slartibartfast says:

        I don’t know John—if birther stupidity could crash the web, no birther site would have lasted a day. Although it is possible that TJ made a quantum leap in idiocy, I guess…

        • John Woodman says:

          When you see how wrong and stupid the claim was, you’ll wonder.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            John,

            Yes, it’s pretty dumb. I’ve only seen one other person with as much arrogance and as little reason for it as TJ.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        John,

        I just took a look at the comment in question (that was not when I got the 505, by the way) and I’m acting swiftly to lay in enough popcorn for your comment… (the first time through I was overcome by the stench of dung and wasn’t really paying attention at the end)

  23. Slartibartfast says:

    TJ’s spew:

    Nice to see you didn’t learn a damn thing from the historical comment of Webster in his book, and still have to rely on your drooling knee-jerk epithets like “birther” and ad hominem attacks.

    When someone lies, calling them a liar is not an ad hominem—it is a moral obligation. You haven’t been called any name here that you haven’t invited with your own words. Well, that’s not quite true—I called you “dickless” on the other thread, but I’m using your standard of proof on that one… it’s true because I believe it is (who knows, maybe if I believe strongly enough… :-P )

    As for the epithet “birther”—there is a simple way to get people to stop calling you a birther. Simply state in any discussion that you believe President Obama is a natural born citizen and the legitimate President of the United States. If you can’t say that, then you don’t believe President Obama is natural born due to the circumstances of his birth. Which is what it means to be a birther. In other words, you are voluntarily associating with a group of stupid, willfully ignorant, dishonest, incompetent racists (and you are one or more of those things yourself—plus a bigot [i.e. prejudiced against President Obama {for whatever reason---I'm not calling you a racist, just a bigot}]).

    You are instead incapable of recognizing that there are two schools of thought, one of which relies entirely on feudal monarchical demands and dismisses the hard-won freedoms we established in the formation of this country.

    Multiple people have deluged you showing how the “natural law” that was adopted in this country is not the “natural law” you cite, but do you honestly expect anyone to believe that blood descent (like the aristocracy) is democratic and soil allegiance (an egalitarian principle) is feudal? Are you an idiot or a liar? Personally, I’m guessing both.

    This begs the question what you actually are “conserving” in believing you’re Conservative; it sure as hell are not the principles of this country.

    THAT would be an ad hominem fallacy.

    I see our resident tantric child has found his red crayola crayon today, for all the more personal attention, and wrote:

    Tantric? Are you calling John a Buddhist? Everyone here knows who the arrogant, juvenile diletante is—and it’s not John. Reminds me of a poker saying: If you can’t see the fish in your first 30 minutes at the table, then you’re the fish. Do you understand why you can’t see the weak link here? Or why it might be a bad idea for you to chum the waters as much as you have?

    It is simply a fact that no framer, no early scholar, no court in history has ever said Vattel’s rule was relevant to our law of citizenship or allegiance.

    Let’s put it this way:

    TJ: Name ONE Framer of the Constitution who has said that they relied on Vattel’s rule for citizenship in defining the term ‘natural born citizen.’

    Quite undeniably you are learning impaired. It was not “Vattel’s Rule”. It was not even written by Vattel himself! Ten years after the formation of this country, those who were translating Vattel’s work into English recognized that the terms used by Vattel summed up the conditions of natural born citizen as recognized by our founders. And lo and behold, when published, not a one of those founders wrote a treatise on how those terms were wrong! Despite all their well documented and stored writings, nowhere do any of this nation’s founders take issue with the definition provided in that Vattel translation.

    So, the Founders didn’t take issue with a mistranslation of a 50-year old book which was published a decade after the ratification of the Constitution and said that while some countries only considered native born children with citizen ancestors to be natural born (correctly translated from the French), other countries (which specifically included England) considered all native-born children to be natural born. Here’s my question to you: So what?

    The Truth is Vattel did not make up the definition himself, and did not make up the terms, because they are undeniably fundamental to real and natural citizenship. The 1797 translation only documented what was recognized at the time.

    And Wong Kim Ark documents what the law in the US is.

    And would you look, those legal scholars that judged Minor v Happersett agreed, providing the same definition from Vattel’s translation.

    Which doesn’t matter since, even if Minor settled the matter which it explicitly refused to answer, and even if that was part of the holding instead of the dicta, and even if it conflicted with Wong (all things you need to be true), then it would have been SUPERSEDED by Wong. Or don’t you understand that the SCOTUS isn’t bound by precedent? (Which, by the way, is a pretty significant principle for a legal genius such as yourself to fail to acknowledge and accept…)

    • TJ McCann says:

      No, it would not be an ad hominem fallacy. It is not an attack, and is not an attack to the person. It 1) recognizes that Conservatives are recognized for “conserving” the values of the country, and given the fact that the entire jus soli argument is founded in British feudal law which this country fundamentally and profoundly rejected at its formation, questions what portion of this country’s philosophy he actually protects.

      Which doesn’t matter since, even if Minor settled the matter which it explicitly refused to answer,…

      HOW can anyone in good conscience, with even a basic understanding of the English language claim that minor refuses to answer who and what is a natural born citizen?

      It gives a definition as ” all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens” and then states that these were natural born citizens.

      Waite then goes on to say that, “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. Note that the consideration here is only “citizens” and not natural born citizen.

      Then Waite indicates regarding that citizenship status without the consideration of the citizenship of their parents, “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” There are doubts as to the citizenship of those whose parents’ citizenship is not taken into consideration. However there is NO doubt as to “the first”, that being natural born citizens – those born in a country of parents who were its citizens.

      The only “doubt” here unanswered is the mere citizen status of those whose parents are not taken into consideration!

      Waite then goes on:

      “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

      Waite indicates that it is not necessary to solve those doubts (regarding the citizen status of those born without consideration of the citizenship of the parents). The reason Waite recognizes it is not necessary to solve those doubts is that Virginia Minor was born in this country of parents who citizens, ergo Virginia Minor’s citizenship status is not in question, and there is no need to solve the doubts.

      Wait explicitly and with exacting definition answered quite clearly what a natural born citizen is.

      Waite’s concluding statement indicates that, “all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” The reason this is true is that all natural born citizens are also citizens, but not all citizens are natural born citizens, and this is true because of 1) the citizenship of their parents not being that of this country and 2) some citizens are naturalized and thereby not natural born also.

      • Suranis says:

        I think I’ll submit this entore comment to a university as something to be taught in logic classes, as a prime example of a completely illogical brainless argument. With bonus points for claiming that a word”citizen” means something on one sentence and the next sentence meaning something completely different. Because Fish and Hamburger.

      • ballantine says:

        It is simpy a lie to say the doubts were about some type of citizenship other than natural born citizen as that is what the entire paragraph was about. You and your idiot birtheer friends can stomp your feet all you want but no one has ever siad Minor is relevant to the status of children of aliens and no court ever will. Everyine in Wong Kim Ark argued about what natural born citizen meant and no one that Minor was relevant at all. Why do people like you with no understanding of dicta and holding pretend you know more than Supreme Court justices?

      • John Woodman says:

        HOW can anyone in good conscience, with even a basic understanding of the English language claim that minor refuses to answer who and what is a natural born citizen?

        First of all, because saying “Virginia is quite clearly a natural born citizen” is not a statement that Bob is not.

        And secondly, because they themselves TOLD us they were not going to get into the issue. How hard is that to understand?

        Part B of all of this: Stupid birthers (like you, TJ) treat as “binding precedent” a tiny one or two-sentence SIDE COMMENT in Minor, which was backed by NO RESEARCH OR AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER, even when the Court itself told you the issue wasn’t necessary for the case —

        and then insist that the 50-page or so DETAILED ANALYSIS of natural-born citizenship which followed in Wong, with about 200 references attached, was irrelevant “dicta.”

        What’s wrong with this picture, TJ?

        I’ll tell you what’s wrong. It is the practice of DISHONEST LIARS and the FOOLS who follow them.

        It is just ludicrously and insanely STUPID to insist that Minor was “binding precedent” and Wong was “dicta.” I mean, for anyone who has a freaking CLUE, this is pretty elementary.

        So just as there are only two kinds of citizens — natural-born and naturalized — there are only two types of people who believe or promote the “Minor was precedent, Wong is dicta” BS.

        There are the DISHONEST LIARS AND CHARLATANS, who understand what constitutes dicta and what constitutes precedent — like MARIO APUZZO — and then there are the PEOPLE WHO DON’T UNDERSTAND LAW WHO ARE EITHER IDIOTS, SUCKERS OR BOTH. Like you, TJ.

        I don’t know whether your Harvard law father is still alive, TJ. If he is, go and ask him how it is that a Supreme Court case that mentions a matter in a one-or-two-sentence side comment, which produces absolutely zero discussion and quotes absolutely zero authority, and which TELLS you the matter is completely irrelevant to the resolution of the case, could possibly produce a “binding precedent” on that matter. He’ll tell you you’re imagining something that isn’t there.

        Then ask him whether a 50-page discussion of a matter by the US Supreme Court, with a couple hundred or so references to prior laws and authorities, is going to produce a precedent on that matter. What do you think he’s going to tell you, TJ?

        All of these things have already been discussed here, in great detail. But you came here thinking that you knew everything, and that anybody other than the great TJ McCann the Third didn’t know what they were talking about.

        In so doing, you have only made an enormous ass of yourself.

  24. Slartibartfast says:

    More inane bullsh*t from TJ:

    It the recognition in Minor of natural born citizen was not at all dicta, but rather binding precedent. Natural born citizen is limited to discussion of qualification for the Office of President, but rather is a fundamental form of citizenship, which was the focus of Minor.

    For the purposes of deciding the case, it was unnecessary to know if Ms. Minor was natural born or naturalized (either both have the right to vote or neither does). Mr. Wong, on the other hand, could not have been naturalized because of the Chinese Exclusion Act. In one case reference to natural born is dicta, in the other it is holding. Which is which is obvious to even an idiot—unless he is extremely dishonest.

    The Gray court only recognized Ark as “a citizen of the United States” because his parents had permanent residence and employment here, never concluding Ark to be natural born, nor contingent thereupon.

    Every single member of the SCOTUS at the time said that Mr. Wong was natural born or could be POTUS one day. The decision says he was “natural born” and that he was “a citizen”. Please show us, using the rationale given in the holding, where it was necessary for the parents to have residence and employment (by the way, I’m not asking where the term “domiciled” is used, but where these conditions come into the logical argument used to arrive at that conclusion. You can’t do it, by the way, because being “domiciled” is not a necessary condition).

    Ark being natural born was NOWHERE a part of that case’s holding. (*IF you think otherwise, please do cite specifically where it references such in the conclusion).


    Axiom 1: There are two kinds of citizens: natural born and naturalized

    Axiom 2: Chinese people could not be naturalized

    Axiom 3: Mr. Wong was Chinese

    Axiom 4: The court ruled Mr. Wong to be a citizen

    If you accept all 4 axioms, you agree that the court ruled Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen. Which do you disagree with? (By the way, those are your only HONEST options—accept it or refute an axiom—anyone with even a basic understanding of logic knows that)

    The recognition of one’s parents having a permanent residence and business in this country has nothing to do with natural born.

    No, it doesn’t—which is why, at best, it’s part of the dicta.

    You must be sad to learn that numerous “real lawyers” and court cases cite the recognition of Minor and “natural born” as precedent.

    Hmm… real lawyers that you cannot name—unless you mean the Paraclete—a self-described “failed lawyer” or Mario—who is currently 0-9 and is probably too afraid of sanctions at this point to bring his frivolous (not what I call it—what a judge called it) crap into so much as a traffic court. What about the court cases? Are they cases about citizenship? Do they cite Minor in a way that contradicts Wong? Or did you just make them up?

    Tough darts…

    Do you think that daddy the lawyer would be proud of the legal genius he raised? Have you shown him this thread?

    • TJ McCann says:

      Slarti you failed right out of the gates.

      Slartibartfast wrote:

      Axiom 1: There are two kinds of citizens: natural born and naturalized

      This is basic stuff! HOW can you be so wrong even in the most simple of recognitions?

      No, there are NOT “two KINDS of citizens”. What you’re referring to is two means of attaining citizenship, “Born” (not natural born) and “naturalized, as expressed in the 14th Amendment.

      These are not “kinds” nor types” of citizens. We don’t distinguish “born citizens” and “naturalized citizens” in anything, as the substance of their citizenship is the same.

      There is only one “kind” of citizen in this country – “citizen”.

      If you have any doubt about this Gray is quite clear on the matter in Wong Kim Ark. Perhaps you ought to try really reading it sometime.

      Justice Gray indicates in Wong Kim Ark:

      The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

      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,

      contemplates two SOURCES of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.

      Sources of citizenship are not “kinds” nor “types” of citizen.

      Finally, “Born” does not limit the SOURCE of citizenship to being “natural born”, because there are those who are made natural born by statute, and are not at all “natural born”. Therefore “born” is group (set) that encompasses those receiving citizenship at birth, both those who require no statute, nor act of Congress, to receive that citizenship, and those receiving citizenship at birth by statute.

      You’re reading something into “born” which is not there. “Born” does not compel everyone who is not naturalized to be natural born. That assertion is just … ignorant.

      This is just fundamental stuff that any novice to this discussion should know. Even Gray recognized that “born” is not a type of citizen. Go look for yourself, it is toward the end of the ruling.

      • Scientist says:

        “Therefore “born” is group (set) that encompasses those receiving citizenship at birth, both those who require no statute, nor act of Congress, to receive that citizenship, and those receiving citizenship at birth by statute.”

        Please cite the statute or act of Congress that gives citizenship to those born within the US.

        By the way, how were the boundaries of the United States established? Were they not defined by treaties with Britain, Mexico, France, Spain and Russia (Alaska), not to mention treaties (all too often broken, sadly) with various native peoples? Without such treaties, how would you know whether a given spot of land where a person might be born is in the US, rather than in Canada, Mexico, Russia or some other country or belongs to the native peoples? How would you know there is even a country to be a citizen of?

        The US exists only by human acts. Nature created the land, but men drew the boundaries, which are, frankly, not obvious from the natural landscape for most of their length.

        By the way, what are the first 2 words of the Declaration of Independence? “In Congress”

        • TJ McCann says:

          Please cite the statute or act of Congress that gives citizenship to those born within the US.

          Already been done, at least in part, with the listing of the applicable U.S. Code:
          8 U.S.C. § 1401 – nationals and citizens at birth
          8 U.S.C. § 1402 – birth in Puerto Rico
          8 U.S.C. § 1403 – bIRTH in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama
          8 U.S.C. § 1404 – birth in Alaska
          8 U.S.C. § 1405 – birth in Hawaii
          8 U.S.C. § 1406 – birth and living in Virgin Islands
          8 U.S.C. § 1407 – birth and living in GUam
          8 U.S.C. § 1408 – nationals but not citizens

          There are others too, citizenship statutes such as Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised and the 1866 Civil Rights Act, both already cited.

          These are, even as indicated by Gray, naturalization.

          You could have answered this yourself if you’d been paying attention and learned anything.

          Scientist wrote:

          The US exists only by human acts. Nature created the land, but men drew the boundaries, which are, frankly, not obvious from the natural landscape for most of their length.

          Not sure what you’re trying to establish with this abject silliness, but it seems you’re trying to indicate that there’s no really natural law, since “men created the boundaries.”

          Here’s a clue, Slick, “natural law” does not refer to nature itself, not the birds and the bees, not dirt, not the animals, and not to cellular biology, nor to DNA. Natural Law refers to a self-evident status which exists , not because of man-made law, but outside of man-made (Positive) law, and despite it. I even posted these links previously to help out those unaware of a principle so fundamental to this nation’s founding that it is recognized in the Declaration of Independence. In part this is why Britain’s view of a corrupt natural law, involving the emplacement of the King in between and man who he is master to, is such an anathema to these United States very existence!

          You might actually try studying up on the issue before you spew more dribble about it.

          • Suranis says:

            Spoken like someone who has never read Vattel or his Natural law in his life

            § 53. The obedience which subjects owe to a sovereign.

            As soon as a nation acknowledges a prince for its lawful sovereign, all the citizens owe him a faithful obedience. He can neither govern the state, nor perform what the nation expects from him, if he be not punctually obeyed. Subjects then have no right, in doubtful cases, to examine the wisdom or justice of their sovereign’s commands; this examination belongs to the prince: his subjects ought to suppose (if there be a possibility of supposing it) that all his orders are just and salutary: he alone is accountable for the evil that may result from them.

            Gee, Vattel has an entire section on how Kings are just wonderful. So it seems that sovereigns are not actually against your “natural law” at all!

            • Northland10 says:

              There is more from Vattel than the citizenship paragraph? Surely you jest!

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Northland10,

              [sarc]
              I certainly don’t think that Suranis could be implying that TJ would fail to include all of the relevant context from Vattel. A scholar of the caliber TJ claims to be would never do such a thing…
              [/sarc]

          • Scientist says:

            8 U.S.C. § 1401 covers citizens born in the United States and those born outside the United States. Since everyone is born in one of those 2 situations, it, perforce, covers ALL citizens.

            The primary characteristic of “natural law” is that it is supposedly universal. Many, if not most countries, do not restrict any adult citizen from running for any elective office, including the highest. Such a restriction cannot be self-evident, since it is by no means evident to the French, who allow any citizen over 18 to be President or Brazilians who only require a President to be over 35 and eligible to vote or Canada or Britain. which allow any adult citizen to be Prime Minister. Something that differs so greatly from country to country is not universal and therefore not part of natural law (assuming any such thing even exits).

            Sorry, but you are a natural born fool, as James Taylor sung about

      • ballantine says:

        Seriously, I can’t even fathom what this gibberish is supposed to mean. I can cite authority all day saying there were two kinds of citizens including Kent, Binney, Bouvier, Marshall, Bouvier and on and on and the first kind was called either natural born, native born or simply born in the United States as they all meant the same thing. I know, I know, only the 3 authorities TJ cite count, not the multitude of 19th century scholarship that say he is wrong.

        • John Woodman says:

          Yeah, that’s a point that you hardly even want to reply to. Made me just want to scratch my head and ask, “What the ???? does TJ think he’s talking about?”

    • John Woodman says:

      Inane BS is right.

      Spot on, Kevin. Every point.

      By the way, did you notice? TJ is so darn ignorant, he thinks “Ark” was Wong Kim Ark’s surname.

      • Northland10 says:

        Apparently the xenophobia of birthers prevent them from learning about how names are constructed. I believe Van Irion referred to “Mr. Ark” in a court filing.

        • Slartibartfast says:

          Northland10,

          I’d never attached that to xenophobia, but you’re probably correct.

          John,

          I actually missed that (so much BS, so little time…). Just one more small mistake which warns the reader that TJ has nowhere near the expertise he pretends.

          TJ,

          Pay attention and learn something—it might make you sound like less of an idiot (although you’ll still have a long way to go…). In Chinese names (as with many Asian cultures) The surname comes first, followed by the personal name (and, optionally, the middle name). In English* nomenclature, it would be Kim Ark Wong and he would be referred to as “Mr. Wong” formally or “Kim” familiarly. Someone referring to the court case of Wong Kim Ark as “Ark” (instead of Wong) does nothing but demonstrate ignorance to refer to the defendant that way is even more inane—wouldn’t you agree “J”?

          *(OMG!!! Were you aware that we still use the ENGLISH language? I thought you said we rejected that kind of feudal nonsense!)

          • John Woodman says:

            Nous n’utilisons plus la langue anglaise ici. C’est une chose féodale. Nos Pères Fondateurs ont absolument rejeté cette langue despotique!

            A partir de maintenant, nous seulement utilisons la belle langue de Vattel.

            • Scientist says:

              Mais, Jean, malheuresement pour TJ, en France, la présidence de la République est ouvert à tous les citoyens adults.

  25. The Birthers like McCann always hit a brick wall when it comes to explaining the inescapable conclusion that that their crackpot theory requires 3 classes of citizens. They have to come up with bizarre explanations just like the one he just spouted above that have no basis in law or history. No serious authority today would support such nonsense.

    • I meant to add…

      It all comes down to McCann arguing that “born a citizen” does not equate to “naturally born a citizen”. He wants us to believe that the words “natural born citizen” have some magical meaning that is different from the plain meaning of the three words. He cannot point us to the source of that hidden magical meaning other than to say it is from something vague and undefined concept of “natural law”.

      • Scientist says:

        Natural law is like natural food. Meaningless.

        In plain English, natural born = born

        Natural Born Killers, the book by Brett Easton Ellis, and later a movie with Woody Harrelson, the title characters were born killers. There is not the slightest indication that their parents were killers.

        Natural born fool as in the James Taylor song “Country Road”, no indication that the singer’s parents were fools.

        Natural born ballplayer doesn’t mean both parents were ballplayers. In fact, most likely, the player’s mother never played professional baseball, even if the father did.

        • Suranis says:

          But if that’s what they meant why didn’t the framer just say “Born Citizen” They Obviously meant something different so we look to the most Logical source… Something written in french!! [/TJ McCretin]

          • Slartibartfast says:

            Suranis,

            You forgot your start tag—necessary so that everyone hears it in their head as the whiny voice they think of TJ as having. Like this:

            [TJ McCretin]
            It’s not that the only source is in French, there were many, many sources, but they all said exactly the same thing so only one mistranslated, after-the-fact, out-of-context quote is needed.
            [/TJ McCretin]

            Doesn’t that work much better?

      • John Woodman says:

        To this extent, I would say that there actually is a historical, “term of art” meaning to the words “natural born.”

        It just isn’t what McCann claims.

        American lawyers were universally trained in the common law of England. Blackstone’s Commentaries formed a universal and FOUNDATIONAL portion of their legal training. For some lawyers, Blackstone and the English common law were the ONLY training they received.

        If you had asked ANY American lawyer, shortly after ratification of the Constitution, exactly what the difference was between “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject,” he would’ve instantly replied, “Well, to the extent that there is a difference, it is that one is a subject — which means he has an allegiance to the King — and the other is a free citizen, such as we now have in our United States of America.”

        So the words “natural born” MEANT something, and legally speaking, they meant something pretty specific. The meaning of “natural born” had been clarified over the course of centuries, and there was no doubt that it included even the children born in the country, of aliens who were there in friendship.

        And yes, we certainly rejected — at least to some degree — the doctrine that a perpetual allegiance was owed, and accepted the right of individuals to expatriate to a country other than the land of their birth. Although we seem to have more freely applied that doctrine to the idea that foreigners were free to renounce their citizenship and become Americans than we initially did to the idea that born Americans were free to expatriate and become citizens of other countries.

        But as Supreme Court Justice Gray noted in Wong, when it came to the rule of how citizenship was established in the first place, we did NOT reject the rule used in England.

        “…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born…

        The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

        So when the Framers of the Constitution said “natural born,” they meant “natural born.” They didn’t mean some other concept from Vattel, who never, ever even spoke of “natural born” citizenship, or some imagined definition from some doofus making up, 100 or 200 years later, what he thinks the phrase ought to have meant.

        • Scientist says:

          “Natural born” is an adjectival phrase that modifies the nouns “subject” and “citizen”. Subject and citizen are different, but “natural born” means the same in both cases. In the same vein, “kelly green” can modify “jacket” and “sofa”. Of course, a kelly green jacket and a kelly green sofa are different objects, but they are the same color.

          • Yes, but in this case I agree with John that there was a legal meaning to the words in the 18th century in addition to the dictionary definition. The point is that the legal definition was essentially identical to the dictionary definition (that is still in use today) so it needed no further clarification in the mind of folks in Philadelphia who inserted the phrase.

  26. Northland10 says:

    Slightly different direction, for a change:

    TJ keeps stating that citizenship follows the parents, yet, President Obama’s mother was an American Citizen. Therefore, he would have American Citizenship at birth by both jus soli and by decent jus sanguinis. In addition, he was raised only by US citizen parents and grandparents.

    Does the absent father’s status override the present mother’s status? What if the non-citizen father dies before the child is born (ala Andrew Jackson)? Does he still have to have 2 parents? What if the father is scheduled for the naturalization ceremony before the birth of the child, and then dies before said ceremony? Sorry no President for the child because his not quite citizen father is causing the son to have allegiance separate from his mother, the only parent he ever new?

    So TJ, are some of these questions absurd? Think about it.

  27. Northland10 says:

    TJ,

    You made a claim that other courts have cited the Minor decision as precedence on citizenship. Gorefan and I have asked you for specific citations, yet you have not provided any and moved to another subject. Maybe you have forgotten so here is a reminder:

    Your claim, 5 October at 1:19 am:

    No it is not dictum, but rather fundamental to the court’s decision thereby precedent, and in fact other court’s have cited Minor recognizing this

    Five minutes later, Gorefan responded, “Cite the other opinions that say that Minor defined NBC.”

    Your claim, 5 October, 8:13 pm:

    You must be sad to learn that numerous “real lawyers” and court cases cite the recognition of Minor and “natural born” as precedent.

    Thirty-six minutes later, I responded, “Name one court case that cite the recognition of Minor and “natural born” as precedent..”

    I do not recall seeing any response from you to these requests. If you claim is worthy, prove us wrong and show us the cases that cite Minor as precedence for Citizenship.

    As a follow-up, oft-asked, question: If Waite’s citizenship definition is binding precedence, why did he swear in President Arthur? Did he forget his own precedence?

  28. Suranis says:

    Tj here reminds me a little of William Roper from a Man for all Seasons, someone who would destroy the law to get at what he deems evil…;

    William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

    Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

    William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

    Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

    • Slartibartfast says:

      Wow Suranis! Talk about apt!

      A perfect description of what would happen if TJ and the rest of the birthers got what they wanted.

    • Thomas Brown says:

      Thanks, Suranis. That’s exactly what I have said before, about using the Birther position as a categorical imperative: What happens when Americans constantly deny the other Party’s President is legitimate? Democrats could take a page out of the Birther playbook and say “He never proved beyond any doubt that he is Eligible. He stole (or bought) the election. He’s not our President and never will be. No soldier has to follow orders, as the Commander in Chief is a fraud. All the laws he signed can be ignored. It is up to us to destroy him, make him a one-term ‘president.’ Every bill his side proposes should be filibustered or obstructed.”

      Not to mention that Birthers have set a precedent for claiming he was fathered by some unsavory character on his slut of a mother. Or that he’s a homosexual, drug user, Manchurian candidate, etc.

    • TJ McCann says:

      Talk about stupid, and corrupt all at once. This dishonest assertion sounds like the Obama administration turning things around to blame Conservatives for wanting to remove all regulations and restore the country back to a time of slavery, when the problem is regulations impinging on areas the Fed has no business, and curtailing freedoms we are guaranteed by the Constitution, with these being laid down at a record rate when there is no call for them at all.

      In order to be “sane” we must recognize feudal laws that have most certainly not be implemented since this country’s foundation, to result in a citizenship that abrogates the federal government’s obligation in the two-way compact of citizenship, and becons a continuous, non-stop immigration policy at the the cost of our sovereignty and solvency, while government representatives abuse the issue of illegals to try and leverage their office, and motives them to allow our borders to remain unsecured.

      And the problem is from my own disproportionate focus? You guys have your heads so far up your ignorant asses, you have no hope of seeing light of day. If not for others you’d still be drinking English tea with duties, and calling yourselves subjects (which evidently you do anyway).

      • Northland10 says:

        Are you aware that the concept of allegiance was developed through feudal law?

      • Northland10 says:

        becons a continuous, non-stop immigration policy at the the cost of our sovereignty and solvency, while government representatives abuse the issue of illegals to try and leverage their office, and motives them to allow our borders to remain unsecured.

        I am now getting a better idea of you underlying bias that keeps you from recognizing what was actually done and said in earlier times. That you find your common cause with the nativists of our history now makes much more sense. However, you should be aware that those whom you look toward lost their battle with the final blow being Wong Kim Ark v Hopkins.

        I encourage you to go to thomas.loc.gov and search for birthright citizenship bills and amendments proposed in Congress over the last 20 years or so. You will find that all of them require only a single citizen parents, including the latest ones from Rep. Steve King, among others. It would appear that even the most nativist of Congressmen due not subscribe to the two-parent theory. How do you explain this?

        • John Woodman says:

          Wong Kim Ark v Hopkins? Maybe you mean Yick Wo v Hopkins?

          • Northland10 says:

            Oops.. beware of making comments before being fully coffeed. It should be US v WKA. TJ would do well reading Yick Wo also, if only to understand jurisdiction.

      • Suranis says:

        I think America’s Brain here is responding to the wrong comment again.

        Not that he makes a whole more sense when he gets it right, but still…

      • Scientist says:

        The connection between soli and sanguinis citizenship laws and regulatory regimes is what exactly? Are you seriously claiming that France, which is sanguinis, has fewer regulations than the US or Ecuador, which are soli.

        The choice of systems has absolutely nothing to do with “feudal”. France and England were both feudal in the 13th century, yet England was soli and France sanguinis. The most feudal countries today, the Persian Gulf monarchies, are all sanguinis.

        Take a good look at this map

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jus_soli_world.png

        Notice anything? Surely, even one as dense as TJ can see that the Western Hemisphere is almost entirely soli, whether settled by the English, the Spanish or the Portuguese, while the Eastern Hemisphere is almost entirely sanguinis. Why is that? I don’t know, probably because they were societies that were settled by immigrants. In any event, surely Chile isn’t more feudal than Saudi Arabia, it is?

        And by the way, Britain wasn’t by any stretch of the imagination feudal in 1776. They were well along on their evolution to a constitutional monarchy as they have today and the power lay more with Parliament than the king. The colonists revolted against their lack of representation in Parliament, which they saw as their right as Englishmen.
        Had they not revolted in 1776, you think Britain would still control North America and be levying duties on tea? Seriously? No, what is now the US would have evolved into an independent country (or several countries) as Canada, Australia and New Zealand did. And Britons, Canadians, Aussies and Kiwis are all proud citizens and NOT subjects today. If you think they are miserable and oppressed, you really need to get out more.

        In fact, nothing resembles feudalism as much as slavery, which persisted in parts of the US long after it ended throughout the British Empire, abolished by a simple Act of Parliament rather than a bloody Civil War.

        • John Woodman says:

          Those are all such excellent points, I think they should be boldfaced.

          And by the way, Britain wasn’t by any stretch of the imagination feudal in 1776. They were well along on their evolution to a constitutional monarchy as they have today and the power lay more with Parliament than the king. The colonists revolted against their lack of representation in Parliament, which they saw as their right as Englishmen.

          Of course Britain wasn’t feudal in 1776. That’s a point no one had noted, and I’m glad you brought it up.

          They were a monarchy, of course, and we did reject monarchy in favor of a constitutional republic. But to imply they were a feudal society, or anything very close to it, is kind of silly.

          There’s another huge fallacy here:

          Yes, we rejected perpetual allegiance — the idea that one was born with an unbreakable obligation to his or her home country.

          Instead, we adopted the idea that people had a right to expatriation — a right to leave the country of their birth, emigrate, and join another country of their choosing.

          But it is a complete fallacy to think that just because we took that position, it also means we rejected our entire heritage of how citizenship was acquired in the first place.

          Prentiss Webster seems to fall into this fallacy in his treatise, and modern-day birthers certainly use the fallacy to justify their claims. But the evidence does not support it.

          In other words, all of the historical and legal evidence supports the conclusion that we threw out the bath water — but kept the baby.

          • BrianH says:

            In other words, all of the historical and legal evidence supports the conclusion that we threw out the bath water — but kept the baby.

            Birthers exhibit a type of fundamentalist mindset that can contemplate only an “all-English” adoption or else an “all-American” replacement. That middle ground — where part is kept and part discarded — seems to trigger the “that does not compute” error message. One can quote WKA repeatedly on the point that our Constitutional terms are to be understood in light of the history of the English common law, and the likes of Mario and TJ will keep responding with idiocies about how we’re dredging the tea out of Boston harbor or singing “God Save the Queen.”

            • Scientist says:

              Unfortunately, most Americans learn very little of English history, and particularly that of the 17th century and the English Civil War and the various conflicts that resulted in the supremacy of parliament over the King. They don’t appreciate how influential these struggles were on the Colonies here as well as on the mother country.

              The American Revolution was certainly not sui generis. It had deep roots in the similar struggles in England.

            • John Woodman says:

              What they usually do is dredge up a quote from George Mason:

              “The common law of England is not the common law of these states.”

              Of course, when they do, they do what birthers like TJ here always do, which is rip a quote completely out of the context in which it was spoken, for the purpose of “proving” their idiotic claims.

              They don’t even include the sentence which immediately follows:

              “I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire.”

              They don’t recognize that when George Mason — delegate to our Constitutional Convention — said those words, it wasn’t because that was what he was in favor of… it was a COMPLAINT. Mason WANTED the rights that had been incorporated into the English common law, and was complaining that we were not adequately instituting those!

              So, no. While we rejected monarchy, we certainly did not reject everything English. There were those at our Constitutional Convention who actually complained that we were failing to truly institute the common law, or an American version of it.

              In fact, as has been noted elsewhere, a good many American legal terms come from the English common law — and from no place else.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              John,

              It might be instructive to give some examples of terms coming from English common law and nowhere else. Sort of the opposite of the term “treason” .

              For TJ: “treason” is specifically defined in the Constitution for the reason that it is defined differently than it was in the English common law.

            • Ballantine says:

              John is right. Mason and Patrick Henry wanted the English common law incorporated into the Constitution since we did not have our own common law at the national level. I believe the result of such debate was to promise to include a bill of rights which would largely be based upon English law, as well as the bill of rights of the states.

              With respect to English terms try habeus corpus, bill of attender, ex post facto, impreachment, high crimes and misdemeanors, grand jury, indictment, presentment, the right to bear arms, due process, crual and unusual punishment, privileges and immunities just off the top of my head. The 2nd amendment, 8th amendment and the legislative debate clause all came from the English bill or rights of 1689 which was incorporated into the common law. Indeed, one need only do a search of Supreme Court citiations to Blackstone, of which I believe there are over 800, to see the extent that we have always looked to English law to interpret the Constitution. Of course, we departed from English law on certain subjects, but when terms were left undefined, the court has always defined them by the common law as the document was written by common law lawyers. Same way that one would look to Blacks’ Dictionary to define undefined legal terms written by modern US lawyers.

            • John Woodman says:

              Slartibartfast,

              Justice Sandford in Lynch (1844) stated that the Framers of the Constitution had provided no definition for the terms “impeachment, felonies, treason, bribery, indictment, cases in equity, bankruptcy, attainder, and writ of habeas corpus,” “all of which were unknown even by name, to any other system of jurisprudence than the common law.”

      • Ballantine says:

        No, England was no longer feudal. Jus soli was considered to be the universal rule by most scholars in England and the United States as I have pointed out. In 1869, England considered changing the rule, but declined, instead offered people an election to change their nationality. The reason they kept jus soli was:

        “The rule which impresses on persons born within Your Majesty’s dominions the character of British subjects is open to some theoretical and some practical objections, of the force of which we are aware. But it has, on the other hand, solid advantages. It selects as the test a fact readily proveable; and this, in questions of nationality and allegiance, is a point of material consequence. It prevents troublesome questions in cases, (numerous in some parts of the British empire,) where the father’s nationality is uncertain; and it has the effect of obliterating speedily and effectually disabilities of race, the existence of which within any community is generally an evil, though to some extent a necessary evil. Lastly, we believe that of the children of foreign parents, born within the dominions of the Crown, a large majority would, if they were called upon to choose, elect British nationality. The balance of convenience, therefore, is in favour of treating them as British subjects unless they disclaim that character, rather than of treating them as aliens unless they claim it.”

        http://books.google.com/books?id=BlEPAQAAMAAJ&pg=PR11&lpg=PR11&dq=royal+commission+on+naturalization+1869&source=bl&ots=UlU1nGL32y&sig=G_tB33x9gMvE-Crh1ZUBAW3THB8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kVF0UKy7MdDV0gGyhIHQCg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=royal%20commission%20on%20naturalization%201869&f=false

        TJ’s claim that jus soli has not been implemented since our founding is just more delusion. Again, he simply pretends that 99% of legal authority over the past 220 years that says he is wrong doesn’t exist. It really is a “sovereign citizen” type of disconnection from reality.

        • John Woodman says:

          Yes, we could note again (for the umpteenth time) that the Supreme Court in US v Wong Kim Ark very specifically stated (in their decisive 6 to 2 ruling) that the exact same rule — jus soli — had applied in England for centuries, then in the American Colonies, then in the United States after the establishment of the Constitution; and that that rule had never been changed.

          TJ, of course (who can’t even get a basic legal term — obiter dicta — right even after he’s been corrected on it) thinks he’s smarter than the United States Supreme Court, who studied the matter for weeks (if not months) using all of the resources at their disposal, and who wrote an Opinion on it that runs for some 50 pages or so in its discussion of past history and precedent regarding natural born citizenship.

          • gorefan says:

            Plus, Justice Gray and the other five justices were not working in a total vacuum. Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan would have been in on the discussions of the case. They would have argued the exact same points made by TJ, Apuzzo and Leo and they would have been voted down.

            TJ needs to realize that maybe if he would listen to it, history could stop repeating itself.

            • John Woodman says:

              Unfotunately, history will never stop repeating itself, because there are people like TJ who are determined at all costs to deny and repeat its mistakes.

          • Ballantine says:

            The debates on Wong Kim Ark went on for months and were quite bitter. Fuller considered it his biggest defeat. It is hard to understand why Fuller was so committeed to his view as he cited almost no authority to support his position. In fact, he didn’t cite a single pre-amendment authority that actually supported him, yet maintained the law was the opposite of every significant legal authority of the early republic that Justice Gray cited. Indeed, perhaps the weakest dissent in the history of the court.

            I think one needs to understand the times in order to understand these decisions. One needs to read the debates in Congress with respect to the Chinese following 1870 to understand the full extent of the prejudice against the Chinese. In such debates, there is hateful language perhaps worse than what one might hear in a Tea Party rally discussing Muslins or illegal aliens. The Chinese were described are non-Christian heathens who would never adapt to our culture and who had plans to overrun us. Our Republican friends from the 39th Congress such as Senator Trumbull thought such talk to be silly, but when the Republicans lost power, such silliness and overt racism took over and tried to change the clear intent of the framers of the Amendment. In fact, the enemies of the 14th Amendment succeeded in gutting almost the entire 14th Amendment save the citizenship clause which Justice Gray succeeded in defending. Whether jus soli is the best rule in the 21st century is a matter of policy debate. However, to claim that some other rule was adopted in 1866 is simply disconnected from reality.

            • Scientist says:

              Whether some modifications to birthright citizenship would be good policy at present is a legitimate debate. Certainly, Britain itself, as well as some common law countries, like Australia are no longer strictly jus soli. However, because they either don’t have written constitutions or don’t define citizenship in their constitutions, they can change the rules by statute. It’s pretty clear that the US cannot and that it would require a constitutional amendment here. Personally, I don’t see that citizenship for US-born children is a major factor in illegal immigration, since, contrary to myth, having US- born children does not give the parents rights to stay here.

              We should be clear in this discussion that no country on earth requires 2 citizen parents. Some require 1 citizen parent and some require only that 1 parent be a legal resident. The 2 citizen parent “theory” is simply a fantasy with no basis in reality.

            • gorefan says:

              Did he gave us a hint? “or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race”.

            • John Woodman says:

              It is hard to understand why Fuller was so committeed to his view as he cited almost no authority to support his position.

              I was frankly rather shocked when I really read and dissected Fuller’s dissent. I literally found it pretty-much-shockingly unsupported by facts, law, and history. I could hardly imagine how it was put forward seriously as an opinion by two Justices of the Supreme Court. Do you think that was an overreaction on my part, or would you agree?

              In such debates, there is hateful language perhaps worse than what one might hear in a Tea Party rally discussing Muslins or illegal aliens.

              Okay, I can’t let this pass. Have you ever been to a Tea Party rally? Have you ever heard such language personally, or are you parroting somebody else’s caricature of the Tea Party and Tea Partiers?

            • Ballantine says:

              Okay, I can’t let this pass. Have you ever been to a Tea Party rally? Have you ever heard such language personally, or are you parroting somebody else’s caricature of the Tea Party and Tea Partiers?

              Ok, maybe Tea Party is not the right term. However, it was the language one can see nearly every day on places like free republic with the notion that non-christians and immigrants have plans to overrun us and destroy our culture. At least the fear today is backed by the real danger of radical islam. Really not sure why there was such hatred of the Chinese back then.

            • John Woodman says:

              I am certainly glad that we agree that there is a genuine danger from radical Islam.

              I would say that from what I’ve seen, there is an additional significant group of people of the Islamic religion who, while not strictly radical, would certainly not oppose the radicals. For whatever reason — even if it’s fear.

              Of course, there are non-Muslims of whom one could say the same thing.

              As for freerepublic, I can’t defend that particular site, as from what I’ve seen, it appears to be rather dominated by birthers.

              But from my perspective, the TEA Party is chiefly about fiscal restraint, and the preservation of liberty from a monstrous, ever-expanding, all-consuming federal government.

  29. Slartibartfast says:

    TJ keeps up his perfect record of failure—it’s like a microcosm of the birthers…

    Slarti you failed right out of the gates.

    Slartibartfast wrote:

    Axiom 1: There are two kinds of citizens: natural born and naturalized

    This is basic stuff! HOW can you be so wrong even in the most simple of recognitions?

    I’m not—if you would like to add an additional class of citizens, then you need to find support for it in the law (something that you would likely be incapable of doing even if it existed—which it most certainly does not [there may be an exception to this, but it isn't relevant to President Obama]).

    No, there are NOT “two KINDS of citizens”. What you’re referring to is two means of attaining citizenship, “Born” (not natural born) and “naturalized, as expressed in the 14th Amendment.

    Which would suggest two different KINDS of citizens—those that attained citizenship via birth and those who received it via naturalization. Idiot.

    These are not “kinds” nor types” of citizens. We don’t distinguish “born citizens” and “naturalized citizens” in anything, as the substance of their citizenship is the same.

    Then why is one eligible for the presidency and the other not? That sounds like a pretty substantial difference to me…

    There is only one “kind” of citizen in this country – “citizen”.

    If that were true, then naturalized citizens would be eligible for the presidency.

    If you have any doubt about this Gray is quite clear on the matter in Wong Kim Ark. Perhaps you ought to try really reading it sometime.

    I have read it and it is VERY clear as to the fact that Mr. Wong (not “Mr. Ark” or “Ark”, numbnuts) was a natural born citizen and eligible for the presidency (at least once he spent 14 years living in the US).

    Justice Gray indicates in Wong Kim Ark:

    The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

    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,

    contemplates two SOURCES of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.

    Sources of citizenship are not “kinds” nor “types” of citizen.

    Did your Harvard lawyer daddy drop you on your head repeatedly as a child? We can certainly divide citizens into classes via the source of their citizenship—in fact, this is the ONLY functional way to divide citizens into different classes (other divisions don’t split citizens into functionally different groups—i.e. those eligible for POTUS and those not).

    Finally, “Born” does not limit the SOURCE of citizenship to being “natural born”, because there are those who are made natural born by statute, and are not at all “natural born”.

    This isn’t much better than gibberish—‘…those who are made natural born by statute, and are not at all “natural born”‘. NO ONE is made natural born by statute (and before you make an idiot of yourself again, the 14th Amendment is a part of the Constitution, not an act of Congress and the naturalization act of 1790 was repealed).

    Therefore “born” is group (set) that encompasses those receiving citizenship at birth, both those who require no statute, nor act of Congress, to receive that citizenship, and those receiving citizenship at birth by statute.

    Give us evidence of someone (born on US soil) receiving citizenship at birth by statute (citing the 14th Amendment at this point will mark you as incredibly stupid and dishonest, by the way…).

    You’re reading something into “born” which is not there. “Born” does not compel everyone who is not naturalized to be natural born. That assertion is just … ignorant.

    You’ve got no evidence to support your position—and I’ve got every judge, Constitutional scholar, and court who has ever addressed the issue on my side (save the majority in Dred Scott).

    This is just fundamental stuff that any novice to this discussion should know. Even Gray recognized that “born” is not a type of citizen. Go look for yourself, it is toward the end of the ruling.

    You can’t even be bothered to cherry pick a quote, huh? How lame. Just another example of the pathetically incompetent legal scholarship we’ve come to expect from you TJ.

    I hope your father is proud of the dishonest moron he has raised.

    • John Woodman says:

      :lol:

      NO ONE is made natural born by statute (and before you make an idiot of yourself again, the 14th Amendment is a part of the Constitution, not an act of Congress and the naturalization act of 1790 was repealed).

      I would say this point is debatable — as regards those born overseas to US citizens. Some folks seem to feel they are included because their status had already become part of the common law rule. Others seem to disagree but think Congress has the power to define whether persons born to US citizens outside of our borders are natural born citizens or not.

      What IS “well settled” as a matter of law — and recognized to be such by pretty everyone except the birthers and their toadies — is that children born on US soil, even of non-citizen parents, are natural born US citizens.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        I know—I just didn’t think TJ had the chops to understand the nuances inherent in Rogers v. Bellei and I don’t believe that the SCOTUS would ever rule that a person, born a citizen to US parents abroad, was ineligible for the presidency. I will note that I did refer to a potential 3rd class of citizen:

        “[there may be an exception to this, but it isn't relevant to President Obama]“

        Which was a sop to Bellei (that I was hoping TJ wouldn’t notice or understand—thanks John :-( ).

        • John Woodman says:

          I don’t think the SCOTUS would ever rule that a person, born a citizen to US parents abroad, was ineligible for the presidency, either.

        • John Woodman says:

          Which is personally pleasant to contemplate, as I have three children in that exact situation. Our oldest three were all born in England to two United States citizen parents. So they possess both official birth certificates issued by the government of the UK, and consular reports of birth of a US citizen abroad.

          Very few people ever grow up to run for President of the United States, but is is pleasant to think that no door is closed for them.

          • Thomas Brown says:

            And if they are anything like their father, I hope one of them does… from either Party.

            America could use a leader with a mind as crisp and orderly as a starched bedsheet.

  30. John Woodman says:

    Okay. Where to begin, with TJ’s earlier post that includes a couple of the least informed birther claims of recent months?

    And yes, TJ — you are a birther. Don’t fight it. Celebrate it! If you’re going to be a birther, and promote the stupid birther claims, then revel in it!

    It’s the only way.

    You claim that, because of the circumstances of his birth — specifically, the fact that his father was not a United States citizen — the current President is ineligible to his office.

    This makes you a birther, TJ.

    Trust me on this.

    Now… you’ve brought forth some new uninformed nonsense. But before I rip that into little tiny pieces, I’m actually going to pay you a compliment.

    Congratulations on producing the treatise on citizenship by Prentiss Webster.

    And I mean that sincerely.

    If you’re going to make an argument — granted, one that is unsupported by the vast weight of historical and legal evidence — then you ought to do it with the best resources you can find which might help back up your claims…

    Even if, as we’ve already noted, you completely brush aside the large number of legal experts, Supreme Court Justices, United States Senators, etc., who directly and absolutely contradict your claim.

    And Prentiss Webster is a pretty good source for you. He and his treatise are obscure, of course.

    But at least they actually exist. And at least they actually do tend to support your claims…

    For what they’re worth. Which isn’t a great deal, but at least it’s something.

    You should note that I don’t claim that there are absolutely ZERO points in favor of your position. I’ve written the equivalent of about 300 pages on the subject (not counting comments, debate, and further discussion of various points, which add probably a couple hundred pages more).

    One might think that ANY topic that is a subject of controversy and which has no trouble producing that much commentary might have two sides to it. And they would be correct.

    But a good, thorough, objective evaluation of the evidence shows that the points in favor of your claim are VERY, VERY MINIMAL.

    And they are utterly and totally overwhelmed by the mountains of evidence AGAINST it.

    A few comments on Prentiss Webster’s 1891 treatise on citizenship.

    Prentiss Webster was a Boston lawyer, born in 1851, which means that he was about 40 years old when his treatise on citizenship was published in 1891. And he does, for the most part, make the case that you claim.

    Kudos! This is your moment to shine. Enjoy it. It won’t last long.

    I have been unable to find out terribly much more about Mr. Webster than that which is mentioned above. Oh, there are bits and pieces. We know of about 5 books written by him, including this one, and a short 1889 pamphlet in which he disagreed with a lower-court ruling similar to that of Wong.

    But Webster certainly was not a really famous lawyer or public figure. He wasn’t a Supreme Court Justice, or anything like most of our other sources (the much more authoritative sources that absolutely contradict you, remember?)

    As far as I can tell, he was simply a lawyer who wrote a book.

    Webster had five children, including a boy whom he also named Prentiss; and he died in 1898.

    Prentiss Webster was a product of his times, and those times were what might be called the one brief “birther era” of American history.

    The fact is — and it IS a fact, and it’s one that I’ve already documented here among the many pages of blog that you repeatedly refused to read — that beginning in the early 1880s, the United States government began, intermittently at least, to take a position that they had not taken previously.

    That position was to claim at least partly as you claim: That children born on US soil to non-citizen parents — at least if they left the country as children – were not US citizens.

    (At the same time, those born on US soil to non-citizen parents, who stayed here, were still considered citizens.)

    And that seems to have been the one period in American history when the denial of (natural born) citizenship to children born on US soil of non-citizen parents who left the country while their children were young was, for a time, treated as US law.

    That period lasted from the early 1880s up to the Wong case in 1898 — a period of around 15 to 20 years.

    And it ended — for good — with the US Supreme Court ruling in the Wong case in 1898. At that time, the Court said, “That’s not the way we’ve historically done it in the United States. That’s not the way the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution set it up.”

    In other words, they went back to the Founders and the Framers, and our country’s early history. To our early legal scholars, and to the framework of the Constitution.

    And this is a known fact of history. And it’s one that I’ve already written about.

    Even Webster himself admits the change of US policy in his book!

    It must be admitted, however, in this connection, that persons subject to a foreign power born in the United States, had been held by the authorities to be citizens of the United States. Two rules were laid down; the one in 1859 in 9 Op Atty.-Genls. 373 : “A free white person born in this country of foreign parents is a citizen of the United States.” The other, laid down in 1862 in 10 Op. Atty.Genls. 328 : “A child born in the United States of alien parents who have never been naturalized is, by the fact of birth, a native born citizen of the United States and entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.”

    Webster also acknowledges that the US government said that Steinkauler (1875) had dual nationality — but then claims this can’t be the case, because dual nationality (in his personal view) just isn’t possible.

    So while yes, Webster’s book does make your case, his position was decidedly not only a minority position, but it is completely overwhelmed by the weight of all the other evidence of history and of REAL authorities, only a small portion of which evidence we have mentioned here.

    It is telling that Webster’s treatise was published in 1891. This is close to 10 years after the US government started clearly denying citizenship to US-born children carried abroad in infancy by their parents, and 7 years before that policy was emphatically overturned by the Supreme Court.

    Webster died in October 1898, about 6 months after the ruling in Wong. So he lived to see his argument shot down, but not much longer. If he had lived longer and published additional books, it’s a pretty good bet that he would’ve changed his tune.

    Since this is getting long, I will try to address your other claims — which descend into the ridiculous — later in a couple of other posts.

  31. John Woodman says:

    The magnificent and unquestionable genius TJ McCann, in a recent comment, makes two entirely incorrect claims. In fact, it would not be a stretch to call them ridiculous. Here is the first:

    That the translator of the 1797 edition of Vattel’s work used the term “natural born citizens” because Vattel’s concept was what our Framers had meant in writing our Constitution.

    TJ says:

    Ten years after the formation of this country, those who were translating Vattel’s work into English recognized that the terms used by Vattel summed up the conditions of natural born citizen as recognized by our founders. And lo and behold, when published, not a one of those founders wrote a treatise on how those terms were wrong! Despite all their well documented and stored writings, nowhere do any of this nation’s founders take issue with the definition provided in that Vattel translation.

    The Truth is Vattel did not make up the definition himself, and did not make up the terms, because they are undeniably fundamental to real and natural citizenship. The 1797 translation only documented what was recognized at the time.

    Okay — so TJ admits that Vattel “did not make up the terms.”

    But it’s worse than that. Vattel himself never used the phrase at all.

    Oh, yes. His word “indigenes” was translated “natural born citizens” — for the very FIRST time ever — in a translation of his book published 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written.

    So it is plain that the Framers weren’t making any direct reference to Vattel at all when they WROTE the Constitution. If they had been, they would have used Vattel’s terminology.

    Instead, they chose the WELL-KNOWN, STANDARD-USAGE legal language of the English common law, which (as already mentioned) was known and used by ALL American lawyers at that time.

    Now why would they have used the terminology of the English common law if Vattel’s concept was what they meant? Why wouldn’t they have used Vattel’s term — indigene — which is a word in English as well as in French?

    The answer, of course, is that if they had meant indigene they would have said indigene. If they had meant that a person had to have citizen parents, they would have said that. They would not have used a term that, at a minimum, quite strongly implied that citizen parents were not necessary.

    But TJ informs us that the translator of the 1797 edition of Vattel chose the phrase “natural born citizens” because he knew that was what the Framers meant in the American Constitution.

    Well, that doesn’t necessarily follow. It would be a weak argument even if there were anything to say for it.

    But there isn’t. Because the 1797 edition of Vattel was not translated in America, or by an American, at all.

    It was written thousands of miles and an ocean away, in London, England, by an anonymous Englishman.

    Even today, a book translated in England by an Englishman would have reference to an English context, and not an American one.

    But in 1797 it was far worse, since instead of America being a 6-hour flight away, it was an arduous, dangerous and extremely expensive 2 month journey in a wooden ship.

    So the claim TJ makes — that the translator of the 1797 edition chose that term because he understood exactly what the Framers meant in the American Constitution and that their concept matched Vattel’s concept — is just. plain. idiotic.

    Congratulation, oh great expert TJ, against whom all others are mere ants!

    Once again you’ve demonstrated how very little you actually know.

    But your worst blunder yet… is still to come.

    • Suranis says:

      But your worst blunder yet… is still to come

      Dan dan DAAAAaaaAAAAaaaaAAAAANNNN!!!!

    • Ballantine says:

      It is kind of astonishing that someone asserts something is true when they have zero evidence it is true. He has no idea why the translators changed the language and no evidence a single person in the United States, England or any place else in the world at such time connected those words to Vattel’s two-oarent theory. You are right the 1797 revised translation was from England and such language didn’t appear in a US translation I believe until 1817. Even then, the old addition continued to be cited by the courts and scholars and, in fact, I am not aware of a single person citing the revised language in the new editions of Vattel for more than 50 years following the founding. Thus, he, of course, doesn’t know if any founder ever knew there was a different translation of Vattel, nor whether they had an issue with it as no one cited Vattel as being relevant on citizenship at all. Simply a fact that no founder or legal authority of any significance prior to the Civil War connect the terms “natural born citizen” with Vattel and it is simply absurd to claim such was the law.

      It is amazing how some minds work. So, it doesn’t matter that no founder said they agreed with Vattel. Rather, the fact that they didn’t say they disagreed with his NBC definition, when there is no evidence they knew he had an NBC definition, is evidence. Gee, none of them said they disagreed with the English common law definition either. The lack of logical thinking here is disturbing.

      • gorefan says:

        “Even then, the old addition continued to be cited by the courts and scholars and, in fact, I am not aware of a single person citing the revised language in the new editions of Vattel for more than 50 years following the founding.”

        Of course the classic example of that is the case the birthers love to cite The Venus 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814),

        Chief Justice Marshall citing Vattel,

        “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens

      • Ballantine says:

        Actually, an interesting question is who is the first significant legal authority in the United States to cite the revised Vattel language in any context? Counsel for defendant in Lynch v. Clarke did in 1844, more than a century after th founding. Of course, he said Vattel was not speaking of our law or universal law, but the law of France or some other state. I guess, he didn’t get the memo. Of course, the judge used the “natives, or indigenese” edition. It really raises the question of whether any legal authority of any significance in the first half century of our republic even knew there were editions of Vattel that contained the phrase “natural born citizen.”

  32. John Woodman says:

    Okay, on to TJ’s other blunder, which is a rather breathtaking one.

    Excuse me — First, did I mention that TJ is an Expert(TM) with Supreme Legal and Historical Acumen(TM)? Because we certainly want to give him his due.

    TJ, I asked you to name one Framer who said that when they wrote the words “natural born citizen” they were referring to Vattel’s concept of citizenship.

    And you brilliantly rise to the occasion! You produce this quote:

    “What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues…” – Charles Pinckney (Continental Congress (1777-78 and 1784-87) and S.C. state legislature (1779-80, 1786-89, and 1792-96) signer of the Constitution of the United States

    Wow, that’s an impressive quote. And from Charles Pinckney, no less!

    Pinckney was not only a signer of the Constitution, he was a Governor of South Carolina, a United States Representative, a United States Senator, a member of the Continental Congress, chair of South Carolina’s Constitutional convention, Minister to Spain — and became the ancestor of no less than seven later Governors of South Carolina. Whew!

    So that makes TJ’s quote really, really impressive. Or…

    At least it WOULD BE — IF it actually came from Charles Pinckney.

    But those words are not Pinckney’s. Distinguished Framer Charles Pinckney never said that.

    Those words are only 3 years old, and they are the words of BOB BARNEY — the apparent inheritor of a significant portion of the cultlike religious heritage of the old “WORLDWIDE CHURCH OF GOD” preachers Herbert W Armstrong and Garner Ted Armstrong. (Anyone remember those guys from the 1970s?)

    Barney runs “theplaintruth.org.” And the words come from a 2009 article by Bob, who was writing at that time under the pseudonym of “PA Madison.” The article was republished in 2011, and he admitted being the author of the piece.

    Here, in fact, is the article. Some idiot birther picked up Barney’s words which immediately followed a Charles Pinckney quote in his article, and misattributed them to Pinckney.

    Other idiot birthers have repeated the claim.

    So the confusion all stems from idiotic birthers’ inability to separate a quote from Pinckney which appeared in Barney’s article, and Barney’s own words.

    And… from the fact that birthers don’t check their facts, and they don’t check their quotes.

    If they find a quote they like, they uncritically accept it as gospel — just as TJ did.

    It doesn’t even matter who the quote comes from! An obscure, lying lawyer; a reformed druggie who previously claimed to be God’s Holy Spirit on Earth, a pseudonymous ‘citizen journalist’ who nobody on earth has ever heard of, a used car salesman, a documented liar, a political hack with an agenda, or the heir apparent to a worn-out cult.

    All are equally valid and highly credible “experts” to the birther mind — as long, of course, as the “expert” says what the birther wants to hear.

    And if they are exposed to a quote they don’t like — even though it comes from a US Senator, one of the greatest legal experts of early America, a Founding Father, a Framer of the Constitution, an early US President, a conservative think tank, or a long list of agreeing US Supreme Court Justices, they’ll just ignore or dismiss it — just as TJ here has done repeatedly.

    Those aren’t made-up lists, by the way. Birthers have readily accepted claims by people in the first list, and adamantly rejected the testimony of people in the second list.

    So once again, TJ “Einstein” McCann has publicly made a complete joke of himself.

    Actually, twice in a single post.

    But who’s counting?

    • Slartibartfast says:

      John said: “But who’s counting?”

      I’m not sure if integers go that high—there might not even be enough real numbers to match every one of TJ’s mistakes… ;-)

      Thanks—that was worth the wait!

      • BrianH says:

        I’m not sure if integers go that high—there might not even be enough real numbers to match every one of TJ’s mistakes…

        Given genesis of so many of TJ’s mistakes, wouldn’t a good portion have to be accounted for using imaginary numbers? Thus expressed as “ni“, where n=equals the the number of claims without any real substantiation, just imagination. :)

    • Slartibartfast says:

      I also find it amusing that birthers always seem to unashamedly carry around at least enough sexism to require a citizen father rather than a citizen parent—not only is it clear that they only care about an argument if it allows them to slander President Obama, but they ignore the FACT that, early in our Republic, a child’s citizenship followed the mother, not the father. By the law in the Founders’ day, President Obama is white—just like his mother’s ancestor who was the child of a white woman and a slave. And we have yet to be presented with a case of a white child, born on the soil in the days of the Founders, being denied birthright citizenship—much less one with an American parent.

      • Northland10 says:

        I find it interesting that all of the attempts to change birthright citizenship for the last 20 years required one citizen parent or a citizen mother. I do not recall any versions requiring a citizen father. When I mention it to birthers I hear crickets.

    • Ballantine says:

      Yeah, that is a good one. I still think TJ’s inability to read the “domain” language of Elk v. Wilkins beats everything else on this thead as it rises to an Apuzzite level of trying to twist plain language to say the oppoisite of what it actually says, though nothing really beats the Jefferson statute stuff.

      What I also find amazing is TJ is so sure he is right he simply refuses to believe any authority that you cite that says he is wrong. To him, it just can’t be the case that every scholar in the early republic says he is wrong, therefore the multitude of quotes from every legal giant of the era must be out of context or not sufficiently analyzed. The Supreme Court, of course, doesn’t cite quotes that have to be analyzed, they generally cite quotes that are directly on point and speak for themselves. If one has to spin ambiguous language in a quote to argue it supports your theory, it is not very persausive. Most of TJ’s citations fall into this catagory such as ambiguous claims about dual allegiance that say nothing about its application to children of aliens, that are made in contexts that have nothing to do with children of aliens. To TJ, his unsupported spin on such language is somehow controlling while plain statements directly on point about children of aliens don’t count. Of course, we see this thinking throughout birtherstan but it is still quite amazing to me that people act in such a manner.

    • Thomas Brown says:

      There is even a dead give-away that the passage was written recently: a singular subject being referred to by a plural pronoun.

      “Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father…”

      That phraseology was unknown before about the 1980′s as far as I can tell.

    • TJ McCann says:

      I have yet been able to validate, or invalidate, the aforementioned quote…

      However, it should duly noted and recognized that you babble and pontificate entirely too much, and go on about things no way in evidence, and extrapolation your blatherings to things not reasonably established.

      It should be noted that the 1795 Naturalization Act, which did repeal the 1790 Act, specifically mandates that all persons to be naturalized had to give notice of their intent to naturalize and intent to forswear all allegiances to any foreign power, and do so before the state authorities, at least 3 years prior to their admission as a citizen.

      Furthermore, that 1795 Naturalization Act indicates in Sec 3 that the children of such persons so naturalized, provided they are dwelling within the United States, provided they are less than 21 years of age shall be recognized as citizens of the United States.

      This tends to prohibit the persons who give birth on American soil from father’s who have never naturalized, and did never indicate their intention to be naturalized, from being citizens… much less natural born citizens.

      And since you, not I, brought up “Einstein” in your ad hominem blatherings, here is the Declaration of Intention to naturalize of one Dr. Albert Einstein, on January 15, 1936, indicating his intention for naturalization, forswearing all other allegiance, and lawful entry for the purpose of “permanent residence.” And Einstein is doing so 141 years after the 1795 Naturalization Act!

      Why, its almost as if we recognized the intent of the persons entering the country to become citizens, as opposed to those who did not.. and those born here, we considered the intention of their parents to become citizens! This tends to obliterate the idea that anyone born here of foreign parents might become a citizen; Congress specifically stipulated otherwise.

      • Slartibartfast says:

        TJ,

        If you are correct, how is it that we know (from statute) that Dr. Dunham, at the time of President Obama’s birth, would have been unable to transmit her citizenship had the birth taken place outside of the country, but had she given birth a few months later, a foreign-born child of hers would have been a US citizen by birth? Since there is no statute to cover it, either a child born of an American mother on American soil is NEVER a US citizen (if born to a foreign father), or is ALWAYS a US citizen. Which is it?

        • TJ McCann says:

          You answered your own question. How we “know” Dunham was unable to transfer statutory citizenship, given her age, was that this citizenship was established by statute – law. It is not the birthright citizenship of natural born citizen, no matter what current legislators and word smiths may call it.

          A child born of an American mother on American soil, ignoring the citizenship of the father, is only a citizen by statute, and that statute only came about since Wong Kim Ark. Such offspring is not a natural born citizen, which is not a derivative of statutory law (nor is it the dictate of the Crown).

          • Slartibartfast says:

            Then cite the statute (passed after the Wong decision) which makes the child of an American mother born on American soil a citizen.

            When you fail to do this, you will once again prove that your position is logically inconsistent. You really are a pathetic schmuck. How does it feel to be such a loser? Do you understand that no court will ever agree with your interpretation or are you too stupid?

            • TJ McCann says:

              You keep coming up with these mind-numbingly stupid challenges, and they’re all born solely of your own fixation of what you think things mean.

              In this discussion I’ve cited a whole array of statutes, among which include birth on given state’s or territory’s soil. I’ve also presented Gray’s own words recognizing any act of Congress, inclusive of Amendments, to be naturalization.

              You’re a schmuck to even ask this at this point.

              And for the record, EVERY time the Supreme Court has spoken on the issue, it has agreed with the position I’m presenting (not mine), with the possible exception of Wong Kim Ark decision, and in that he had to reverse himself, reverse the Slaughterhouse cases, and misrepresent numerous other cases and this country’s entire reason for existence, to do so, and even then Gray never held that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen! You want to ask questions, why have you not paused to ask yourself why Gray didnt cite the history of this country, and instead had to rely on British common law dictate, which we rejected? If birth on American soil was so clearly resulting in a citizen, you think the state of California, or even the U.S. Congress, would have recognized this on their own, and would not have applied the Chinese exclusion acts in that instance? And to justify Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship, why did gray have to rely so heavily on the fact that his parents had a permanent domicile and work? None of this coincides with your “always a citizen” premise, which is colored by the corruptions resulting from the WKA case.

              And here’s a clue for you, even as stated in 1787 by Ramsay, we are definitively not subjects, and subject and citizen are not interchangeable. Citing some Justice or Congress persons saying they’re interchangeable, or representing Article II as indicating “natural born subject”, do not even begin to refute this. It only underscores the fact that Congresspersons and Judges can be idiots too. Such statements don’t begin to undermine the most fundamental fact of this country’s raison d’etre. And for the record, they don’t teach what “citizenship” is, or “natural born citizen”, in law schools.

            • Thomas Brown says:

              Well, if you can’t handle the challenges, just insult them! That’ll prove you’re right!

            • Ballantine says:

              And for the record, EVERY time the Supreme Court has spoken on the issue, it has agreed with the position I’m presenting (not mine), with the possible exception of Wong Kim Ark decision

              This is simply a lie. The Court has never said parentage was relevant except the Slaughterhouse orbiter dicta, which was a case where the issue was not before the court, briefed or argued. That is all you have and it is not authroity after WKA. Prior to WKA, all other statements of the Court were consistent with the common law interpretation as even Minor said natural born was to be defined by the common law. It just declined to address the common law’s application to children of aliens. Of course, since Wong Kim Ark, the Court has affirmed Gray’s conclusions again and again stating that our nationality and citizenship is defined by place of birth following the English rule, that Gray’s logic would apply to both legal and illegal aliens and, of course, that there is no jus sanguinis in the United States absent naturalization statute.

              And here’s a clue for you, even as stated in 1787 by Ramsay, we are definitively not subjects, and subject and citizen are not interchangeable. Citing some Justice or Congress persons saying they’re interchangeable, or representing Article II as indicating “natural born subject”, do not even begin to refute this.

              Refute what? Your assertion supported by one sore loser who no one considers authority. And his opinion counts while the multitude of legal authorities that said they were equivalent or used them interchangable don’t. I see, Kent and Story, the most influential scholars of the 19th century, don’t count. The state legislatures, courts and Congress don’t count. The 14th Amendment Congress doesn’t count where State v. Manuel was cited by pretty much everyone stating that these were equivalent terms. You have found one person who agrees with you and that trumps to 50 who don’t. Of course.

              and even then Gray never held that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen!

              Again, you are simply speaking on matters you don’t understand. While do you make claims about holding and dicta when you have no understanding what these terms mean. What else do you pretend to be an expert on on the internet that you have no knowledge of. Gray held WKA to be a citizen because he was a natural born citizen. He explained that both the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment were defined by the English definition of natural born subject which included persons of WKA’s status. Any first year law student would understand he didn’t need to call WKA natural born in order to defined the term and make clear he was one and for it all to considered part of the ratio decidendi and not dicta.

              And the statement that Gray didn’t cite the history of this country is again delusional. Gray cited about 4 pages of English law and spent the the other 49 pages cited pretty much every legal authority in history on the subject, Marshall, Story, Kent, Binney, Curtis, Swayne, Attorney General Black and Bates, Secretary of State Marcy and pretty much every famous citizenship at the state and federal level in our history. And he could have cited 50 more pages it he wanted to, but he made his point.

              Seriously, you should take some notes as you might actually learn something about law while you make a fool of yourself here.

      • Ballantine says:

        This tends to prohibit the persons who give birth on American soil from father’s who have never naturalized, and did never indicate their intention to be naturalized, from being citizens… much less natural born citizens

        Again, what kind of persons keeps repeating claims he has no authority to support? No legal authority has said that any such naturlaization act was relevant to persons born on US soil. I have cited a multitude of authority saying this and you can produce nothing. You simply insist you are right because that is what you and your ilk do.

      • John Woodman says:

        I have yet been able to validate, or invalidate, the aforementioned quote…

        I showed you exactly where the quote came from. It’s undeniable. The quote is not Pinckney’s, but is Bob Barney’s.

        TJ, you’re an idiot. I mean, really.

        And I don’t mean that necessarily in the sense of strict intelligence, but in the sense that you have seized upon an idea simply because you like the idea, when there are only a few dirt clods of support for the idea throughout all of history, and when there is literally a mountain of solid evidence against it.

        And because you like the idea, and insist it is true, no power on earth can shake you from your delusion.

        As Forrest Gump said: “Stupid is as stupid does.”

        And in this case, “stupid” is believing a proposition which runs completely counter to the entire mountain of legal and historical evidence.

        And for the moment, “stupid” is not acknowledging that you attributed a quote to Charles Pinckney which Pinckney never made.

        Any normal person at this person would say, “You know what? I screwed up. Royally.”

        Not YOU. You’re not even capable of THAT.

        But in fact, it’s not just Pinckney. The record of this thread is that you have “screwed up” again and again and again.

        At this point, any functionally intelligent person would recognize and admit: “You know what? You guys are right. I’ve said a bunch of things that have turned out to be just flat-out wrong. And I’ll have to admit, I haven’t found anything yet of any substance that you’ve been incorrect about. I’m going to have to admit: You guys know what you’re talking about, and when I came here, I flat-out didn’t. I thought I did, but I didn’t. All of that being the case, I’m going to go and do some more studying of the matter. But I have to admit at this point — you guys are probably right.”

        That’s what a normal, intelligent person would do. But you?

        So far you’ve just doubled down on stupid, as hard as you could.

        Oh — and when it comes to the Naturalization Acts — not surprisingly, those have been discussed in detail here. Not one of the Naturalization Acts had a single word to say about the status of any person BORN on United States soil.

        Why? Because there was not the slightest need to naturalize any of these persons, as everybody in the country knew that (except for slaves, who were property, and Indians, who were a part of their tribal governments, not the main of “United States” society) they were native-born, natural born US citizens already.

      • Suranis says:

        By the way, I feel I should mention that I talked about you a bit on RC Radio last night, McCant. Would you like the download link? :D

        • Slartibartfast says:

          I would!

          • Suranis says:

            http://www.blogtalkradio.com/rcr/2012/10/10/rc-radio.mp3

            I’m Sure McCant will appreciate the deep resonating booming voice I put on when roleplaying his brilliance..

            • John Woodman says:

              Did you include an echo? One really can not over-role-play TJ’s brilliance and authority, since he’s smarter than James Madison, all 55 of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention, all of our early legal authorities, Justice Sandford of New York (who looked into the matter extensively), numerous US Supreme Court Justices, various Senators and Congressmen, all persons assembled here, all of the contemporary Judges who’ve ruled on the “natural born citizen” matter, and virtually every legitimate historical or legal authority ever to rule or comment on the matter throughout history.

              I think you should add an echo.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Thanks!

              Now where did I put that popcorn…

  33. Ballantine says:

    TJ also seems to claim that Congress in 1874 declared we didn’t recognize dual allegiance. The only thing I could find was a report that included a statement about there being no dual allegiance in the context of someone who renounced their allegiance to the United States and hence was no longer deemed to owe us allegiance. I see nothing in this report which suggests we didn’t follow the common law rule. In fact, it appears that three of the five persons who wrote the report had previously stated the common law was our law. This would include Rep. Lawrence who replied to President Johnson’s veto on the Civil Right Act with the statement that the act was declaratory of existing law which was defined by Lynch v. Clark and stood for the notion that children born on our soil were citizens “without any regard to the political condition or allegiance of their parents.” I know, that is so ambiguous. It included James Wilson who expressly stated children of aliens were natural born citizens and repeatedly stated that we adopted the English common law citing Blackstone, Bates, Kent, State v. Manuel and numerous other authorities TJ says don’t count. It also included Rep. Holman who also made a long speech in 1871 supporting the common law interpretation.

    TJ could look to clearer and more famous examples of people saying we didn’t allow dual allegiance. For example, Attorney General Black said the same thing in 1859. Of course, he also said:

    “A free white person born in this country of foreign parents is a citizen of the United States.”

    The context of Black’s statement on dual allegiance was that as a matter of public law we would not recognize the claims of allegiance of foreign nations on any of our naturalized citizens. Of course, if we didn’t recognize foreign claims of allegiance on our naturalized citizens, we obviously wouldn’t on our native born citizens and clearly Black understood we followed jus soli. To read prohibitions on dual allegiance as somehow meaning we followed jus sanguinis simply makes no sense unless one assumes everyone thought jus sanguinis to be some universal rule or that we let foreign nations dictate who are citizens were. Of course, no legal authority in the US thought either of these were true (at least until the run up to Wong Kim Ark where a couple people took such fringe position). In fact, I do not think there were any writers in the early republic at all that thought jus sanguinis was the universal rule or the rule of Public Law.

    The same type of statements on dual allegiance can be found in the so-called Expatriation Act debates of 1868. Such Act was really called “An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States” and was about protecting our citizens from foreign claims of allegiance when traveling overseas. In such Act, Congress intended to proclaim that our naturalized citizens had a right to expatriate from their native country and hence did not owe such country their allegiance. In doing so, they felt they also had to declare Americans had the same right to be taken seriously, but such was not the purpose of the Act but more of an afterthought. The Act came about when the Committee on foreign affairs issued a famous report claiming that as many as 3/5th of our citizens could be dual citizens since the laws of Europe extended citizenship by descent for multiple generations. For example, Woodrow Wilson was born a British subject since his grandfather was born in England. Andrew Johnson was probably born a British subject as many sources claimed his father was born in England which would make him and his children British subjects. Such, of course, was only British municipal law which had no effect in this country and even England didn’t claim such persons were British subjects or owed allegiance to England when they were in the United States. In this Congress, however, the notion that so many of our citizens might owe a dual allegiance was called absurd and it was determined we should declare that we will protect our citizens from such claims. An early version read:

    “Whereas all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, owe allegiance to the Government of the United States and to no foreign State or power whatever. And whereas certain foreign states have claimed the allegiance of certain of said citizens and have violated the rights, privileges and immunities of said citizens when within the jurisdiction of foreign states. Therefore……all citizens of the United States when in foreign states are entitled to, and shall receive, from this Government adequate protection of life, liberty and property.” February 4, 1868

    Pretty simple. Even though we didn’t recognize dual allegiance, foreign nations still continued to make claims of allegiance on some of our citizens when they traveled oversees. Accordingly, we would protect all our citizens who are subject to such claims. It was later stated that we didn’t need to make any proclamations about our native born citizens as no one was making claims on them and it had always been our position to protect our native born citizens. However, we had not always protected our naturalized citizens when they returned to the nation of their birth and accordingly the final language essentially said that in the future we would protect our naturalized citizens to the same extent we have always protected our native born citizens. Indeed, the notion that foreign law was relevant to who were our native born citizens or that there was some universal jus sanguinis rule would have been seen as absurd to the people who passed such Act.

    The Act let to England convening a Royal Commission on the subject that would lead to England abolishing its doctrine of perpetual allegiance and reconsidereing its entire nationality law. They decided to retain jus soli as the rule that made the most sense, though they had a spirited debate on the issue with Commissioners arguing the pros and cons of each potential rule. The Royal Commission report is an interesting read if one want to read what people thought the benefits were of jus soli versus jus sanguinis at the time and contains much discussion of American law. Of course, these idiot commissions, the leading legal minds in England, somehow thought our citizen laws was the same as theirs. I guess that is because they read and cited actual American legal authority, something TJ doesn’t seem to know how to do.

    The bottom line is that TJ’s strange assertion that not recognizing dual allegiance meant we didn’t follow jus soli is simply absurd. It is contrary to logic, the English language and actual history. For example, England didn’t recognize dual allegiance and obviously followed jus soli. It is simply a case of trying to spin authority to support your argument when it really does not.

    • TJ McCann says:

      There was no dual allegiance recognized, because as I’ve cited, they had to forswear that allegiance in advance of even being naturalized here in this country, going back to the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization acts, and continuing on through “Einstein” in 1936!

      • Slartibartfast says:

        TJ,

        THE LAWS OF THE US ARE IRRELEVANT IN THE DETERMINATION OF A PERSON’S CITIZENSHIP BY ANOTHER COUNTRY. IF THE SWISS, SAY, RECOGNIZED SOMEONE AS THEIR CITIZEN (EVEN AFTER THEY HAD NATURALIZED IN THE US) THEN THEY COULD, FOR INSTANCE, REFUSE TO LET THE AMERICAN CONSULATE INTERVENE ON THAT PERSON’S BEHALF.

        Every single country gets to determine, on their own, who is and is not their citizen—except for the US in TJ’s birther fantasies.

        (I apologize for the yelling, but TJ is quite an idiot and maybe some emphasis will help…)

        • TJ McCann says:

          1) The laws of the United States, cannot simply annul an individual’s allegiance to another country and 2) The United States can simply choose who is granted citizenship when, or if, they do first forswear their allegiance. 3) No one can have two Masters.

          We saw, for a fact, repeatedly by 1812, that other country’s recognition of allegiance, specifically British Perpetual Allegiance, would pull American sailors off of American ships in American harbors and press them into service of the crown.

          Only in Slarti’s ignorant world of Gray does no other allegiance matter, and the United States not only has no control over its own made citizens, but has no idea who they are, and welcomes the violation of its own borders! Those aliens, born with allegiance to foreign country’s through the parents, have an right to the citizenship of their parents, despite birth on U.S. soil. The slipshod award of citizenship upon their births, not only undermines our recognition of individual freedom, but has served to welcome the undermining of this country and the security of that which it values, both directly and indirectly.

          Perhaps you’ve not heard of Harry Gold, or David Greenglass, but they led to the prosecutions of Ethel Rosenberg (Greenglass’ sister) and Julius Rosenberg, both of whom passed nuclear and weapons secrets to Russia as a result of their communist sympathies. They were both immigrants born only 20 years after the Wong Kim Ark decision. While foreign loyalties cannot be prevented, foreign allegiance can be by limiting those recognized with citizenship, as intended by this nation’s founders.

          And we see further effects today. As shown by D’Souza’s movie, “2016: Obama’s America”, Obama was so compelled by an allegiance to his father, whom he barely knew, that he even titled his biography “Dreams FROM My Father”, and that allegiance from birth is adversely affecting our policy and putting our nation at risk. Obama does not even disguise it, and he feels righteous in his ties throughout his life to ideologies continually against this country and its principles.

          You’re “quite an idiot” to not recognize these realities, all while you ignorantly adhere to feudal British doctrine in disregard of the causes that led to this nation’s founding.

          The only reason Britain got away with it, was that it involved no real “rights”, and instead only a compulsion to Britain, and those who were Britain’s enemies, even though born on British soil, were not recognized as subjects, this included non Anglicans, and particularly persons of non-Christian faith. I’m willing to bet you are true to the stereotype of your ilk and believe Islam a bona fide (good faith) religion, despite it being an all encompassing ideology that allows no freedom to its faith whatsoever.. but that’s a whole other issue entirely, straying all too far from this discussion. But it does broach the concern of this administration having DHS and other positions loaded with Muslim advisory positions, more than just inhibiting recognition of what constitutes terrorism, all while we embrace an “Arab Spring” that may have a vote, but results in a tyrannical society nonetheless.

          • Thomas Brown says:

            Do you wear a floppy hat, huge shoes and a rubber nose when you type this swill? That’s how I picture you… you should always dress the part for the role you’re playing!

        • Ballantine says:

          1) The laws of the United States, cannot simply annul an individual’s allegiance to another country and 2) The United States can simply choose who is granted citizenship when, or if, they do first forswear their allegiance. 3) No one can have two Masters.

          Again, you are simply making things up. As a matter of Public Law the United States could make anyone within its borders a citizen and claim their allegiance. If such conflicted with foreign law, the dispute in theory should be settled by Public Law. Again, I have cited authority showing that both England and the United States (at least until the run-up to Wong Kim Ark) took the position that jus soli and the right to expatriate was the rule of Public Law and hence our native born and naturalized citizens only owed allegiance to us. England never tried to claim a child of English subjects born on US soil owed its allegiance to England unless they returned to England. We followed the same rule for children of our citizens born oversees. See the opinions of Hoar and Marcy cited on this thread for example. Again, I cite authority, you simply insist you are right. I suspect you will never read the multiple discussions on this from the Expatriation Act debates because you obviously don’t want to know the truth that we ignored claims of foreign allegiance on both our native born and naturalized citizens as a matter of Public Law and that is the sense in which the prohibition of dual allegiance was used.

          • Thomas Brown says:

            ” Waaaaaaaah! No fair! I’m right! I just am, ’cause I say so! Neener neener boo boo! I don’t care what anybody says… you’re just big poopy-heads if you don’t agree with me! Lalalalalalalala I can’t hear you!” —TJMcCann

        • John Woodman says:

          (I apologize for the yelling, but TJ is quite an idiot and maybe some emphasis will help…)

          I appreciate the effort, but as far as TJ himself is concerned, it really doesn’t matter how many of TJ’s points are shown to be absolute BS. He is entirely resistant to any reasoning or facts.

          The best we can do is show his arguments are idiotic, for the sake of others who are more open to the truth.

          There’s an old saying: You can educate the ignorant, but you can’t fix stupid.

          • Slartibartfast says:

            Yeah, I know that TJ will cling to his logically inconsistent, unsupported, long-debunked nonsense until the bitter end.

            For someone who showed up asking for honest debate, TJ has demonstrated absolutely no interest in participating in the dialogue in good faith. It has become perfectly clear (which, of course, we all suspected from the start) that he either has no understanding of what constitutes “honest debate” or he is simply unwilling to participate because he knows that his ideas can’t survive objective scrutiny.

  34. TJ McCann says:

    Dissertation on the Manner of Acquiring The Character and Privileges of a Citizen of the United States.

    By David Ramsey, 1789

    [Immediately establishes the vast difference between citizen and subject]

    The United States are a new nation, or political fociety, formed at firft by the declaration of independence, out of thofe Britifh Subjects in America, who were thrown out of royal protection by act of parliament, paffed in December, 1775.

    A citizen of the United States, means a member of this new nation. The principle of government being radically changed by the revolution, the political character of the people was alfo changed from fubjects to citizens.

    The difference is immenfe. Subject is derived from the latin words, sub and jucio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mafs of free people, who, collectively, poffefs fovereignty.

    Subjects look up to a mafter, but citizens are fo far equal, that none have hereditary rights fuperior to others. Each citizen of a free ftate contains, within himfelf, by nature and conftitution, as much of the common fovereignty as another. In the eye of reafon and philofophy, tthe political condition of citizens is more exalted than that of noblemen. Dukes and earls are the creatures of kings, and may be made by them at pleafure: but citizens poffefs in their own right original foverenty.

    ——-
    [on citizens, and natural right, or birthright citizenship]

    As the war drew near a clofe, the adminiftration of oaths being lefs neceffary was lefs frequent. Citizenfhip was then, and now is, daily acquired by tacit confent of acquifcence. Minors who were not old enough to be parties to the declarataion of independene, or take the oaths of fidelity to the ftates at the time they were impofed, became citizens in confequence of their continuing to refide in the United States after they had arrived to mature age, efpecially if at the fame time they claimed protection, and performed the duties of citizens.

    At twenty-one years of age, evey freeman is at liberty to chofe his country, his religion, and his allegiance. Thofe who continue after that age in the allegiance under which they have been educated, become, by tacit confent, either fubjects or citizens, as the cafe may be. In this manner, youn men are now daily acquiring citizenfhip, without the intervention of an oath.

    It is to be obferved, that in order that fuch perfons may acquire citizfhip in this way, their refidence fubfequent to the revolution is indifpenfably neceffary, prevous to the commencement of their citizenfhip: for no man can be faid fo far as to acquiefce in, or confent to a government, before he lived under it, as to become a citizen thereof by tacit confent.

    None can claim citizenfhip as a birth-right, but fuch as have been born fince the declaration of independence, for this obvious reafon: no man can be born a citizen of a ftate or government, which did not exift at the time of his birth. Citizenfhip is the inheritance of the children of thofe who have taken part in the late revolution: but this is confined exclufively to the chldren of thofe who were themfelves citizens. Thofe who died before the revolution, could leave no political character to their children, but that of fubjects, which they themfelves poffeffed. If they had lived, no one could be certain whether they would have adhered to the king or to congrefs. Their children, therefore, may claim by inheritance the rights of Britifh fubjects, but not of American citizens.

    Perfons born in any country may have acquired citizenfhip by adoption, or naturalization, agreebly to law. The citizenfhip of fuch must be dated from the time of their adoption.

    From thefe obfervations, the following inferences refult.

    Citizenfhip is an adventitious character to every adult in the United States; and there was a certain period in the lives of fuch perfons, when they ceafed to be fubjects, and began to be citizens.

    The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but thofe who have been born of citizens fince the 4th of July, 1776.

    There you have in that last sentence the answer to two points of disagreement:

    1) The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, hence the need for the Grandfather Clause even among this nation’s founders.

    2) And there is no “natural right” to citizenship (birthright) to any but those who are born of citizens since July 4, 1776 — natural born citizens.

    Ramsay even clarifies how the “14 years a resident” may apply to the President, even if he is subject to that Grandather clause, and referenes Doctor Johnson in doing so:

    By the fame pharagraph, the diftinction between a citizen and refident is conftitutionally recognized; for tho’ it is neceffary, that the prefident muft have been “fourteen years a refident,” it is fufficient for him to have become a citizen “at the time of the adoption of the conftitution.” By this it is acknowledged, that one may be much longer a refident within the United States, than a citizen of the fame. The precifion of this paragraph, in refpect to language, is worthy of obfervation. It is not faid, that the pefident muft have been a refident in, or an inhabitant of the United States, for fourteen years. The word ufed is within, which as explained by Doctor Johnfon, means, “in the compafs of, “— “the inclofure of.” The fentence, therefore, when analyfed, means nothing more than the prefident muft have been a refident withiun the limits of the United States for fourteen years.

    Ramsay reiterates the point of birthright citizenship 1 paragraph further indicating:

    From the premifes already eftablifhed, it may be farther inferred, that citizenship, by inheritance, belongs to none but the children of thofe Americans, who having furvived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character by their own right, and tranfmitted it to their offspring.

    Thus, mere birth on U.S. soil does NOT result in a de facto citizen, much less one with any sort of natural born birthright. But those who are citizens can transfer that birthright to their offspring – thereby making the citizenship of the parents a requisite consideration.

    To pharaphrase David Ramsay himself, some here need to spend far more time in respect of the “precifion of language” and learning what this nation’s founders lived through and believed, rather than pontificating their own ignorant belieff.

    To his credit Ramsay even has the foresight to conclude with the recognition of the “dangerous confequences” to which we subject ourselves today as a result of the decision in Wong Kim Ark, should we allow mere “birth and refidence” are sufficient to confer rights of citizenship on any except those present during the revolutionary war. “If this fhould be eftablished, many perfons hoftile to our liberties and independence, might put in their claim to be citizens.”

    We have one such person occupying the White House at this moment.

    .

    • Slartibartfast says:

      TJ quoted Ramsey* as saying: “Subjects look up to a mafter, but citizens are fo far equal, that none have hereditary rights fuperior to others.”

      I guess Ramsey, like TJ, held logically inconsistent views—citizens have no hereditary rights superior to other citizens, but natural born citizens have the right to run for POTUS and naturalized citizens don’t. It looks like David and TJ are kindred spirits.

      * Knowing TJ, I don’t think there are better that 50/50 odds that the quote is legit…

      • TJ McCann says:

        As I’ve said before, in this very same discussion, the qualification to run for President is not viewed as “a right” in this country, and it is certainly not a right of citizenship, or else those founders would not have made that powerful positive mandate that they had to be, not just a “citizen”, and not just a “born citizen”, but rather a natural born citizen. Oh, those poor naturalized and born citizens deprived of their rights!

        No one with a level of understanding that has progressed beyond elementary school believes that “anyone can be Prefident one day”.

        The reason it’s not a “right” is that the founders viewed it more important to protect the rights of each and every citizen, by limiting the access to that Office to those who were entirely born of this society, and thereby more likely to embrace this country’s principles. Nowhere among this country’s principles is the any right to equal outcome and result, nor even the right to equal opportunity. “All men are created equal”, but it nowhere a belief of this country that they be kept that way.

        • Slartibartfast says:

          TJ,

          It is clear that you are prejudiced against immigrants—the Founders weren’t: They were aware that they were ALL the descendants of immigrants (if not immigrants themselves) and they built a nation that welcomed immigrants with open arms. Not only is your position logically inconsistent, unenforcible (especially in the Founders’ day), and unsupported by law, it is also deeply unAmerican. If you hate this country so much, why don’t you leave?

          • TJ McCann says:

            What’s clear is you project your ideologies and beliefs upon others.

            I am not “prejudiced” against immigrants at all. However a society that is overrun by unchecked immigration, that has no sense of itself, nor regard for the future, will be overrun and undone by its own ignorance, even as the callse now for “immigration reform” represent only less checks on the immigration deluge.

            The founders were not rabidly pro-immigration, but rather pro-freedoms, and pro the values that they instituted in this country. They did not just welcome immigrants with open arms, but even in colonial times insisted that those immigrants swear an oath to the state and society, and its values, and contribute thereto, but not so now. Comparing today to those founders is nothing but very short sighted view, almost as bad as basing an immigration policy on the horrible poem at the base of the Statute of Liberty.

            And today we offer those “huddled masses” yearning to breathe free, only a new form of oppression and tyranny, all while we welcome old forms that do not regard this nations values, safe haven on our shores.

            Our nation’s motto of E Pluribus Unum” (out of many, one), has been perverted into Ex Uno Plures (out of one, many) each with their own values, their own agendas, and the expectation that these get “equally” gratified, and leading the parade is the Democratic Party, followed not long thereafter by the Republican idiots.

        • John Woodman says:

          TJ says: “No one with a level of understanding that has progressed beyond elementary school believes that ‘anyone can be Prefident one day’.”

          First of all, it’s PRESIDENT, not PREFIDENT. Or are you just too intellectually challenged to recognize that those letters are s’s?

          To me, it boggles the mind that anyone would type out a quote from Ramsay’s “dissertation,” substituting f’s for all of the s’s, just because in the typography of that day the s’s resembled – note they were NOT identical to — the character used for f.

          Be that as it may, let’s go back to what you said:

          “No one with a level of understanding that has progressed beyond elementary school believes that ‘anyone can be Prefident one day’.”

          United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981) :

          “All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”

          The more you speak, TJ, the more you reveal how very, very little you know about the matter.

          • Suranis says:

            Yes, but do we have PROOF that Sandra Day O’Conner progressed beyond elementary school? Well?

            • John Woodman says:

              Gee, that’s a tough one. I don’t suppose we have iron-clad proof, but we do have some pretty good evidence that’s the case.

              Let’s see. I don’t see a link to her law degree from Stanford, but how about this?

              TJ will no doubt find some obscure birther lawyer or homeless drug addict he can quote as “proof” that Sandra Day O’Connor, in fact, never progressed beyond elementary school.

          • Northland10 says:

            With the copying of f instead of s and the obsession with allegiance that laws cannot control, I am starting to get a whiff of SovCit thinking. That may explain the constant claims lacking any authority.

            • Suranis says:

              The actual reading of Chisolm V Georgia that I did is pretty devastating to the sov cit case, as it rules how governors have the right to rule in lieu of Princes despite everyone in the land equal and sovereign.

            • Slartibartfast says:

              Northland10,

              I’ve frequently detected whiffs of that aroma from TJ’s droppings.

    • Northland10 says:

      Have you forgotten what John said?

      They rejected Ramsay’s claims a stunning 36 to 1. That’s just about as absolute a rejection as is even possible.

      In Congress, Ramsay lost the argument and Smith was seated. His arguments were not persuasive with the rest of the early Congress. In short, his claims were NOT accepted.

      Yet, after being told this, you still claim Ramsay is what the founders believed. As said by Andy Dufresne, “How can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?”

      • TJ McCann says:

        John presented a claim, without specification, and without context. Ramsay did not “lose” because those are in fact the values of this country, and what he describes is what occurred upon this nation’s founding. The states did not give ipso facto naturalization, and as Ive cited, even the first naturalization laws of this country support this fact.

        Ramsey contested William Loughton Smith’s election as a result of the citizenship requirement of “seven years”, not based on natural born, or anything which Ramsay indicated in that authoring I cited. Nothing in that was fundamentally undermined.

        Smith had lived abroad from 1770 to 1783, but in the context of even what Ramsay wrote in context of the “years a citizen”, Smith had been born “within” what would be the boundaries of the country, Charleston S.C., and by Ramsay’s own logic in that text, should be eligible. It should be observed that the Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787.

        Simply because Ramsay’s contest of Smith was not upheld, does not mean that what Ramsay wrote was rejected, which is nothing but idiot sophistry, on par with who Hamilton was friends with. What would have been an interesting question, though not broached here, was whether someone who had not participated in the American Revolution, if they had any right to convey natural born citizen status to their children. But even by Ramsay’s own reasoning in that authoring, Smith was a citizen by virtue of of being a member of this society before the Revolution, and choosing thereafter to be a member of this society, rather than of Britain. The only thing that was at issue was if the absence during the revolution, with temporary residence abroad, would discount Smith’s membership in this society. As should be, the answer was no.

        • gorefan says:

          “The only thing that was at issue was if the absence during the revolution, with temporary residence abroad, would discount Smith’s membership in this society. ”

          Absolutely not true. It is clear you have not read the Ramsay v. Smith trial that took place in Congress. Here is the reason that Dr. Ramsay gave for why Smith could not be a citizen,

          “citizenship with the United States is an adventiontitious character to every person possessing it, who is now thirty years of age; and that it can, in no case, have been acquired but in one of the following modes: 1st. By birth or inheritance. 2d. By having been a party to the late revolution. 3d. By taking an oath of fidelity to some of the States. 4th. By tacit consent. 5th. By adoption: and that Mr. Smith cannot have acquired the character of a citizen, in either of these modes, seven years ago. He cannot be a citizen by birth or inheritance, for he was born in 1758, in South Carolina, while a British colony; and his parents were both dead many years before the declaration of independence ; his birthright and inheritance can, therefore, be no other than that of a British subject; for no man can be born a citizen of a Government which did not exist at the time of his being born; nor can parents leave to their children any other political character than that which they themselves possessed.” Dr. Ramsay’s petition to Congress.

          This is why James Madison in his speech addressed the question of allegiance by birth or parentage.

          • TJ McCann says:

            Uh, exactly why, or how, do you imagine any of those enumerated (and bolded) things in any way conflict with what Ramsay wrote, or how I represented it?

            Smith was, in fact, born a British subject. Smith was not present during the revolution, but he had not ‘quitted’ the country and only has temporary residence abroad. Smith cannot possibly have citizenship by consideration of mere birth on United States soil, because at the time of his birth there was no such thing as United States, soil or citizenship.

            Ramsay discusses these issues in his authoring on American citizenship.

            I am dying to ask you, but really squeamish about the subject. How are you a “Gore Fan”? I take it by that you mean you’re a fan of the perpetrator of the hoax known as gulliblewarming and heavily invested proponent of the scam known as carbon credits. How does Algore explain global warming on Mars? Martian SUVs? Is that true, or is it some other reference? Why not just say you’re a “Feudalfan”, as that is all it is, ne0-feudalism. I’m not even sure if it is better or worse than something like CarterFan.

            “In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
            Club of Rome
            The First Global Revolution, 1990

            (In case you missed it, I already confessed to being a geologist and geophysicist, and worked with USGS studying the still-active volcanism of Hawaii back in ’82, when it first initiated after 20 years of quietus. )

            • John Woodman says:

              Smith was, in fact, born a British subject. Smith was not present during the revolution, but he had not ‘quitted’ the country and only has temporary residence abroad. Smith cannot possibly have citizenship by consideration of mere birth on United States soil, because at the time of his birth there was no such thing as United States, soil or citizenship.

              That was exactly the argument made by Ramsay, and it was overwhelmingly rejected by James Madison, “Father of the Constitution,” and all of our other leaders in the first House of Representatives.

              Except, of course, for poor Jonathan Grout, who has gone done in history as the one guy who picked the wrong horse.

              If you actually went back and read the actual debates — something I don’t, of course, expect of you — then you would know that Madison pretty directly contradicted Ramsay’s claim that Smith could not have been born a citizen of a country which “did not exist” at the time of his birth.

              In Madison’s view, those born in America owed their primary allegiance to the society in which they were born, and only a secondary allegiance to the English King.

              In Madison’s view, that — American — society was not dissolved upon the Declaration of Independence. That society — the society of South Carolina — merely separated from the authority of the English king.

              From there, it is only a very small step to conclude that Smith was born a citizen of South Carolina, that he was a natural born citizen of South Carolina, and that he therefore would rightfully be counted a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

              It’s true that one other Representative objected to Madison’s reasoning, and abstained from voting for that reason.

              But it is equally clear that of the 36 Representatives who remained, 35 of them agreed with Madison.

              If you deny James Madison’s reasoning on this issue, and accept Ramsay’s — even though (did I mention?) he was slapped down an embarassing 36 to 1 — then you must accept that no one could have been a resident of the United States until after the Declaration of Independence, either.

              And in that case — you must necessarily claim that George Washington was, at the time of his inauguration, Constitutionally INELIGIBLE to be President.

              Now… do you really think that the Founders and Framers inaugurated an ineligible George Washington as President?

              Because that is the inevitable consequence of Ramsay’s claim.

              Or, let’s turn this around.

              Since it is idiotic to think that our early leaders promptly elected an ineligible President, or that the Framers of the Constitution set up a situation in which ANY President they chose would have been ineligible to the office, the only reasonable conclusion is that you — and Ramsay — have it all wrong.

            • gorefan says:

              So how did Smith aquire his citizenship, not from his parents (they were both dead before July 4th, 1776)?

              Dr. Ramsay said that Smith could not have aquired it from his parents or just from his place of birth

              Ramsay “conceives that birth and residence in this country, before the revolution, could not confer citizenship on Americans who were absent when independence was declared while they were absent, and anterior to their returning and joining their country under its new and independent Government”

              Madison in his speech specifically says that native born are citizens,

              “If it be said that very inconvenient circumstances would result from this principle, that it would constitute all those persons who are natives of America, but who took part against the revolution, citizens of the United States, I would beg leave to observe that we are deciding a question of right, unmixed with the question of expediency, and must, therefore, pay a proper attention to this principle. ”

              You chose to go with Dr. Ramsay’s principles, I chose to go with James Madison’s.

              [Not that it matters,but I have a masters degree in Geology from the University of Georgia So what. Do you know Dr. Brooks Ellwood?

              BTW, in the English language we capitalize proper names.]

        • Suranis says:

          So, just because Smith’s case won, does not mean that Ramsey’s case lost?

          Wow, that’s really deep and clever. By the same principle, I now see that Germany didn’t lose World war 2, it just came second.

    • Ballantine says:

      Again, it appears that the only person in the early republic you can cite is Ramsey, a non-lawyer whose work was obviously self-serving attempt to disqualify the man who beat him. And again, it was ignored by everyone. He sent it to everyone in Congress and Congress ignored it. Your twisting of Madison’s response is delusional, but the rest of the world understands Madison didn’t agree with him. Subsequently, I don’t think Ramsey was ever cited by anyone. To think he represented the correct view of law as opposed to the seminal treatises of the early republic like Swift, Kent, Story, Dane, Rawle, Bouvier, the opinions of the Executive deparment and the actual courts again is off-the-charts delusional. Do you really think Ramsey got it right and no legal authority for more than a half century understood what our law was? Outside the birther world, it is hard to imagine anyone would make such an argument.

      • TJ McCann says:

        Madison didn’t agree with him? On the challenge to Smith’s citizenship given the fact that Smith was not here during the Revolution and there was no United States when Smith was born for him to get any citizenship by birth, or conveyed by his parents? Wouldn’t you agree that the question was warranted and needed to be resolved by due consideration?

        “Rule of law”? WHAT LAW? There was NO governing law as to this! It was not even a clear-cut case of discretionary discernment, much less law!

        Do you have any idea what total blathering nonsense you’re flinging?

        • Ballantine says:

          You can spin and lie all you want, but Madison’s position was that his primary allegiance was to the community of his birth, South Carolina, and the secondary allegiance he owed England was transferred to the United States upon the revolution. Madison statement that we followed jus soli and not jus sanguinis in the United States is clear and unambiguous and has been cited numerous times by other legal authorities. For example, a member of the 14th Amendment Congress cited it to show that we had always defined allegaince by place of birth.

          The fact is you have no evidence anyone agreed with Ramsey. No evidence any member of Congress or any subsequent legal authority as his self-serving paper was ignored by everyone. Now, go see how many times people like Kent, Story, and Rawle were cited by the courts and Congress on citizenship. In fact, they all were cited multiple times in the 14th Amendment Congress. No mention of Ramsey or Vattel. Sorry, you can’t accept reality.

    • Suranis says:

      Looks like McCretin here has run off to Mario Apuzzo’s site in a vain attempt to get some more ammo. Mario is the only person I have ever heard who has tried to cite Ramsey’s essay as an authority on anything. He tried to pull it on me and even I ripped him a new one.

      Fact is Ramsey tried to get an election overturned. Madison and the entire congress said he was full of shit, and the only vote in favour of his entire criteria was David Ramsey and there was not a single law book or legal opinion written int he next 80 odd years that in any way agreed with his essay.

      What we have here is a loser quoting a loser quoting a disgruntled bullcrapping loser

      • John Woodman says:

        Actually, Jonathan Grout of Massachusetts voted in Ramsay’s favor. Ramsay did not have a vote.

        History does not record why Grout voted in favor of Ramsay. Ramsay was from South Carolina, so it’s not that they were buddies from the same town.

        But Grout’s vote was the only one Ramsay managed to get.

    • John Woodman says:

      TJ,

      As noted elsewhere, no one can legitimately claim that Ramsay’s views were representative of anybody but himself — because when he presented that case to our leaders — who included James Madison, “the FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION,” Ramsay was voted down a stunning 36 to 1.

      Only a functional idiot — or someone like Apuzzo — would make such a claim.

      You said elsewhere:

      John presented a claim, without specification, and without context.

      Are you saying I haven’t demonstrated the point? Like so many of the things you talk about, Ramsay has been extensively discussed here before. Since you can’t be bothered to educate yourself, I’ll copy for you some of what is written elsewhere at this site.

      This is only kind of a summary. It includes links with more information.


      Mario Apuzzo and the birthers have claimed that a 1789 treatise by Revolutionary War historian, American patriot and early American politician David Ramsay supports their claim that it takes two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.

      Ramsay does state his opinion that citizen parents are required in order to be an American citizen. However:

      • his treatise makes no reference to the status of children born on US soil of immigrant parents;
      • it was a marketing piece written to lobby Congress for his sore-loser campaign to have William Loughton Smith (who beat Ramsay in an election for the House of Representatives) declared ineligible;
      • the point about citizen parents is directly supportive of his personal sore-loser goal; and
      • his campaign — and his views on citizenship — were resoundingly (thirty-six to one!!) repudiated by our leaders in the House of Representatives, led by none other than James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” who clearly declared that when it comes to the allegiance that makes for citizenship, “in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

      For all of these reasons, David Ramsay’s treatise clearly did not represent the views of the Founding Fathers, and cannot establish any guide at all as to what they considered the phrase “natural born citizen” to mean. It does, however, provide an illuminating quote from Madison: “In general place… is what applies in the United States.”

      Smith himself — some will note — quoted Vattel in his defense. The fact is, he had both of the kinds of ties that were mentioned by James Madison — jus soli (the law of the soil) and jus sanguinis (the law of blood).

      Historically, in England, jus soli was the primary rule. But there were also laws that stated that a person born overseas of English subject parents was also to be regarded as just as much a natural born subject as those born on English soil.

      The purpose of Ramsay’s treatise, and the slapdown by Madison and others

      Ramsay’s claims were directly in support of his goal to have Smith found ineligible.

      Madison was pronouncing the accepted general principle of citizenship among the Founders, and referred to it as an “established maxim.”.

      Additional discussion and information regarding David Ramsay’s citizenship dissertation.


      When the vote came down, as mentioned, it was an absolutely crushing 36 to 1.

      Baldwin, Benson, Boudinot, Cadwalader, Carroll, Clymer, Coles, Contee, Fitzsimons, Floyd, Gilman, Goodhue, Hetster, Huntington, Lawrence, Lee, Leonard, Livermore, Madison (that would be JAMES Madison, “FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION”), Moore, Muhlenburg, Page, Van Rensselaer, Seney, Schureman, Scott, Sinnickson, Smith (of Maryland), Sturgis, Sylvester, Thatcher, Trumbull, Tucker, Vining, White, and Wynkoop all voted against Ramsay.

      Only Grout voted for him.

      Note that this was after Ramsay had presented the EXACT treatise you quote to all of those leaders, and had lobbied for those views.

      It was an epic smackdown.

      If you doubt that tally in the slightest, the vote is recorded here.

      • TJ McCann says:

        Woodman

        As usual the cogent issues escape your superficial mind, and the fact that there was no “soli” for Smith to be born on, except BRITISH soil and indeed he was Smith was born a subject of Britain, just like many other American founders. And Smith’s parent’s? They were British subjects too!

        And you really think Ramsay made no reference to the status of children born on US soil of immigrant parents? What about all that about the oath, huh?

        AND, NO, THE DAMN VOTE was NOT on Ramsay’s views on citizenship, but specifically on the seven year citizen requirement, and how this was affected by Ramsay’s occupation during the revolution overseas, and in Britain no less!

        If all you get out of it was that it was a “sore loser campaign”, then you really are sporting quite a superficial, jejune mind.

        ETA: By your OWN reference, Madison clearly states that the issue is whether or not Smith has been a citizen of seven years, and does not draw into contention ANY PORTION of Ramsay’s authoring:

        Madison: “.. whether the gentleman is eligible to a seat in this house or not,but it will depend on the decision of a previous question, whether he has been seven years a citizen of the United-States or not.

        Right there Madison is indicating the issue at hand is exactly as Ramsay presented the question, and NOT as you portray it, regarding Ramsay’s understanding of citizenship. Madison even examines South Carolina Laws to do this! The issue itself was if Smith had attained citizenship and not lost that citizenship despite being overseas during the whole of the revolution!

        AT NO POINT, is the issue Ramsay’s portray of citizenship, or the birthright of natural born citizenship! Its nothing as you represent it, certainly not a verdict on Ramsay’s portrayal of American citizenship.

        Madison describes Ramsay as a visonary and man of reputation, and then goes on to describe what he sees as the one flaw of Ramsay’s challenge:

        He supposes, when this country separated from Great Britain, the tie of allegiance subsisted between the inhabitants of America and the king of that nation, unless by some adventitious circumstance the allegiance was transferred to one of the United States. I think there is a distinction which will invalidate his doctrine in this particular, a distinction between that primary allegiance which we owe to that particular society of which we are members, and the secondary allegiance we owe to the sovereign established by that society.

        Madison indicates a “particular” that will invalidate Ramsay’s argument, but rather only “in this instance”, not overall. That Distinction Madison points out is the belief that it is only a secondary allegiance they owe toa sovereign established by that society.

        In this case, the shortsightedness of Madison’s comments were shown by his commentary about British “citizenship”, when in fact the issue was perpetual allegiance, and subjecthood, a fact heavily underscored 23 years later by the War of 1812.

        At no point are Ramsay’s understandings of the American condition and Citizenship undermined, and certainly are NOT the issue of the vote, as you ignorantly allege.

        Your continued superficial analyses and knee-jerk reactions, will get you only what you already have, a superficial understanding.

        • Suranis says:

          I think someone knows he is out of luck, so he is beginning to resort to the by now familiar tactic of insulting the Owner of the site and the debate participants more and more so he can get his ass banned and therefore walk away claiming that we could not deal with his evidence and threw him out.

          The more birthers change, the more they stay the same.

        • John Woodman says:

          TJ arrogantly asserts:

          As usual the cogent issues escape your superficial mind, and the fact that there was no “soli” for Smith to be born on, except BRITISH soil and indeed he was Smith was born a subject of Britain, just like many other American founders.

          I’ve already dealt with your ignorant claim elsewhere, including noting that the logical consequence of such a claim is the idiotic idea that the Framers wrote a Constitution under which anyone they elected President would have been ineligible, and that in fact, George Washington, our first President, actually was ineligible when inaugurated.

          Gee, TJ, do you really think the Framers of the Constitution were that stupid? Never mind. Don’t answer that, because I already know the answer.

          You’re far more brilliant than everybody else, including a good long list of Supreme Court Justices, “Father of the Constitution” James Madison, and all the rest of our Founders and Framers. Yes, I get it.

          Quite a genius you are. Man, if only TJ had been there, the entire august body of 55 learned and distinguished delegates to the Constitutional Convention — including James Madison, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, and all the others — would never have made such a stupid mistake.

          AND, NO, THE DAMN VOTE was NOT on Ramsay’s views on citizenship, but specifically on the seven year citizen requirement, and how this was affected by Ramsay’s occupation during the revolution overseas, and in Britain no less!

          As Suranis has already noted, Madison ripped apart Ramsay’s doctrine of citizenship, not his doctrine of residency.

          And yes, it’s abundantly clear that it came down to James Madison vs. Ramsay, and 35 of 36 remaining delegates agreed with Madison.

          If all you get out of it was that it was a “sore loser campaign”, then you really are sporting quite a superficial, jejune mind.

          As Ballantine has already noted, the sore-loser tag is entirely appropriate. The very first thing Ramsay did when printing his “dissertation” was to instruct the printer to distribute it to all of the members of Congress who were going to be adjudicating his claim that Smith was “ineligible” !!

          As Ballantine wrote:

          Ther “sore-loser” tag is very appropriate. Ramsey wrote his paper and sent it to every member of Congress and wrote Madison a number of times to try to make his case.

          The discredited “dissertation” that you cite was nothing more nor less than a marketing piece. And a badly failed one, at that.

          In this case, the shortsightedness of Madison’s comments were shown by his commentary about British “citizenship”, when in fact the issue was perpetual allegiance, and subjecthood, a fact heavily underscored 23 years later by the War of 1812.

          Once again, your arrogance knows no bounds. You do not hesitate to set yourself up against even James Madison, generally recognized as “the FATHER of our Constitution,” and basically call him an idiot by claiming that his comments were “shortsighted.”

          And you bad-mouth Founder and preeminent American Framer James Madison while claiming to be a “defender” of our Constitution.

          In so doing, TJ, you show yourself to be just what you are — someone who is prepared to twist the words of our Founders and Framers, to misrepresent them and even bad-mouth them, all for the sake of promoting your own propaganda.

          Words cannot express my contempt for you at this point, TJ.

          You also said, elsewhere:

          “…that’s really no concern of those who are hell bent on rejecting this country’s founding principles to uphold British common law….. but only when convenient to their position regarding these United States…

          We’re not the ones who have twisted the words of our Founders and Framers. We’re not the ones who just insulted the “Father” of our Constitution, and declared him “short-sighted.” We’re not the ones who imply that conservative Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a Reagan appointee, is so stupid (in comparison to the exceeding brilliance of one TJ McCann, III) that she can’t have completed elementary school.

          You are, TJ.

      • Ballantine says:

        Ther “sore-loser” tag is very appropriate. Ramsey wrote his paper and sent it to every member of Congress and wrote Madison a number of times to try to make his case. It is clear what his purpose was in writing this paper. It was not a work of scholarship but part of a campaign to get elected. To not say that this work was serf-serving is simply being dishonest.

        The argument was that if birth on the soil didn’t make Smith a citizen as Madison indicated, then Smith could not have become a citizen until he returned from Europe and hence could not satisfy the severn year requirement. Madison’s view was that place of birth was “the most certian criterion” and was what applied in the United States. Hence, Madison said it unnecessary to investigate any other criterion and Smith’s place of birth decided to question. Accordingly, Madison concluded that Smith was a citizen at the Declaration since his primary allegiance was to Sourth Carolina and his secondary allegiance to England was transferred to the United States.

        Again, you have no evidence anyone in Congress or anyone else in the nation agreed with anything Ramsey said as his paper was ignored by all legal authorities of the time, which is appropriate for such a self-serving work. And this is all you can come up with.

        And here is the cite from the member of the 14th Amendment Congress:

        “The reason is this: the citizen is not responsible for the action of his government; and when his State, acting as a State, although she may act wrongfully, demands his obedience, he having been born upon her soil, she having the right to compel his obedience and to hang him if he refuses obedience, and the Federal Government not having the power to protect him from the consequences of disobedience, allegiance and protection being reciprocal, he is justified if he obeys his State. This is no new doctrine. It is a doctrine recognized by the English law. It is a doctrine which was practiced upon and executed by the judgments of the courts in this country during your revolutionary war. It is the doctrine which Mr. Madison asserted in the case of William Smith in the First Congress of the United States….It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.” Rep. Saulsbury, The congressional globe, Volume 58, Part 2, pg. 1450 (1867)

        • TJ McCann says:

          While that “cite”, of an irrelevant member of Congress regarding the 14th Amendment is nice, even quaint, it bears no resemblance to Madison’s actual argument at the time, but that’s really no concern of those who are hell bent on rejecting this country’s founding principles to uphold British common law….. but only when convenient to their position regarding these United States… which have never recognized that British common law in application, but rather only in terminology, and not in practice regarding the federal level.

          It’s a tremendous source of amusement watching you guys claim the same common law you argue is applicable in these states, is not enforceable or even “perpetual” when applied by Britain itself, conveniently ignoring both the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. When Franklin said “We must hang together or assuredly we will hang separately” perhaps he was just referring to desire for this company, and their swearing their lives, fortunes and sacred honor was just melodrama, eh? You guys would be amusing, if your ideology wasn’t screwing up this country so badly. The idea that the only allegiance is temporary and in exchange for immediate protection, is truly laughable. The idea that this temporary allegiance of convenience, is the foundation of enduring allegiance and citizenship is just scary, but then you’re the birthers of anchor-babies.

          • Suranis says:

            Sorry dearheart, but in the actual Madison speach he takes apart Ramseys definition of citizenship, not residency. And because we know you are a man of talents, you wont mind me quoting the entire speech to prove how wrong. And I’m not going to include Fs for s’s

            http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html

            James Madison, House of Representatives
            22 May 1789Papers 12:179–82

            I think the merit of the question is now to be decided, whether the gentleman is eligible to a seat in this house or not, but it will depend on the decision of a previous question, whether he has been seven years a citizen of the United-States or not.

            From an attention to the facts which have been adduced, and from a consideration of the principles established by the revolution, the conclusion I have drawn is, that Mr. Smith, was on the declaration of independence a citizen of the United-States, and unless it appears that he has forfeited his right, by some neglect or overt act, he had continued a citizen until the day of his election to a seat in this house. I take it to be a clear point, that we are to be guided in our decision, by the laws and constitution of South-Carolina, so far as they can guide us, and where the laws do not expressly guide us, we must be guided by principles of a general nature so far as they are applicable to the present case.

            It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced more precisely defining the qualities of a citizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind, have obtained in some of the states; if such a law existed in South-Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us; but since this has not been the case, let us settle some general principles before we proceed to the presumptive proof arising from public measures under the law, which tend to give support to the inference drawn from such principles.

            It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.

            It is well known to many gentlemen on this floor, as well as to the public, that the petitioner is a man of talents, one who would not lightly hazard his reputation in support of visionary principles: yet I cannot but think he has erred in one of the principles upon which he grounds his charge. He supposes, when this country separated from Great Britain, the tie of allegiance subsisted between the inhabitants of America and the king of that nation, unless by some adventitious circumstance the allegiance was transferred to one of the United States. I think there is a distinction which will invalidate his doctrine in this particular, a distinction between that primary allegiance which we owe to that particular society of which we are members, and the secondary allegiance we owe to the sovereign established by that society. This distinction will be illustrated by the doctrine established by the laws of Great Britain, which were the laws of this country before the revolution. The sovereign cannot make a citizen by any act of his own; he can confer denizenship, but this does not make a man either a citizen or subject. In order to make a citizen or subject, it is established, that allegiance shall first be due to the whole nation; it is necessary that a national act should pass to admit an individual member. In order to become a member of the British empire, where birth has now endowed the person with that privilege, he must be naturalized by an act of parliament.

            What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign: If he was not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country. If he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature. What was the allegiance as a citizen of South-Carolina, he owed to the King of Great Britain? He owed his allegiance to him as a King of that society to which, as a society he owed his primary allegiance. When that society separated from Great Britain, he was bound by that act and his allegiance transferred to that society, or the sovereign which that society should set up, because it was through his membership of the society of South-Carolina, that he owed allegiance to Great Britain.

            This reasoning will hold good, unless it is supposed that the separation which took place between these states and Great Britain, not only dissolved the union between those countries, but dissolved the union among the citizens themselves: that the original compact, which made them altogether one society, being dissolved, they could not fall into pieces, each part making an independent society, but must individually revert into a state of nature; but I do not conceive that this was of necessity to be the case; I believe such a revolution did not absolutely take place. But in supposing that this was the case lies the error of the memorialist. I conceive the colonies remained as a political society, detached from their former connection with another society, without dissolving into a state of nature; but capable of substituting a new form of government in the place of the old one, which they had for special considerations abolished. Suppose the state of South Carolina should think proper to revise her constitution, abolish that which now exists, and establish another form of government: Surely this would not dissolve the social compact. It would not throw them back into a state of nature. It would not dissolve the union between the individual members of that society. It would leave them in perfect society, changing only the mode of action, which they are always at liberty to arrange. Mr. Smith being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society with respect to the question of independence and change of government; and if afterward he had taken part with the enemies of his country, he would have been guilty of treason against that government to which he owed allegiance, and would have been liable to be prosecuted as a traitor.

            If it is said, that very inconvenient circumstances would result from this principle, that it would constitute all those persons who are natives of America, but who took part against the revolution, citizens of the United States, I would beg leave to observe, that we are deciding a question of right, unmixed with the question of expediency, and must therefore pay a proper attention to this principle. But I think it can hardly be expected by gentlemen that the principle will operate dangerously. Those who left their country to take part with Britain were of two descriptions, minors, or persons of mature age. With respect to the latter nothing can be inferred with respect to them from the decision on the present case; because they had the power of making an option between the contending parties: whether this was a matter of right or not is a question which need not be agitated in order to settle the case before us. Then, with respect to those natives who were minors at the revolution, and whose case is analogous to Mr. Smith’s, if we are bound by the precedent of such a decision as we are about to make, and it is declared, that they owe a primary allegiance to this country, I still think we are not likely to be inundated with such characters; so far as any of them took part against us they violated their allegiance and opposed our laws; so then there can be only a few characters, such as were minors at the revolution, and who have never violated their allegiance by a foreign connection, who can be affected by the decision of the present question. The number I admit is large who might be acknowledged citizens on my principles; but there will very few be found daring enough to face the laws of the country they have violated, and against which they have committed high treason.

            So far as we can judge by the laws of Carolina, and the practice and decision of that state, the principles I have adduced are supported; and I must own that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of his election, and consequently entitled to a seat in this legislature.

            • TJ McCann says:

              That’s a nice claim, but he nowhere addresses Ramsay’s “definition of citizen” which does not seem to be at all under contention, but rather Madison is addressing the contention of how Smith may or may not have been a citizen by not being present at the formation of this country.

              Madison’s contention is that no event, such as participation in the American Revolution, was necessary for Ramsay to become inherently American. Madison referes to soil, but the only soil and birth, but the only soil to consider at the time of Smith’s birth was British soil, and Smith’s birth was to British-subject parents, so that isn’t really an argument at all.

              The reality is the fact of Smith’s birth is that he was born on British soil and is, and was at the time of the Revolution, until the , viewed by Britain as a perpetual subjectof the realm. In fact Britain really wasn’t convinced otherwise until the War of 1812.

              But, no, despite your dump of un-dissected quote, as I showed previously by dissecting the important rationale, Madison’s approach does not involve rejecting Ramsay’s citizenship foundation at all, but rather only the question of what actually transpired in the transition from British soil to America, and if Smith partook in that by being absent during the entire American Revolution and much of the design of the new country, absent from 1770 to 1783. Smith read about the American Revolution, months afterwards, and did not partake in it.

              Fundamentally the answer was yes, he was a citizen as a result of the simple fact that Smith never permanently quitted this country for another, and none of Smith’s actions committed him to being British.

              This will undoubtedly distress you immensely, but the fundamental rationale is right out of law of Nations – Vattel, that he never quitted the country despite his long 13 year absence.

            • Suranis says:

              Your conjecture is turned to mishmash byt the rest of the paragraph right after the bit you selectivly quoted

              This distinction will be illustrated by the doctrine established by the laws of Great Britain, which were the laws of this country before the revolution. The sovereign cannot make a citizen by any act of his own; he can confer denizenship, but this does not make a man either a citizen or subject. In order to make a citizen or subject, it is established, that allegiance shall first be due to the whole nation; it is necessary that a national act should pass to admit an individual member. In order to become a member of the British empire, where birth has not endowed the person with that privilege, he must be naturalized by an act of parliament.

              Gosh, right after the bit you yanked out of Madison. Madison refers back to the laws of England and the fact that Birth granted citizenship.

              Blus it is clear that madion regarded Smith as becoming a citizen at the moment of indepentance

              Mr. Smith being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society with respect to the question of independence and change of government; and if afterward he had taken part with the enemies of his country, he would have been guilty of treason against that government to which he owed allegiance, and would have been liable to be prosecuted as a traitor.

              And as I have indicated several times before, you don’t have the remotest clue what Vattel actually wrote, no more than you did John Jay in Chisolm V Georgia.

            • Ballantine says:

              You say so much that is wrong it really is hard to take you seriously on any point at all. You simply cannot admit that Madison said that jus soli rather than jus sanguinis is the rule in the United States. You can spin,twist, parse and lie all you want but that is what he said in plain English and all your silly word games will not change that. Madison said Smith’s allegiance to England was secondary to his allegiance to the community of his birth, South Carolina. Hence, to Madison, the locality of birth settled the issue, period. To claim Madison agreed with anything Ra