Mario Apuzzo Schools Obot Poster About Founders’ Utilization of Vattel on Natural Born Citizenship
Posted by By GeorgeM at 26 August, at 04 : 56 AM Print
An Obot clown was attacking someone else’s posting about Vattel in a blog comments session in the Daily Pen: http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2012/07/hawaii-now-refuses-to-validate-obamas.html?showComment=1345867467858#c5547409602438520195
Then, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. (see his blog: puzo1.blogspot.com), arguably the Dean of presidential eligibility crusader-attorneys, slapped him on the side of the head with his response, which follows Smrstrauss’ posting, below…..
You are quoting Vattel, but there is no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution followed him. He is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law was mentioned about twenty times.And the Wong Kim Ark decision was AFTER the Minor vs Happersett decision, and hence would have overturned it (if the Minor vs Happersett decision was actually a ruling on the matter, and it isn’t. It is merely dicta). And the Wong Kim Ark decision ruled six to two (one not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (thus NOT from Vattel), and that it refers to the PLACE of birth (not the parents), and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born.THAT is why Meese had that quotation in his book. It corresponds to a ruling of the US Supreme Court. It does not differ from the ruling of the Supreme Court.’
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.’s response ….
Smrstrauss at July 29, 2012 5:38 PM,You made the following statements which I quote. My responses follow:1. “You are quoting Vattel, but there is no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution followed him.”You are wrong. I have explained in my briefs to the courts and on my blog that the historical record shows that the Founders and Framers looked to Vattel for their ideas on natural law and the law of nations. These fundamental laws, and not the English common law, were incorporated into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, foundational documents of our republic.The Founders and Framers did not look to Vattel only in a general way on natural law and the law of nations, but also specifically for their definition of a “natural born Citizen.” As examples only and not as an exhaustive list, during the 1789 Ramsay-Smith congressional debate on whether Representative William Smith was at least a “Citizen of the United States” for seven-years so as to be eligible to be a representative under Article I, Section 2, Smith relied upon Vattel to show that he was such a “citizen.” David Ramsay in 1789 said that birthright citizenship after July 4, 1776 belonged only to the children of “citizens.” St. George Tucker in 1803 said the same. Our first law school at the College and William and Mary, along with many other early colleges, taught courses on Vattel, the law of nations, which they considered to be “national law.” These courses specifically provided explanations of Vattel’s definitions of “citizen” and “natural born citizen” under natural law and the law of nations.In my presentations, I have also explained that several U.S. Supreme Court and lower court cases specifically cited and quoted or paraphrased Vattel and his Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Cases that cited and quoted Vattel for the definition of a “natural born Citizen” are The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring) (cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen”); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring) (cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen”); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) (cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen”); and United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen”). Cases that paraphrased his definition are Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) (a child inherits the citizenship of his parents); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (a child inherits the citizenship of his parents); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (said that the Founders and Framers were familiar with the “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen;” the American “common-law” definition that the Court gave was a paraphrase of Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen” and not that of the English common law’s definition of a “natural born subject”) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (cited and quoted Minor and its Vattel paraphrased American “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen”). These cases, along with other historical evidence, show that Obama’s supporters are wrong when they say that Vattel did not provide the Founders and Framers with the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” On the contrary, this evidence demonstrates that it was, indeed, Vattel who provided the Founders and Framers with the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Indeed, this historical and case law evidence conclusively demonstrates that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” can be traced to Vattel’s Section 212 and was handed down from there to the Founders and Framers when they wrote the Constitution and continued to be confirmed in case law of our U.S. Supreme Court and lower court down to even the 1898 seminal case on citizenship, Wong Kim Ark.2. “He [Vattel] is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law was mentioned about twenty times.”The specific issue is the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” not the English common law in some general way. The English common law may be mentioned, but there is no evidence that the Founders and Framers used the English common law to define a “natural born citizen.” On the contrary, and only as one example, we know from his Federalist No. 42 that Madison called the English common law “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” in defining terms in the Constitution. James Madison sat on the convention committee that drafted Article II presidential eligibility. Hence, he would not have relied upon the English common law to define a “natural born Citizen” or a “Citizen of the United States.” Moreover, the law of nations is not only mentioned many times in the Federalist Papers, but was actually incorporated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 as part of Article III’s “Laws of the United States.” The English common law cannot make the same claim.3. “And the Wong Kim Ark decision was AFTER the Minor vs Happersett decision, and hence would have overturned it (if the Minor vs Happersett decision was actually a ruling on the matter, and it isn’t. It is merely dicta).”Minor did confirm through a binding precedent what the American “common-law” meaning of a “natural-born citizen” was, i.e., “[a]t common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Second, Wong Kim Arkdid not abandon or amend this American “common-law” meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, it interpreted and construed the Fourteenth Amendment and thereby defined a “citizen of the United States” at birth thereunder. It did not amend the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”4. “And the Wong Kim Ark decision ruled six to two (one not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (thus NOT from Vattel), and that it refers to the PLACE of birth (not the parents), and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born.”First, you are confused about what the “common law” means. The “common law” does not only come from the English. It also comes from the law of nations. Second. Wong Kim Ark used the colonial English “common law” as an aid in interpreting, construing, and applying the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It did not use the English “common law” to define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” From that English “common law,” it concluded that every child that is born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (which at a minimum necessarily excluded children born to diplomats and invading armies), is a “citizen of the United States” at birth. The Court did not hold that such a child is necessarily a “natural born Citizen” also, and it would not have given that Wong Kim Ark also expressly recognized that a person has to satisfy the American “common law” standard of a “natural born Citizen” and not only be a “citizen” in order to be born with that status.5. “THAT is why Meese had that quotation in his book. It corresponds to a ruling of the US Supreme Court. It does not differ from the ruling of the Supreme Court.”The quote that Obama supporters like you plaster all over the internet as being made by Edwin Meese was not made by him, but rather by James C. Ho. Ho’s love affair with Wong Kim Ark jus soli puts Ho in a bind. Ho argues that, under English common law jus soli, simply being born in the United States makes one a born citizen of the United States which in turn makes one a “natural born Citizen.” First, he cannot explain if mere birth in the United States is sufficient to make on a “natural born Citizen,” why did the Founders and Framers in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 say “natural born Citizen” rather than “born Citizen.” Second, Ho cannot explaint why if just being born a citizen makes one a “natural born Citizen,” why should Wong Kim Ark have concluded that persons born abroad to citizen parents who are also born “citizens of the United States” are not “natural born Citizens.” Ho offers no explanation why Wong Kim Ark gave birth on a soil so much more power than birth to parents? Not having an answer, Ho simply suggests that we not paying attention to Wong Kim Ark when it comes to the question of whether our citizens born abroad to citizen parents are “natural born Citizens.” He submits that they are. So Ho uses Wong Kim Ark anyway he wants, given the particular needs of the moment. He takes from the decision what he needs and throws away what he does not.So, as we can readily see, there is no merit to any of your assertions.Mario Apuzzo, Esq.-- Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Law Offices of Mario Apuzzo 185 Gatzmer Avenue Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831 Phone: (732) 521-1900 Fax: (732) 521-3906 Email: apuzzo@erols.com West New York Office: 439 60th Street Suite 201 West New York, New Jersey 07093 Phone: 201-758-7221 Fax: 201-758-7223 Email: apuzzo@erols.com
The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, not to the parents. That is what the US Supreme Court held in the Wong Kim Ark case, and it is what five state courts and one federal court have held on Obama (and one on McCain):
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
Here are sources to turn to for further research:
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/#nbc
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/02/an-open-letter-to-mario-apuzzo/
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21346
tnugent, 8 months ago
Looks like you didn’t understand what Mario wrote.
GeorgeM, 8 months ago
Looks like Mario does not understand what the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision said. It said:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore 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.
III. 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.”
That ruling was six to two, one not voting. So SIX Supreme Court justices stated that the meaning of Natural Born came from the common law (hence not from Vattel). And the ruling also says that the meaning of Natural Born under the common law referred to the PLACE of birth, not to the parents.
That is why Edwin Meese, who know a lot more about Constitutional law than Apuzzo, has this in his book:
Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
That is also why a constitutional scholar in 1803, had this in his book:
“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. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
As you can see, the quotation refers ONLY to the place of birth, not to the parents. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within the state.”
And that is why a Constitutional scholar had this in his book in 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 OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
ALL of them use the meaning of Natural Born that came from the common law. None of them used a meaning based on Vattel. And, BTW, the Minor vs Happersett Supreme Court case did not either, but to make it simple, the fact is that the Wong Kim Ark case was AFTER the Minor vs Happersett case, and hence would have overturned the Minor vs Happersett decision if it had actually been a decision on the matter—and it wasn’t.
ehancock, 8 months ago
that Indians still were not citizens. “I am afiard 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). Indeed, there existed a problem concerning the citizenship status of children born in the U.S. to white European alien parents. Once the Amendment passed, it was used by the courts not only for blacks, but also to take care of citizenship problems faced by white alien Europeans and their U.S.-born children. So clearly the doubts that existed about who were citizens did not apply only to Indians.Amazing that you can use a quote that refutes your entire claim, and twist it to try and support your bogus claim. Senator Trumbull made the obvious and frankly uncontroversial point that the children born in the US of German parents were ALREADY US citizens, from the moment of their birth. In Trumbull’s view, and in the view of our other Congressmen, this was and always had been the law. And what was the response of Senator Cowan, with whom he was debating? Was it, No, the children born in Pennsylvania of German parents are not US citizens? Not at all. Cowan readily conceded that the children born in the US of WHITE non-citizens were (and always had been) US citizens:Mr. Cowan: “The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.”Mr. Trumbull: “If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I may be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much of a citizen as the child of a European.”Mario Apuzzo next appeals to the but people also said n*****s weren’t citizens argument: 3. Justice Gray in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), said:“The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 306.”Elk, at 101. We can see from what Justce Gray said the doubts about U.S. citizenship existed not only for Amerian Indians.Yeah, that’s right, Mario. But nobody ever contended that the children born on US soil of free WHITE European immigrants, who were not themselves US citizens, whether those parents came here from Ireland, or Britain, or Germany, or Italy, or Switzerland, or France, or Poland, or Scandinavia, were ever anything other than natural born United States citizens.4. The district court in Wong Kim Ark also was not worried about American Indians. With the court again improperly engaging in policy making, its concern was that white Europeans born in the U.S. to alien parents would be declared non-U.S. citizens and be no longer able to vote for the party and candidate of their choice.Wow. What a load of absolute horse puckey. Let me get this straight, because even after reading all of your previous creative legal fiction I can hardly believe you’re saying it. You’re asserting on the basis of precisely no evidence whatsoever that the United States federal district court in the case of US v Wong Kim Ark made a crooked ruling in Wong Kim Ark’s favor because some California party boss somewhere, of some completely unspecified party or heck, of both parties would otherwise have been inconvenienced by having some children of German or Irish or Norwegian immigrants declared ineligible to vote until and unless they went through a naturalization process.That is what you’re claiming, isn’t it?That has got to be one of the most idiotic, desperate things I have ever read.5. See also Benny v. O’Brien Have you ever noticed the common thread running through these cases? Let me give you a clue:They all ruled against your position. Every one of them.
Fikry, 8 months ago
Fikry: The debate is about natural born Citizenship, not just Citizenship.
GeorgeM, 8 months ago
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen.”
Also, to address another one of your baseless arguments, it requires that today one be a “natural born Citizen,” not a “citizen of the United States.”
Mario Apuzzo, 8 months ago
The liberals know the fraud obama is not a legal sitting US President . They try to confuse the issue by using the fourteenth Amendment when know darn will the fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with the constitutional qualifications for US President .
Charles, 8 months ago
And, pray tell, how did those briefs work out for Apuzzo in court? 0-?
anon, 8 months ago
Anon,
Like a typical Obot, when you have no response and you lose, you run to the courts which in any event did not address arguments.
Mario Apuzzo, 8 months ago
Will Romney sign an executive order for a congressional investigation into the ineligibility of the fraud who presented the American people with forged documents in a cover-up of his criminal usurpation of the presidency? Will he sign another executive order for the retro-active abrogation of the illegal election of the ineligible fraud and forger to the office of the president as well as the retro-active abrogation of all that the criminal usurper’s illegitimate administration has accomplished while complicit in the biggest crime in American history?
Chris Farrell, 8 months ago
Re: “Will Romney sign an executive order for a congressional investigation.”
No because, duh, only Congress can order a Congressional investigation. Why doesn’t Congress investigate already. Because, duh, it does not believe the CLAIMS by birther “experts”—none of whom have proven that they are real experts, and none of whom have shown that they are impartial—that Obama’s birth certificate is forged. Neither Romney nor any member of Congress believes that Obama is a “usurper.”
You have the right to vote against him. I would fight to the death for your right to vote against him. But Obama was born in Hawaii, which is in the USA, and hence he is a Natural Born Citizen. He is thus eligible,and he was elected in 2008. Therefore, he is not a “usurper.”
ehancock, 8 months ago
Correct. But, it’s Interesting that you fail to take note of all of Obama’s executive orders that bypass the Constitution. What Romney should do after he is inaugurated is to have his new man who presides over the Senate, Paul Ryan, take it up. although that duty has fallen into disuse over the years.
There are people in Congress who do in fact believe that an investigation is needed, but are worried about the effect it would have on the country and prefer to use the elections to remove the cancer of Obama. If he is re-elected, the diagnosis is terminal.
There is no valid legal evidence Obama, was born in Hawaii. Forged digital images are absolutely invalid and inadmissible for that purpose.
If everything was on the up and up, the Obots would be eager to get all the evidence out and vetted, but their reaction is exactly the opposite- LOL! What does that tell you, people?
GeorgeM, 8 months ago
that a “natural-born citizen” is a child born in a cruntoy to parents who are citizens of that cruntoy. 7. You’re an absolute and transparent liar.It said that there was no doubt that a child born in a cruntoy to parents who are citizens of that cruntoy is a natural born citizen. It absolutely did NOT say that a natural-born citizen’ is a child born in a cruntoy to parents who are citizens of that cruntoy. If I say that a Frenchman is a European, that’s not a statement that any European is a Frenchman.What is your response to that? Being a “natural-born citizen,” the Court then concluded that Virginia Minor was also a “citizen.” Being able to declare Virginia Minor a “citizen” by showing that she was a “natural-born citizen,” the Court said that it was not necessary to decide whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was a “citizen” And they made that comment because the question before the Court was NOT whether Virginia Minor was natural born. She wasn’t running for President. She only wanted the right to vote. So the only thing the Court considered was whether she was a CITIZEN. Now with Wong Kim Ark, the story is much different. Since Wong was not like Virginia Minor, i.e., not born to citizen parents, Justice Gray had to look to the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause to see if he qualified for citizenship thereunder. False. Gray did NOT have to look to the 14th Amendment. A great deal of his argument does not concern the 14th Amendment at all. In other words, without the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong could not enjoy birthright citizenship status because, while he was born in the United States, he was not born to citizen parents. The statement is false, and you know it. While it is a birthright status, the only birthright citizenship status under the Fourteenth Amendment is that of a “citizen of the United States.” 8. As Jim has so aptly pointed out, the Court in Minor clearly and DIRECTLY tied being BORN a citizen with Presidential eligibility. The Court in Minor practically stated, If you are BORN a citizen, then you are eligible to be President. What is your response to that?We also know that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that no person shall be President unless he/she is a “natural born Citizen.” Under that eligibility clause, today a “Citizen of the United States” is not eligible to be President.According to the Court in Minor v Happersett, if he or she is BORN a citizen, then he or she is eligible. We also know that when the Founders and Framers included the “natural born Citizen” clause into Article II, there was no Civil Rights Act or Fourteenth Amendment. So, for the Founders and Framers, for those children born in the United States, there was only one type of birthright citizenship. And according to Minor, for those children born in the United States, birthright citizenship was that reserved for children not only born in the United States but also born to citizen parents.The statement is absolutely false, and you’re a liar. Having said all that, by what legal principle do you take Wong’s Fourteenth Amendment birthright citizenship status which the amendment calls “citizen of the United States” and convert it into Article II birthright citizenship status which the article calls “natural born Citizen?”I conclude that the Supreme Court clearly found Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen by the legal principle of the FACT that .
Nima, 7 months ago
You’re clueless.
Hassan v FEC reaffirmed that Wong Kim Ark has ZERO to do with natural born citizenship.
Minor v Happerset specifically defined NBC and said Minor was one, regardless of her Presidential non-aspirations.
Please bone of on NBC before you return here: art2superpac.com/issues.html
GeorgeM, 7 months ago
about citizenship ennxtdieg beyond their borders. Congress now decided who could be “citizens of the United States.”Furthermore, not all the states even used the concept of “natural born subject” within their own states. For example, let us examine what Justice James Wilson wrote in 1791. Needless to say, Justice Wilson was a highly influential Founder and Framers. Pennsylvania also passed an English common law reception statute but it treated the citizenship question differently. We know from Justice James Wilson that the Founders and Framers intentionally did not select an unknown term to describe the new membership in the republic. Justice Wilson also informs us that they also decided not to use the well-known clause, “subject” or “natural born subject,” because they would have had to be used with a different meaning. They decided upon “citizen” because the people were already using that term the way that the term was meant to be used and they knew that it did not mean what subjecthood had meant under English common law. For Wilson, the meaning of a “citizen” went back to ancient Greece. He said that one could become a “citizen” of Pennsylvania by residing in the state for two years and in that time paying a state or county tax or if he was between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years and the son of a citizen, he would also become a “citizen” of Pennsylvania. Virginia had also passed an English common law reception statute. But as I have already explained, Thomas Jefferson in his citizenship law of 1779 in order to give citizenship in Virginia to infants required that they be born to citizen parents. Jefferson also did not use the word “subject” or “natural born subject” in Virginia. Jefferson’s infants followed the condition of their parents. This was not the English common law, but rather natural law and the law of nations which on matters of citizenship became part of American common law. See Minor v. Happersett (1875) (said “common-law” defined a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in a country to parents who were citizens of that country). Eventually, all the other states which had not yet done so, pursuant to new statutes, all started to use “citizen” in place of “natural born subject.” Not only did these states reject the old “subject” and “natural born subject,” but they even wrote citizenship laws that rejected how subjecthood was defined under English common law. For example, see the 1860 New York state citizenship statute which said that all persons born and domiciled in the state, except children of transient aliens and of public ministers and consuls, were citizens of New York. Here is the statute:Political Code of the State of New York (1860)Sec. 5. The citizens of the state are:1. All persons born in this state and domiciled within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls;2 All persons born out of this state who are citizens of the United States and domiciled within this state.The State of New York thus rejected the English common and Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583 (1844), a state decision which had held by relying on the English common law that a child born in New York of aliens parents who were subjects and domiciliaries of Ireland during their temporary sojourn in that city, returning with them the same year to their native country and always residing there afterwards was a “citizen of the United States.” Note that Minor in 1875 also put into serious doubt the validity of the Lynch decision and even U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) included “domicile” in its holding on the meaning of a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment. There are many problems and errors with the Lynch decision which I will not discuss at this moment. All this, along with other evidence that I have presented, shows that a “natural born Citizen” did not take its meaning from a “natural born subject,” but rather had a meaning all of its own which I have shown came from antiquity and was handed down through the ages as part of natural law and the law of nations which we adopted at the Founding as part of American common law. Under that American common law which was acknowledged and confirmed in Minor and Wong Kim Ark, the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” was a child born in a country to citizen parents. So we can see that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” (not to be conflated and confounded with a Wong Kim Ark Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” from birth) does not come from the English common law “natural born subject.”
Charibel, 8 months ago
that Indians still were not citizens. I am afiard 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). Indeed, there existed a problem concerning the citizenship status of children born in the U.S. to white European alien parents. Once the Amendment passed, it was used by the courts not only for blacks, but also to take care of citizenship problems faced by white alien Europeans and their U.S.-born children. So clearly the doubts that existed about who were citizens did not apply only to Indians. 3. Justice Gray in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), said:“The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 306.” Elk, at 101. We can see from what Justce Gray said the doubts about U.S. citizenship existed not only for Amerian Indians. 4. The district court in Wong Kim Ark also was not worried about American Indians. With the court again improperly engaging in policy making, its concern was that white Europeans born in the U.S. to alien parents would be declared non-U.S. citizens and be no longer able to vote for the party and candidate of their choice. 5. See also Benny v. O’Brien, 586 N.J.L. 36, 29 Vroom 36, 32 A. 696 (1895). The lower court in Benny, relying on Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), had ruled that a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was not a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, but the New Jersey Supreme Court, again being concerned that generation of persons would lose their right to vote if it affirmed the lower court, reversed and held a person born in the United States to permanently domiciled alien parents was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. The person whose citizenship was in question was not an American Indian, but rather a local politician who was born in 1867 in Brooklyn, New York to a father who was born in Scotland and never naturalized. Also note that the New Jersey Supreme Court as Minor had said in 1875 explained that in the absence of the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, children born in the United States to “citizen” parents were themselves “citizens” by virtue of their birth. Here we have another clear statement of what birthright citizenship was in the United States before the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. Again, this was not the jus soli English common law rule. 6. Treating Indians differently than non-U.S. citizen white Europeans was a creation of Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark, which he needed to distinguish and get around his correct decision in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) concerning the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” which contradicted his different position concerning the clause in Wong Kim Ark. So as you see, before Wong Kim Ark, doubts about who were citizens did not only concern American Indians as you would like for us to incorrectly believe, but any child born in the United States to alien parents.
Reamus, 7 months ago
14th Amendment has zero relevancy to Presidential eligibility. If that wasn’t clear enough already to the mentally slow, then the Hassan v FEC ruling should have cleared that up.
GeorgeM, 7 months ago