Main Menu

Calvin’s case

Calvin’s case (1608) was probably the most important legal decision in English legal history regarding citizenship. The decision, written by Lord Coke is widely cited, and appears in important US court decisions on citizenship including United States v Wong.

Calvin was born in Scotland, three years after James VI of Scotland became king in England. The question was whether Calvin could inherit property in England — whether he was a subject in England or an alien. The decision was that Calvin was a natural born subject of England because he was born under an allegiance to King James.

A discussion of this case erupted on another article, and disrupted the discussion there. I am moving the comments on Calvin’s case here.

509 Responses to Calvin’s case

  1. avatar
    MichaelN March 2, 2011 at 9:19 pm #

    Lord Coke stated the following in his report of Calvin’s case:-

    That a ‘natural born subject’ was such ‘by nature and birthright’.

    That a ‘natural born subject’ was such ‘by procreation and birthright’

    TWO essential qualities, not one.

    That aliens visiting England in friendship are ‘subjects’.

    That one was excluded from being a ‘natural born subject’ if the parent father was not a ‘subject’, such that the child was no subject, because the child was not ‘born under the ligeance of a subject’.

    This clearly means that sanguinis was one of TWO essential qualities required to be met for one to be a ‘natural born subject’.

    Interesting how Chief Justice Horace Gray in the Wong Kim Ark case, cited Calvin’s case, danced around ‘natural born’ and OMITTED to make ANY mention of these most important statements by Lord Coke, leaving it to be construed that soli was the only quality for ‘natural born’, when in fact this notion of soli only is INCORRECT.

    Sanguinis IS ESSENTIAL in making a ‘natural born’.

  2. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 2, 2011 at 10:02 pm #

    MichaelN:
    Lord Coke stated the following in his report of Calvin’s case:-

    That a natural born subject’ was such by nature and birthright’.

    That a natural born subject’ was such by procreation and birthright’

    TWO essential qualities, not one.

    That aliens visiting England in friendship are subjects’.

    That one was excluded from being a natural born subject’ if the parent father was not a subject’, such that the child was no subject, because the child was not born under the ligeance of a subject’.

    This clearly means that sanguinis was one of TWO essential qualities required to be met for one to be a natural born subject’.

    Interesting how Chief Justice Horace Gray in the Wong Kim Ark case, cited Calvin’s case, danced around natural born’ and OMITTED to make ANY mention of these most important statements by Lord Coke, leaving it to be construed that soli was the only quality for natural born’, when in fact this notion of soli only is INCORRECT.

    Sanguinis IS ESSENTIAL in making a natural born’.

    Wow! A new birther argument (at least to me). I wonder how long it will take the knowledgeable folks here to shoot this one down…

  3. avatar
    ballantine March 2, 2011 at 10:05 pm #

    MichaelN: Lord Coke stated the following in his report of Calvin’s case:-That a natural born subject’ was such by nature and birthright’.That a natural born subject’ was such by procreation and birthright’TWO essential qualities, not one.That aliens visiting England in friendship are subjects’.That one was excluded from being a natural born subject’ if the parent father was not a subject’, such that the child was no subject, because the child was not born under the ligeance of a subject’.This clearly means that sanguinis was one of TWO essential qualities required to be met for one to be a natural born subject’.Interesting how Chief Justice Horace Gray in the Wong Kim Ark case, cited Calvin’s case, danced around natural born’ and OMITTED to make ANY mention of these most important statements by Lord Coke, leaving it to be construed that soli was the only quality for natural born’, when in fact this notion of soli only is INCORRECT.Sanguinis IS ESSENTIAL in making a natural born’.

    Oh gee, Mikey has shown up here. Now he will repost the same post 100 times claiming that he alone understands the true meaning of Calvin’s Case and that Blackstone, Chitty, Cochburn, Kenyon, Dicey and every subsequent court and legal authority in English history got it wrong. Mikey thinks because Coke called alien friends “subjects,” it somehow means they were naturalized merely by entering England. In the world of reality, “aliens friends” were sometimes called “subjects” because they temporarily had subjugated themselves to the crown by placing themselves under its temporary protection. Such was the case in both England and America. It certainly didn’t mean they had any rights of natural born or naturalized subjects, for as a matter of historical fact, they didn’t. It didn’t mean they changed nationality, for as a matter of historical fact, they didn’t. Framer James Wilson spoke to this making clear that an alien/temporary subject had non of the rights of natural born or naturalized subjects. In fact, the term “naturalization” meant removing the disabilities of alienage, so, an “alien,” by definition cannot be naturalized.

    Despite the fact that no one in history supports his interpretation, Mikey will argue over and over and over that the founders somehow supported his view, even though he cannot present any evidence that they did and even when presented with a multitude of evidence that they didn’t. You see, he is not a lawyer or even an American. However, even my kindergarteners could understand that if the founders agreed with him and all the states after the revolution adopted the common law, as they did, then Calvin’s Case was the law of this country prior to ratification. Hence, anyone who came to America would also been automatically naturalized as Calvin’s Case, the law of all our states, said so. Of course, both England and all our early states made clear only a naturalization statute could naturalize someone, but such is far beyond Mikey’s understanding of Mikey.

    Finally, Mikey doesn’t understand that jus sanguinis means the child follows the nationality of the parent. To say Coke say a foreigner changes nationality merely by visiting England is just stupid and has no support from any legal authority in history.

    Now, it’s time to ignore him, as he will just re-post the same post over and over as he doesn’t understand anything I have posted.

  4. avatar
    Nomatter March 3, 2011 at 1:33 am #

    Horace Gray, in WKA case failed to mention when he cited Calvin’s case, actually it appears Gray deliberately omitted the following from Calvin’s case:

    Quote:
    “There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita, and this originally is due by nature and birthright”

    Notice TWO qualities to make a ‘natural born subject’.

    Quote:
    “Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right”

    Again TWO qualities to make a ‘natural born subject’.

    Coke states that an alien visiting England in friendship, is a ‘subject’ and because he is a ‘subject’, then his child, if born in England, is a ‘natural born subject’ by ‘nature and birthright’ & by ‘procreation and birthright’.

    Coke gives further weight to the essential requirement for the parent father to be a ‘subject’ to be able to produce a ‘natural born subject’, when he stated how when a child born to a non-subject cannot be a ‘natural born subject’.

    Here is what Coke said that re-affirms that the ‘subject’ status of the parent father is one of the TWO essential qualities required to make a ‘natural born subject’.

    Quote:
    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”

    Ergo: according to English common law, it is essential that a parent father must be a subject for his child (if born in the land) to be a ‘natural born subject’.

  5. avatar
    Nomatter March 3, 2011 at 3:17 am #

    JoZeppy: Dred Scott butchered the law.

    Horace Gray butchered, or should I say cherry-picked Calvin’s case.

  6. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 3, 2011 at 10:27 am #

    Nomatter: If I am not interpreting what Coke said correctly, then what is the correct’ interpretation?

    Every interpretation that I’ve seen indicates that the precedent from Calvin’s case is that jus soli is sufficient for citizenship. Do you have any references for your interpretation? Also, your interpretation seems to make President Obama a natural born citizen since his father was a friendly visitor (I don’t recommend going the ‘heathen nation’ route, by the way, as the common law isn’t valid where it contradicts the Constitution…). You’re trying to pull quotes out of context and then parse them in an inconsistent manner to support your predetermined conclusion – did you think that no one here would notice or did you think that intellectual dishonesty would strengthen your case?

  7. avatar
    Greg March 3, 2011 at 11:57 am #

    MichaelN: That aliens visiting England in friendship are subjects’.

    Okay, so aliens who visit England are “subjects.”

    But, Calvin’s dad, who was born in Scotland before King James VI became James I of England, remains an alien.

    And as to the fourth, it is less than a dream of a shadow, or a shadow of a dream: for it hath been often said, natural legitimation respecteth actual obedience to the sovereign at the time of the birth; for as the antenati remain aliens as to the Crown of England, because they were born when there were several Kings of the several kingdoms, and the uniting of the kingdoms by descent subsequent CANNOT MAKE HIM A SUBJECT to that Crown to which he was alien at the time of his birth: so albeit the kingdoms (which Almighty God of his infinite goodness and mercy divert) should by descent be divided, and governed by several Kings; yet it was resolved, that all those that were born under one natural obedience while the realms were united under one sovereign, should remain natural born subjects, and no aliens; for that naturalization due and vested by birthright, cannot by any separation of the Crowns afterward be taken away: nor he that was by judgment of law a natural subject at the time of his birth, become an alien by such a matter ex post facto.

    What if Calvin’s Dad had left England, then come back to England as a visitor. Would he then become a subject?

    Actually, let’s back up. Calvin’s dad was never a visitor to England, and he remained an alien, as the case clearly said. So, how did Calvin become a subject, if Dad has to be a subject.

    The more you talk, Michael, the more convinced I am that you have no earthly idea what Calvin’s Case is even about.

    It’s a land case, Michael. It talks about subjecthood because aliens could not own land, they could not give their land in wills, they could not inherit land. Subjects could own land, they could give land away in wills, they could inherit land, they could go into court to litigate over land.

    And you think that alien friends, by coming into England become subjects – able to own land?

    Yeah, that makes no sense. At no point in the case does Coke say that aliens, whether friend or enemy, could own land – they were no subjects.

    Also, do you even know what sanguinis means? It’s Latin for BLOOD. That means that it is not temporary – an alien doesn’t get the BLOOD by coming into England and then LOSE the blood by leaving England! That doesn’t describe sanguinis, Michael, it describes SOIL!

    Now, the born-Englishman, who goes to France, and gives birth to ANOTHER Englishman, THAT’S blood! That is citizenship that goes with the individual into other countries.

    You’ve spent months, Michael, to describe in detail, jus soli. An alien comes into England and, because he’s not from an enemy nation, he has a child who is English. If that same alien had a child in France, that child would NOT be English. What changed? The alien is still not an enemy, right? The only thing that changed was the soil. That’s jus soli!

    Wong Kim Ark does discuss this distinction between alien-friend and enemy, the requirement of ligeance, and the fact that you think it doesn’t just shows, again, that you haven’t read the case:

    The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

    American law, as explained by Gray, works exactly the same way as English law does:

    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.

    The alien that comes into America owes, automatically, allegiance to the government, because he/she is protected by that government. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the government, because of that protection.

    The Supreme Court has ruled, again and again, that those on US Soil are required to obey the same laws as citizens, and entitled to many of the same rights as citizens. They are so part of our society that their children are citizens. They are so part of our society, in fact, that they are natural born citizens.

    Calvin’s Case is more than 60 pages long, and Wong Kim Ark is a similar length. It is clear, however, that you have read a paragraph of each. Go read those two cases, and then read any of the commentary about those two cases, and try to figure out why everyone in the history of the English language has read those two cases differently than you. Here’s a hint: It’s not because you’re a genius and everyone else has gotten it wrong.

  8. avatar
    gorefan March 3, 2011 at 12:16 pm #

    Nomatter: “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”

    He is talking about enemy invaders – Are you suggesting that Kenya invade the US? Like the “Mouse that Roared”.

    Bovril: being roundly ignored

    Mario ignores MichaelN/Nomatter on a regular basis.

    He just doesn’t understand what he is reading in the Lord Coke’s Report.

  9. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 3, 2011 at 3:18 pm #

    Greg: Okay, so aliens who visit England are “subjects.”

    But, Calvin’s dad, who was born in Scotland before King James VI became James I of England, remains an alien.

    What if Calvin’s Dad had left England, then come back to England as a visitor. Would he then become a subject?

    Actually, let’s back up. Calvin’s dad was never a visitor to England, and he remained an alien, as the case clearly said. So, how did Calvin become a subject, if Dad has to be a subject.

    The more you talk, Michael, the more convinced I am that you have no earthly idea what Calvin’s Case is even about.

    It’s a land case, Michael. It talks about subjecthood because aliens could not own land, they could not give their land in wills, they could not inherit land. Subjects could own land, they could give land away in wills, they could inherit land, they could go into court to litigate over land.

    And you think that alien friends, by coming into England become subjects – able to own land?

    Yeah, that makes no sense. At no point in the case does Coke say that aliens, whether friend or enemy, could own land – they were no subjects.

    Also, do you even know what sanguinis means? It’s Latin for BLOOD. That means that it is not temporary – an alien doesn’t get the BLOOD by coming into England and then LOSE the blood by leaving England! That doesn’t describe sanguinis, Michael, it describes SOIL!

    Now, the born-Englishman, who goes to France, and gives birth to ANOTHER Englishman, THAT’S blood! That is citizenship that goes with the individual into other countries.

    You’ve spent months, Michael, to describe in detail, jus soli. An alien comes into England and, because he’s not from an enemy nation, he has a child who is English. If that same alien had a child in France, that child would NOT be English. What changed? The alien is still not an enemy, right? The only thing that changed was the soil. That’s jus soli!

    Wong Kim Ark does discuss this distinction between alien-friend and enemy, the requirement of ligeance, and the fact that you think it doesn’t just shows, again, that you haven’t read the case:

    American law, as explained by Gray, works exactly the same way as English law does:

    The alien that comes into America owes, automatically, allegiance to the government, because he/she is protected by that government. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the government, because of that protection.

    The Supreme Court has ruled, again and again, that those on US Soil are required to obey the same laws as citizens, and entitled to many of the same rights as citizens. They are so part of our society that their children are citizens. They are so part of our society, in fact, that they are natural born citizens.

    Calvin’s Case is more than 60 pages long, and Wong Kim Ark is a similar length. It is clear, however, that you have read a paragraph of each. Go read those two cases, and then read any of the commentary about those two cases, and try to figure out why everyone in the history of the English language has read those two cases differently than you. Here’s a hint: It’s not because you’re a genius and everyone else has gotten it wrong.

    Well, that answers my question – it took less than 15 hours for Michael to be thoroughly debunked (nice job, Greg ;-)). Now the only question is whether Michael is the ‘LA LA LA LA LA – I CAN’T HEAR YOU!’ kind of birther or whether he is the ‘Run Away!’ kind of birther…

  10. avatar
    obsolete March 3, 2011 at 4:49 pm #

    MichaelN, aka nomatter, keeps dishonestly chopping off the first part of this sentence when he pastes it all over the internet:

    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”

    The longer sentence is:
    “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”

    Anyone can read the long version and see that it means if an invading soldier has a baby, that baby is not a natural-born citizen. He cuts off the part that explains that it is an invading soldier under discussion, in a maddeningly dishonest attempt to try to apply it to Obama’s father.

    That is all you need to know about MichaelN (aka nomatter) and his arguments- they are all dishonest cut-n-paste B.S.

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2011 at 8:47 pm #

    Nomatter: All that is needed is for someone from the ‘knowledgeable folks’ to address what Coke said.

    If I am not interpreting what Coke said correctly, then what is the correct’ interpretation?

    James H. Kettner in his book The Development of American Citizenship, 1608-1870 has a good section on Calvin’s Case (pp 16-28). Try interlibrary loan.

    The first sentence of Chapter 1 is:

    English law held in practice, long before it explained in theory, that persons born within the royal dominions were the king’s subjects.

    That must be a pretty important principle to be the lead sentence of an entire book on American citizenship!

    Kettner explains that, according to Lord Coke, the postnati Scotsmen were natural born subjects of England because they were born “within the personal protection of the King of England.” [p.22]

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2011 at 10:25 pm #

    Nomatter: “Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right”

    If you hadn’t lifted a fraction of a sentence out of context, perhaps it would be clear what it means. It certainly, in context, is not a codification of the definition of a natural born citizen (which it doesn’t say even out of context).

    In context:

    By these and many other cases that might be cited out of our books, it appeareth, how plentiful the authorities of our laws be in this matter. Wherefore to conclude this point (and to exclude all that hath been or could be objected against it) if the obedience and ligeance of the subject to his sovereign be due by the law of nature, if that law be parcel of the laws, as well of England, as of all other nations, and is immutable, and that postnati and we of England are united by birthright, in obedience and ligeance (which is the true cause of natural subjection) by the law of nature; it followeth that Calvin the plaintiff being born under one ligeance to one King, cannot be an alien born; and there is great reason, that the law of nature should direct this case, wherein five natural operations are remarkable: first the King hath the Crown of England by birthright; being naturally procreated of the blood royal of this realm: secondly, Calvin the plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth-right, since the descent of the Crown of England: thirdly, ligeance and obedience of the subject to the sovereign, due by the law of nature: fourthly, protection and government due by the law of nature: fifthly, this case, in the opinion of divers, was more doubtful in the beginning, but the further it proceeded, the clearer and stronger it grew…

    He is subject by birthright since he was born under the protection of James I of Scotland, and by procreation since under royal procreation, James King of Scotland subsequently became James King of England.

    Now I am not a lawyer, and I am not an expert on English Common Law. This is difficult language, and I may have gotten the passage wrong. But what I have not gotten wrong, because I have read the writings of lawyers and experts on English Common Law, is that England recognize jus soli natural born subjects. Legislation extended natural born subjectship to the children of of natural born citizens born overseas. What Justice Gray derived from Calvin’s Case is what all authorities agree on.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2011 at 10:59 pm #

    Nomatter: Coke speaks of a Frenchman, when he gives an example of an alien Frenchman visiting in friendship who by local ligeance is deemed a subject’ & because of the Frenchman’s status as a subject’, his child is a natural born subject’ of England.

    I think you are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

    What was Calvin’s case about? Calvin was born in Scotland after the ascension of King James to the throne of England. The question was whether or not Calvin was a natural born subject of England, and able to inherit some land there.

    All parties to Calvin’s case agreed that those who were born in Scotland before the accession were aliens in England (1) and in particular, Calvin’s Scottish father was such an alien in England. Nevertheless, Calvin was born under the protection of King James (at the time king of both England and Scotland) and therefore he was a natural born subject of England.

    You pick bits out of context, or give novel meaning to the text, but you cannot escape the plain holding of the case, which was that a child born to an alien father was a natural born subject.

    (1) http://www.scribd.com/doc/49862330/7/CALVIN-S-CASE-1608

  14. avatar
    MichaelN March 4, 2011 at 2:16 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think you are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

    What was Calvin’s case about? Calvin was born in Scotland after the ascension of King James to the throne of England. The question was whether or not Calvin was a natural born subject of England, and able to inherit some land there.

    All parties to Calvin’s case agreed that those who were born in Scotland before the accession were aliens in England (1) and in particular, Calvin’s Scottish father was such an alien in England. Nevertheless, Calvin was born under the protection of King James (at the time king of both England and Scotland) and therefore he was a natural born subject of England.

    You pick bits out of context, or give novel meaning to the text, but you cannot escape the plain holding of the case, which was that a child born to an alien father was a natural born subject.

    (1) http://www.scribd.com/doc/49862330/7/CALVIN-S-CASE-1608

    The friendly alien born parent father was considered a ‘subject’ and as such his children were (if born in the same realm) ‘natural born subjects’.

    Coke made it clear on at least three occasions in his report, that it was the ‘subject’ status of the parent father, which was one of two essential qualities required to make a ‘natural born subject’.

    When he said that a ‘natural born subject’ was such ……….

    “by nature and birthright”

    “by procreation and birthright”

    and when he further made it as clear as a bell, saying ………

    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject,”

    It clearly states that a child born in the land cannot be a ‘natural born subject’ if the alien born father is not a ‘subject’.

    Now you show me how this can possibly be ‘out of context’.

    If I am not reading what Coke said correctly, then you show what the ‘correct’ reading should be of these three particular statements by Coke.

  15. avatar
    MichaelN March 4, 2011 at 4:01 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Coke didn’t say the Frenchman was deemed a subject. The text says:

    “Natural subject” in the phrase “strong enough to make a natural subject” could not refer to the Frenchman, since even naturalized subjects were not natural subjects, much less aliens in amity (i.e. aliens not at war). It refers to the child. If one takes the text out of context, I see where confusion might arise, but in the larger context of English Common Law, such a mistake would never be made.

    ‘natural subject’ refers to the Frenchman.

    It was by his ‘local ligeance’ in the English realm, that the Frenchman could make an English ‘natural born subject’ , due by ‘nature and birthright’.

    That’s why the indictment for the Frenchman was for treason, because he was in violation of his duty of ligeance.

    The ‘local ligeance’ was strong enough to make the Frenchman a ‘natural subject’, by the Law of Nature, i.e. all people were ‘subjects’ to, let’s say the entity of a king in whatever realm they them selves were a ‘natural born subject’.

    Everyone, except sovereigns, were a ‘subject’ to sovereign monarchs, when at home, to their sovereign and when visiting the realm of a friendly monarch, they were ‘subjects’ of the monarch of the realm they were visiting.

    Law of Nature is what made the Frenchman a ‘natural subject’.

    The ‘local ligeance’ of the Frenchman, even though ‘momentary and uncertain’, was still (by The Law of Nature’) sufficient to make him a ‘natural subject’, hence the indictment of treason.

    Alien born doesn’t necessarily mean one is not a ‘subject’.

    So then, how do you account for this?

    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”

    .

  16. avatar
    MichaelN March 4, 2011 at 4:37 am #

    gorefan: The President’s father came to the US in friendship, therefore, like the frenchman, by local allegiance, he became a citizen of the united States and his son became a “natural born Citizen”.

    That’s just plain silly.

    The US has naturalization laws that provide for aliens to become US citizens.

    Unlike the US, the English embraced all aliens who were from friendly realms, as subjects.

    Only when they were subjects, was it possible for their children to be natural born subjects.

    This was spelled out by Coke when he said of those who were born to a parent father who was not a subject …..

    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”

    So to be in accordance with the sanguinis principle as spelled out by Coke, in the US for a child to be a ‘natural born Citizen’, his parent father would need to be a US citizen, but as you know, one must be either born a US citizen or naturalized a US citizen by due process to be a US citizen and be able to have children who are US ‘natural born Citizens’.

  17. avatar
    Greg March 4, 2011 at 9:56 am #

    Michael.

    It’s simple. Calvin wanted to own property. He could only own property if he was a subject. His dad wasn’t a subject, but Calvin was born under an English King.

    The fact that his dad was NEVER a subject is clear from the fact that his dad could not own property.

    Calvin = subject
    Calvin’s dad = NOT subject.

    The Frenchman – he cannot own property. He isn’t a subject.

    MichaelN: Here, have a read about fallacies

    You’ve got it backwards. Magic M didn’t say your conclusions were wrong because you are a birther and a liar, he said you were a birther and liar BECAUSE your conclusions were wrong (and deliberately misleading).

    This is yet another example, as if we needed any, that shows your inability to clearly reason, Michael. The fallacy article you quoted is pretty clear (false conclusion BECAUSE of ad hominem, not insult BECAUSE of false conclusion) yet you read it, or Magic’s statement entirely backwards!

    MichaelN: Unlike the US, the English embraced all aliens who were from friendly realms, as subjects.

    1. Subjects can own property. Non-naturalized aliens were not subjects. Calvin was a natural born subject because his dad was in England and owed LIGEANCE to the King. He didn’t become a subject. He couldn’t own property.

    2. The US embraces all aliens as under the jurisdiction of the United States. Any alien who enters the US owes the US its allegiance, enough so that they can be tried for any crime. Aliens can be tried for treason.

    The alien who came into England in amity couldn’t own property.
    The alien who came into America in amity could, in some states, own property.

    The alien who came into England in amity could be tried for treason.
    The alien who came into America in amity could be tried for treason.

    The alien who came into England in amity owed the sovereign his loyalty.
    The alien who came into America in amity owed the sovereign his loyalty.

    So, Michael, you’ve made two mistakes:

    1. You’re misreading Calvin’s Case to invent a new form of subject.
    2. It doesn’t matter because Wong Kim Ark makes clear that the US ADOPTED THE SAME RULE AS ENGLAND!

    I showed you above how Gray specifically talked about the alien in amity versus the alien enemy.

    Your misreading of Calvin’s Case is irrelevant to the fact that the US has always believed that England made the children of aliens into citizens by dint of the soil of England, and the US explicitly adopted that rule in Wong Kim Ark.

    I’ve got a house. I like the color that the house across the street is painted. So, I paint my house the same color. You repaint the house across the street a different color. Does that change the color of my house? No. Does it change the fact that I painted my house the color I believed your house to be when I painted it? No.

    Your interpretation of Calvin’s Case, unsupported by more than 400 years of English law interpreting it (no case, no legal scholar, no cartoon writer has ever suggested a pseudo-subject status for all alien friends in England) is funny, but irrelevant. The Founders understood the Case to mean what everyone has always said it meant. Horace Gray understood Calvin’s Case to mean what everyone has always said it meant. That you, now, in 2011, think it means something else is so much pissing in the wind.

    Go find me SOME evidence that anyone has EVER read Calvin’s Case the way you have, and I’ll give some credence to the view that the Founders read Calvin’s Case the way you have!

  18. avatar
    gorefan March 4, 2011 at 10:12 am #

    MichaelN: and when he further made it as clear as a bell, saying ………
    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject,”

    So what you are saying is that according to the Calvin’s Case, a frenchman, or german or whateverman goes into the English Realm and if he is not an enemy(alien) or an ambassador of a foreign country, any of his children born in the English realm, become “natural born subjects”.

    Sorta like what Blackstone said, “THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges.”

    Nice of you to clear that up.

  19. avatar
    JoZeppy March 4, 2011 at 11:12 am #

    Nomatter: Horace Gray butchered, or should I say cherry-picked Calvin’s case.

    I have to say, the arrogance of birthers never ceases to amaze me. So Blackstone, Gray, and every learned lawyer and judge for the past 400 years have all been consistently coming to the wrong conclusion that the case stood for the fact that England (and the US through it) were strictly jus soli jurisdictions, but these individuals, who have never studies law, can’t successfully identify what is the reasoning, holding, or dicta in a modern court opinion, and correctly tell you how the court disposed of the case case in a recent drafted opinion, much less one that is 400 years old, are suddenly going to “discover” something that all the real lawyers have missed for 400 years?

    Yeah…..I buy that.

  20. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 4, 2011 at 5:18 pm #

    MichaelN: The guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark was based on error on the part of the WKA judiciary & Indiana court was misguided by same.

    English common law actually requires a parent father to be a subject’ for the child to be a natural born subject.

    Oh, I see – English courts have been getting this wrong for 400 years… Is that what you are saying?

  21. avatar
    Greg March 4, 2011 at 5:33 pm #

    MichaelN: The guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark was based on error on the part of the WKA judiciary & Indiana court was misguided by same.

    Wong Kim Ark traces American understanding of English common law back to before the nation was founded.

    You, on the other hand, have traced the understanding of this so-called “error,” back a few months to the first time you read Calvin’s Case.

    The Founders understood Calvin’s Case to mean the same thing that Blackstone understood the case to mean which was the same thing that Horace Gray understood it to mean, which was the same thing that Judge Sandford understood it to mean, which was the same thing that John Adams understood it to mean, which was the same thing that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts understood it to mean, which was the same thing the Court in Ankeny understood it to mean.

    Now that we’ve established that your interpretation of this so-called “error” is irrelevant to the Founding of the United States, could you please answer a question I have?

    If Calvin had to have a subject for a father, why wasn’t his father a subject? Why did Calvin’s dad live out his days as a non-subject, one who couldn’t own property? Why couldn’t the Frenchman own property?

  22. avatar
    MichaelN March 4, 2011 at 5:46 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Good lord this again.The high court has used the terms terms native born and natural born interchangeably as well as the founders.There is no difference between the terms.

    Correction:

    SOME used the terms interchangeably.

    The language of USC Article II is ‘natural’ not ‘native’

    Calvin’s case even demonstrates this when it was stated by Coke that a child that was native born was not natural born if the parent father was not a ‘subject’.

  23. avatar
    Greg March 4, 2011 at 5:53 pm #

    MichaelN: if the parent father was not a subject’.

    Nope, it says if the father was not in ligeance with the king.

    If the father was a subject, why wasn’t he a subject?

    Why couldn’t Dad Calvin own property?

    Why, if all aliens in amity were subjects, was there even a case? Was there a question about whether Scotsmen were at war with England?

    Why, if all aliens in amity were subjects, was there a distinction between the antenati and the postnati? Were Scotchmen born before James I ascended the English throne at war with England, and those born after not at war?

  24. avatar
    MichaelN March 4, 2011 at 5:58 pm #

    gorefan: So what you are saying is that according to the Calvin’s Case, a frenchman, or german or whateverman goes into the English Realm and if he is not an enemy(alien) or an ambassador of a foreign country, any of his children born in the English realm, become “natural born subjects”.

    Sorta like what Blackstone said, “THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges.”

    Nice of you to clear that up.

    Yes Blackstone was ‘sorta’ generalizing, because not all alien’s children were English ‘natural born subjects’.

    What is clear, that you apparently fail to grasp, is that those friendly aliens, visiting England are by local ligeance, ‘subjects’ by the Law of Nature of the English sovereign, not subject to the law or the land, but to the sovereign, and as such their children, if born in England, are ‘natural born subjects’.

  25. avatar
    Greg March 4, 2011 at 6:01 pm #

    But the time of his birth is of the essence of a subject born; for he cannot be a subject to the king of England, unlesse at the time of his birth he was under the ligeance and obedience of the king. And that is the reason that Antenati in Scotland (for that at the time of their birth they were under the ligeance and obedience of another king) are Aliens born, in respect of the time of their birth.

    And, later:

    for as the Antenati REMAIN ALIENS as to the Crown of England, because they were born when there were several Kings of the several kingdoms, and the uniting of the kingdoms by descent subsequent, cannot make him a Subject to that Crown to which he was an alien at the time of his birth

    Calvin’s Dad, who was an Antenati, REMAINED an alien to the Crown, because he was born when there were several Kings of the several kingdoms, and the uniting of the kingdoms cannot make him a subject to that Crown to which he was an alien at the time of his birth.

    How did Dad automatically become a subject, yet REMAIN an alien?

  26. avatar
    MichaelN March 4, 2011 at 6:02 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: In the text I cited previously, the alien Frenchman, because he was under local and temporary allegiance to the king by virtue of him being in the country combined with jus soli to make the child a natural born subject.

    Correction:

    the alien Frenchman, because he was under local and temporary allegiance to the king by virtue of him being in the country, was a ‘subject’, combined with jus soli to make the child a natural born subject by ‘procreation and birthright’, by sanguinis and soli.

  27. avatar
    MichaelN March 4, 2011 at 6:57 pm #

    Greg:
    Michael.

    It’s simple. Calvin wanted to own property. He could only own property if he was a subject. His dad wasn’t a subject, but Calvin was born under an English King.

    The fact that his dad was NEVER a subject is clear from the fact that his dad could not own property.

    Calvin = subject
    Calvin’s dad = NOT subject.

    The Frenchman – he cannot own property. He isn’t a subject.

    You don’t get it.

    It’s not about owning property, It’s about being a ‘subject’.

    To put it simply, not all ‘subjects’ can own property, i.e. the ‘subjects’ of alien born variety cannot own property.

    An alien in friendship, visiting England, is an English ‘subject’, nothing to do with being subject to the law.

    Because he is alien born he has no real or personal legal standing, but because he is a ‘subject’, his child is a ‘natural born subject’.

    Explain this ……..

    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”

    It makes no mention of the child not being a subject because his parent father is an alien and has no property rights.

    It’s because the child was “not born under the ligeance of a subject”.

    It’s about ligeance & subject status of the parent father, not about the father’s rights under law to own land.

    To use your logic, Calvin’s father apparently owned land, therefore Calvin’s father was a ‘subject’.

  28. avatar
    obsolete March 4, 2011 at 6:58 pm #

    MichaelN: It doesn’t matter WHY the father is not a subject’.

    It’s the fact that if the father is not a subject’ that causes the child not to be a natural born subject’.

    In this sentence you, in which you continue to dishonestly cut off the first part:
    “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”

    it explains that it is an invading soldier we are talking about, therefore his child would not be considered “natural-born”. You cut off the part that explains he is an invading soldier.(“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,”- is the part you ALWAYS cut off). Everyone knows that in the US, a child born here is considered “natural-born” UNLESS it is the child of a diplomat or an invading soldier.

    THIS is why you are dishonest. In fact, I am calling you a liar and bull$hit artist.

  29. avatar
    obsolete March 4, 2011 at 7:04 pm #

    MichaelN: Explain this ……..

    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”

    It makes no mention of the child not being a subject because his parent father is an alien and has no property rights.

    No, YOU ARE FORGETTING THE FIRST PART OF THE SENTENCE:
    “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,

    WHAT DOES THAT MEAN MICHAELN? IT MEANS AN INVADING SOLDIER!

    Why do you continue to leave that part of the sentence out, Michaeln? This is why you are banned from the Fogbow- you posted this hundreds of times, and never explained or acknowledged leaving the first part of the sentence out, and how it completely changed the meeting.

    There, I “explained” it for you.
    Peddle your dishonest crap somewhere else- no one will buy it here.

  30. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 4, 2011 at 7:36 pm #

    MichaelN: Correction:

    SOME used the terms interchangeably.

    The language of USC Article II is natural’ not native’

    Calvin’s case even demonstrates this when it was stated by Coke that a child that was native born was not natural born if the parent father was not a subject’.

    Yes the high court has used Natural and Native interchangeably. You continue to lie about the Calvin case where you continue cutting off part of the statement where it says if the father is a foreign enemy of an invading force that his son is not a subject. It does not say what you claim and you continue to lie about it

  31. avatar
    MichaelN March 4, 2011 at 9:10 pm #

    obsolete: No, YOU ARE FORGETTING THE FIRST PART OF THE SENTENCE:
    “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,

    WHAT DOES THAT MEAN MICHAELN? IT MEANS AN INVADING SOLDIER!

    Why do you continue to leave that part of the sentence out, Michaeln? This is why you are banned from the Fogbow- you posted this hundreds of times, and never explained or acknowledged leaving the first part of the sentence out, and how it completely changed the meeting.

    There, I “explained” it for you.
    Peddle your dishonest crap somewhere else- no one will buy it here.

    I have already told you, the reason for not being a subject is IRRELEVANT.

    Coke makes it patently clear that it is the subject status of the parent father that is one of TWO ESSENTIAL qualities to make a ‘natural born subject’.

    Coke demonstrates this with his NBS qualification example of the friendly alien born Frenchman who by being a ‘subject’ by local ligeance, qualifies his off-spring as a ‘natural born subject’ & with his NBS DIS-qualification example of the enemy alien who can not be a subject, which disqualifies his off-spring as a NBS.

    It’s clear and simple, if you can get past the hand-writhing, foot-stamping, embarrassment of having your belief in falsity shattered, then you might have a chance at seeing the truth for what it is.

    I know it shatters your belief, but reacting in such a disgustingly insulting manner doesn’t change the facts.

  32. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 4, 2011 at 9:13 pm #

    MichaelN: It doesn’t matter WHY the father is not a subject’.

    It matters that the parent father is or is not a subject’.

    The passage you quote does not say ‘the father is not a subject’, it says that “…HE was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.” ‘He’ obviously refers to the child (i.e. the one being born). This is more dishonesty (or a stunning display of ignorance) on your part (in addition to truncating the quote)

    e.g. if you lose your car license you are not permitted to legally drive a vehicle.
    if a policeman catches you driving without a license, he is not concerned why you have lost your license, it’s the fact that you are not eligible that matters.

    Since your analogy relies on the misunderstanding that you tried to promulgate, it too is fallacious.

    Btw, save your stupid, disgraceful insults, they mean nothing and only spoil the discussion for others here.

    He called you a liar after demonstrating how that was the case and I think the description of you as a ‘bull$hit artist’ is reasonably accurate as well. And you are not engaging in a discussion – you’re just continually restating your position and ignoring the incontrovertible evidence that you have no idea what you’re talking about…

  33. avatar
    MichaelN March 4, 2011 at 9:14 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Yes the high court has used Natural and Native interchangeably.You continue to lie about the Calvin case where you continue cutting off part of the statement where it says if the father is a foreign enemy of an invading force that his son is not a subject.It does not say what you claim and you continue to lie about it

    It is because the enemy alien cannot be a ‘subject’ that his child cannot be a NBS.

    It’s irrelevant as WHY the alien parent father cannot be a subject, it’s the FACT that he is NOT a ‘subject’.

  34. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 4, 2011 at 9:27 pm #

    MichaelN: It is because the enemy alien cannot be a subject’ that his child cannot be a NBS.

    It’s irrelevant as WHY the alien parent father cannot be a subject, it’s the FACT that he is NOT a subject’.

    If that’s the case, then why was Calvin judged to be a natural born subject while his father was held not to be a subject? Is that maybe because you are changing ‘subject to the liegeance of’ into ‘subject’ in one place and not another? That is a blatantly dishonest thing to do – which is why you are rightly being called a liar. If you choose to post lies on blogs (presumably for the seditious purpose of unConstitutionally removing the legitimate POTUS) then you deserve to be judged as the sort of pathetic trash that would do such an unAmerican thing…

  35. avatar
    misha March 4, 2011 at 9:29 pm #

    MichaelN: It’s irrelevant as WHY the alien parent father cannot be a subject

    Do you think we are alone in the universe?

  36. avatar
    MichaelN March 4, 2011 at 9:51 pm #

    Greg: And, later:

    Calvin’s Dad, who was an Antenati, REMAINED an alien to the Crown, because he was born when there were several Kings of the several kingdoms, and the uniting of the kingdoms cannot make him a subject to that Crown to which he was an alien at the time of his birth.

    How did Dad automatically become a subject, yet REMAIN an alien?

    ‘Crown’ is the operative word.

    Calvin’s dad was a ‘subject’ to the king by the Law of Nature, through local ligeance. and moreover possibly also by legal ligeance

    The answer might be here for you ..

    “Now seeing the King hath but one person, and several capacities, and one politique capacitie for the Realm of England, and another for the Realm of Scotland; it is necessary to be considered, to which capacity ligeance is due. And it was resolved, that it was due to the natural person of the King (which is ever accompanied with the politique capacity, and the politique capacity as it were appropriated to the natural capacity) and it is NOT DUE TO the politique capacity only, that is, to HIS CROWN or kingdom distinct from his natural capacity, and that for divers reasons. First, every subject (as it hath been affirmed by those that argued against the Plaintiff) is presumed by Law to be sworn to the King, which is to his natural person; and likewise the King is sworn to his subjects (as it appeareth in Bracton, lib. 3. de actionibus, cap. 9. fol. 107.) which oath he taketh in his natural |[10 b] person: for the politique capacity is invisible and immortal; nay, the politique body hath no soul, for it is framed by the policy of man. 2. In all indictments of Treason, when any doe intend or compass mortem et destructionem domini Regis90 (which must needs be understood of his natural body, for his politique body is immortal, and not subject to death) the indictment concludeth, contra ligeantiae suae debitum;91ergo, the ligeance is due to the natural body.”

    Here following is a part from Coke in Calvins case that demonstrates the local ligeance does in fact make a ‘subject’ …

    “But yet for the greater illustration of the matter, this point was handled by itself, and that ligeance of the subject was of as great an extent and latitude, as the royal power and protection of the King, et è converso.67 It appeareth by the statute of 11 Hen. 7. cap. 1. and 2 Edw. 6. cap. 2. that the subjects of England are bound by their ligeance to goe with the King, &c. in his wars, as well within the Realm, &c. as without. And therefore we daily see, that when either Ireland or any other of his Majesty’s dominions be infested with invasion or insurrection, the king of England sendeth his subjects out of England, and his subjects out of Scotland also into Ireland, for the withstanding or suppressing of the same, to the end his rebels may feel the swords of either nation. And so may his subjects of Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Man, &c. be commanded to make their swords good against either rebel or enemy, as occasion shall be offered: WHEREAS IF NATURAL LIGEANCE OF THE SUBJECTS OF ENGLAND SHOULD BE LOCAL, that is, confined within the realm of England or Scotland, &c. then were not they bound to goe out of the continent of the realm of England or Scotland, &c

    Ergo: The Frenchman was a ‘subject’ of England by local ligeance and as such, his child, if born in England, was a NBS.
    The enemy in England was no subject and as such, his child, if born in England (even to an English subject mother), can not be a NBS.

    .

  37. avatar
    misha March 4, 2011 at 9:56 pm #

    MichaelN: the Law of Nature

    What should I do if I see a coyote in a city park?

  38. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 4, 2011 at 9:58 pm #

    MichaelN: It is because the enemy alien cannot be a subject’ that his child cannot be a NBS.

    It’s irrelevant as WHY the alien parent father cannot be a subject, it’s the FACT that he is NOT a subject’.

    You totally misconstrued the passage. The father is a subject as long as he’s not a diplomat or part of an invading army. As long as he is there in amity he is. And his son is considered natural born.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2011 at 10:13 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): You totally misconstrued the passage. The father is a subject as long as he’s not a diplomat or part of an invading army. As long as he is there in amity he is. And his son is considered natural born.

    Not right. The alien has local allegiance, but he is not a subject.

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2011 at 10:23 pm #

    MichaelN: And so may his subjects of Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Man, &c. be commanded to make their swords good against either rebel or enemy, as occasion shall be offered: WHEREAS IF NATURAL LIGEANCE OF THE SUBJECTS OF ENGLAND SHOULD BE LOCAL, that is, confined within the realm of England or Scotland, &c. then were not they bound to goe out of the continent of the realm of England or Scotland, &c

    Calvin’s father, for example, was a subject of James King of Scotland by birth under the protection of King James, but because this birth was before James ascended to the throne in England, Calvin’s father was an alien in England. That is, his subjectship was local to Scotland. While “local” refers to a limitation of allegiance, it is not the same limitation here as it is in the case of the Frenchman cited elsewhere.

  41. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2011 at 10:29 pm #

    MichaelN: It’s irrelevant as WHY the alien parent father cannot be a subject, it’s the FACT that he is NOT a subject’.

    If just being in the country and not at war is sufficient to make Calvin’s father a subject in whatever sense is required for Calvin to be a natural born subject — just why is is that Barack Obama’s father who was an alien in amity in the United States was not in some sense enough of a citizen for Barack Obama to be a natural born citizen of the United States.

    You might sputter and say that there is nothing in US law that makes Barack Obama Sr. any kind of citizen — but you can’t find anything in British law that made Calvin’s father a subject of England either.

    Do you realize, by the way, that Calvin was a natural born subject of BOTH England and Scotland? There goeth the dual-citizenship objection.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2011 at 10:38 pm #

    MichaelN: Crown’ is the operative word.

    Calvin’s dad was a subject’ to the king by the Law of Nature, through local ligeance. and moreover possibly also by legal ligeance

    Think again. England and Scotland had separate crowns.

  43. avatar
    MichaelN March 4, 2011 at 10:40 pm #

    Slartibartfast: If that’s the case, then why was Calvin judged to be a natural born subject while his father was held not to be a subject?Is that maybe because you are changing subject to the liegeance of’ into subject’ in one place and not another?That is a blatantly dishonest thing to do – which is why you are rightly being called a liar.If you choose to post lies on blogs (presumably for the seditious purpose of unConstitutionally removing the legitimate POTUS) then you deserve to be judged as the sort of pathetic trash that would do such an unAmerican thing…

    “And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born”

    Without having to go through Coke’s report, the bottom-line is that Calvin was a NBS by nature and birthright and by procreation and birthright.

    To be eligible as a NBS, the parent father had to have a natural ligeance.

    Without said natural ligeance on the part of the parent father, a child cannot be a NBS.

    As you may well say that a NBS can be one born of an alien, so too it can be said that not all children of aliens can be NBS.

    It is the ligeance of the parent father that matters most, and it is this ligeance that the parent father a ‘subject’.

    Without the ligeance on the part of the parent father, one cannot be a NBS.

    Ergo: the subject status or non-subject status of the parent father MATTERS in determining who can be and who cannot be a NBS.

    This following part from Coke, says it all as regards ‘subject born’, where it shows clearly that the parent’s status matters.

    “There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
    1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.
    2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And
    3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom”

    This makes it clear that Calvin’s dad was under the actual obedience of the king, ie. a subject, for Calvin to be a ‘subject born’

  44. avatar
    MichaelN March 4, 2011 at 10:46 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Think again. England and Scotland had separate crowns.

    Five years before Calvin’s case.

    “The Union of the Crowns (March 1603) was the accession of James VI, King of Scots, to the throne of England, thus uniting Scotland and England under one monarch.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_the_Crowns

  45. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 4, 2011 at 10:49 pm #

    MichaelN: “And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born”

    Without having to go through Coke’s report, the bottom-line is that Calvin was a NBS by nature and birthright and by procreation and birthright.

    To be eligible as a NBS, the parent father had to have a natural ligeance.

    Without said natural ligeance on the part of the parent father, a child cannot be a NBS.

    As you may well say that a NBS can be one born of an alien, so too it can be said that not all children of aliens can be NBS.

    It is the ligeance of the parent father that matters most, and it is this ligeance that the parent father a subject’.

    Without the ligeance on the part of the parent father, one cannot be a NBS.

    Ergo: the subject status or non-subject status of the parent father MATTERS in determining who can be and who cannot be a NBS.

    This following part from Coke, says it all as regards subject born’, where it shows clearly that the parent’s status matters.

    “There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
    1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.
    2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And
    3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom”

    This makes it clear that Calvin’s dad was under the actual obedience of the king, ie. a subject, for Calvin to be a subject born’

    Then why was Calvin’s father unable to own land or exercise other privileges of being a subject? Also, how was Calvin’s father’s situation different from President Obama’s father’s situation?

  46. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 4, 2011 at 10:54 pm #

    MichaelN: To be eligible as a NBS, the parent father had to have a natural ligeance.

    But that is impossible because Calvin was a NBS of England and his father’s natural allegiance was to Scotland. Forget the argument; the facts of the case and the holding are against you.

  47. avatar
    MichaelN March 4, 2011 at 11:02 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: If just being in the country and not at war is sufficient to make Calvin’s father a subject in whatever sense is required for Calvin to be a natural born subject — just why is is that Barack Obama’s father who was an alien in amity in the United States was not in some sense enough of a citizen for Barack Obama to be a natural born citizen of the United States.

    You might sputter and say that there is nothing in US law that makes Barack Obama Sr. any kind of citizen — but you can’t find anything in British law that made Calvin’s father a subject of England either.

    It’s there in English common law, as has already been shown to you.

    How about you explain how, say Calvin, if not born under the ligeance of a subject, is somehow according to Coke, a NBS?

    And yes, without any ‘sputter’, US doesn’t accept aliens, friendly or otherwise, as US citizens, without due process.

  48. avatar
    MichaelN March 4, 2011 at 11:12 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Then why was Calvin’s father unable to own land or exercise other privileges of being a subject?Also, how was Calvin’s father’s situation different from President Obama’s father’s situation?

    First answer:

    I don’t know that it is true that Calvin’s father was unable to own land and exercise other privileges.

    How do you know that to be true?

    But it is irrelevant, It’s what qualified Calvin as an NBS that is the point of the argument.

    So far, according to Coke there are two qualities, ‘nature and birthright’ or ‘procreation and birthright’.

    One of those qualities, according to Coke, depends on the subject status of the parent father.

    Second answer:

    Unlike England under a monarchy, the US as a constitutional republic, where the Citizens are sovereign, does not determine aliens of any stripe as US citizens.

    So for Obama’s dad, to be able to produce a NBC, he would need to have been naturalized as a US citizen. (but you already knew that)

  49. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 4, 2011 at 11:12 pm #

    MichaelN,

    What do you think it meant for Calvin to be ‘born under the ligeance of a subject’? I take this to mean roughly the same thing as ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ – i.e. jus soli is sufficient provided the father is not a diplomat or enemy soldier. The only honest thing that you could possibly do at this point is admit your error and move on – given the facts there is no possibility that Calvin was natural born and President Obama is not (somehow I think that you will just continue to lie until you eventually run away…).

  50. avatar
    MichaelN March 4, 2011 at 11:15 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: But that is impossible because Calvin was a NBS of England and his father’s natural allegiance was to Scotland. Forget the argument; the facts of the case and the holding are against you.

    I have shown you, from Calvin’s case, that the ligeance is not to the land, the law or the crown, it is to the king, by the Law of Nature.

    Go read it for yourself…

    http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27

  51. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 4, 2011 at 11:30 pm #

    MichaelN: First answer:

    I don’t know that it is true that Calvin’s father was unable to own land and exercise other privileges.

    How do you know that to be true?

    It has been suggested to be the case by people here that have shown that they have not just read (or cherry-picked quotes from) the case, but actually understood it as well – they have far more credibility than you do…

    But it is irrelevant, It’s what qualified Calvin as an NBS that is the point of the argument.

    Yet you are arguing that the condition of his father was one of the qualifications required – thus whether or not his father was a subject is crucial to your argument (and if he wasn’t, in fact, a subject – i.e. he could not own land, etc. – then your entire argument is invalid on its face.

    So far, according to Coke there are two qualities, nature and birthright’ or procreation and birthright’.

    One of those qualities, according to Coke, depends on the subject status of the parent father.

    Again, assuming that Calvin’s father was only subject to the jurisdiction of the crown rather than a subject of the crown, your argument does not distinguish the circumstances of Calvin from those of President Obama (except for the fact that President Obama had bloodright citizenship through his mother, of course…)

    Second answer:

    Unlike England under a monarchy, the US as a constitutional republic, where the Citizens are sovereign, does not determine aliens of any stripe as US citizens.

    This sentence would be entirely correct if you delete the first two letters.

    So for Obama’s dad, to be able to produce a NBC, he would need to have been naturalized as a US citizen. (but you already knew that)

    I know that birth in Hawai’i is sufficient to make President Obama a natural born citizen in the eyes of every single court in the United States including the SCOTUS. I know that even if he was born outside of the United States (which all evidence suggest is not the case) then he may well be a natural born citizen due to the illegitimacy of his parents marriage. I know that you have repeatedly proved yourself to be an intellectually dishonest liar. And finally, I know that your statement is completely at odds with 400 years of jurisprudence…

  52. avatar
    MichaelN March 4, 2011 at 11:31 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    MichaelN,

    What do you think it meant for Calvin to be born under the ligeance of a subject’?I take this to mean roughly the same thing as subject to the jurisdiction’

    It meant that Calvin was ruled a NBS and it takes nature and birthright, procreation and birthright and the parent father to be a subject, under whose ligeance, Calvin must have been born, as an essential quality to qualify.

    No, born under the ligeance of a subject (England), it is not the same as ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ (USA)

    In England, the ligeance of a subject is to the king, and not necessarily subject to the Law of England (jurisdiction), the land or the crown.

    The subject is such, merely by visiting the realm in amity.

    In US, an alien is not a citizen, merely by visiting in amity and the alien is not visiting a kingdom.

    For an alien visiting the republic of US in amity, to reach the same status as an alien visiting England, the alien visiting US would need to be naturalized by due process, then he would be a sovereign Citizen and what’s more be a subject of no king.

    Subject and citizen are as chalk and cheese.

    But you already know that.

  53. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 4, 2011 at 11:34 pm #

    MichaelN: I have shown you, from Calvin’s case, that the ligeance is not to the land, the law or the crown, it is to the king, by the Law of Nature.

    Are you intentionally misunderstanding that the person who’s ‘ligeance’ is in question is the one being born and not the father or are you just an idiot?

  54. avatar
    MichaelN March 4, 2011 at 11:36 pm #

    Slartibartfast March 4, 2011 at 11:30 pm Slartibartfast(Quote)

    MichaelN: First answer:

    I don’t know that it is true that Calvin’s father was unable to own land and exercise other privileges.

    How do you know that to be true?
    —————————————————–

    Slartibartfast March 4, 2011 at 11:30 pm Slartibartfast(Quote)

    It has been suggested to be the case by people
    —————————————————-

    MichaelN:

    Try again, too feeble.

  55. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 4, 2011 at 11:39 pm #

    MichaelN: Subject and citizen are as chalk and cheese.

    Then why is it so easy to find the terms used interchangeably in the writings of the founders and the laws of the several states? But you are either a liar who knew that or a willfully ignorant idiot.

  56. avatar
    MichaelN March 4, 2011 at 11:40 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Are you intentionally misunderstanding that the person who’s ligeance’ is in question is the one being born and not the father or are you just an idiot?

    Neither.

  57. avatar
    Greg March 4, 2011 at 11:43 pm #

    I don’t know that it is true that Calvin’s father was unable to own land and exercise other privileges.

    Do you not think it would be prudent to READ the case you’re discussing?

    The case is about antenati and postnati, Michael. Dad was antenati. When you’ve finished reading the case we can talk about your interpretation of it. Not until then!

  58. avatar
    MichaelN March 4, 2011 at 11:44 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Then why is it so easy to find the terms used interchangeably in the writings of the founders and the laws of the several states?But you are either a liar who knew that or a willfully ignorant idiot.

    Unless you are prepared to observe some basic civility, decent manner & respect, I will not respond anymore to your insult ridden spew.

  59. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 4, 2011 at 11:46 pm #

    MichaelN:
    Slartibartfast March 4, 2011 at 11:30 pmSlartibartfast(Quote)

    MichaelN: First answer:

    I don’t know that it is true that Calvin’s father was unable to own land and exercise other privileges.

    How do you know that to be true?
    —————————————————–

    Slartibartfast March 4, 2011 at 11:30 pmSlartibartfast(Quote)

    It has been suggested to be the case by people
    —————————————————-

    MichaelN:

    Try again, too feeble.

    Sorry, but I go with the scientific method, and all of the empirical evidence* strongly suggests that others are correct when they suggest Calvin’s father wasn’t a subject and that you have your cranium lodged firmly in your anus…

    *Logic, too. If Calvin’s father was a subject then Calvin (having been born to a subject on the soil) would have been unquestionably a natural born subject and there would have been no case.

  60. avatar
    MichaelN March 4, 2011 at 11:52 pm #

    Greg: Do you not think it would be prudent to READ the case you’re discussing?

    The case is about antenati and postnati, Michael. Dad was antenati. When you’ve finished reading the case we can talk about your interpretation of it. Not until then!

    Talk the talk, walk the walk.

    Cite the text in Calvin’s case that pertains to Calvin’s dad was “unable to own land or exercise other privileges of being a subject”

    Not that it really matters, as Coke has already, amongst all the reasoning stated, that a NBS is due by nature and birthright, by procreation and birthright and that one cannot be a NBS unless born under the ligeance of a subject.

  61. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 4, 2011 at 11:54 pm #

    MichaelN: Unless you are prepared to observe some basic civility, decent manner & respect, I will not respond anymore to your insult ridden spew.

    Since you have continually failed to acknowledge that your arguments have been completely debunked, I felt it reasonable to point out your intellectual dishonesty. I have not used the ‘ad hominem’ fallacy – I (and others) have addressed your arguments, shown them to be flawed and then, having demonstrated that you are either willfully ignorant or a liar, have called you the names that you have earned. I’m quite willing to show a person respect under the presumption that they deserve it, but after you repeatedly demonstrate that you deserve contempt rather than respect that’s exactly what I’ll give you…

  62. avatar
    misha March 4, 2011 at 11:57 pm #

    MichaelN: Unless you are prepared to observe some basic civility, decent manner & respect, I will not respond anymore to your insult ridden spew.

    What do you think of the Studebaker Avanti?

  63. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 4, 2011 at 11:59 pm #

    misha: What do you think of the Studebaker Avanti?

    I think that you can come up with much better insult ridden spew than that… 😉

  64. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 5, 2011 at 12:04 am #

    MichaelN: Talk the talk, walk the walk.

    You really don’t understand that he is ‘walking the walk’ do you? Do you even understand what the terms Greg mentioned mean? It is clear to me that you don’t understand what the term ‘born under the ligeance of’ means and I’m not even a lawyer – you’re lucky that someone who has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated their legal competence takes the time to answer your drivel at all.

  65. avatar
    Greg March 5, 2011 at 12:09 am #

    Calvin’s dad was an “antenati.”

    The antenati, as I have quotes above, REMAINED aliens.

    Are you arguing that you DON’T have to read the case to understand it?

    Anyway, here’s a simple question.

    The case says that subjects can own property, right?

    The case says that aliens cannot own property, right?

    Why?

    If aliens become subjects automatically, then they can own property, right?

    Let me make it even more difficult. Subjects can own land, alien friends can go to court for personal matters but cannot own land, and alien enemies cannot own land or go to court for any reason.

    Why the distinction? You think alien friends become subjects automatically. But, they don’t become subjects because they cannot own land. They’re still aliens!

    Final question:

    I look across the street and see that the house there is painted, I think, orange. I like the color and paint my house orange. You come along and paint the house across the street blue. Does that change the color of my house?

  66. avatar
    misha March 5, 2011 at 12:13 am #

    MichaelN: Talk the talk, walk the walk.

    What about the Segway?

  67. avatar
    Greg March 5, 2011 at 12:19 am #

    MichaelN: Cite the text in Calvin’s case that pertains to Calvin’s dad was “unable to own land or exercise other privileges of being a subject”

    Just so we’re clear, you know the case better than fucking Blackstone, yet you don’t even realize that Calvin’s dad was born before James I ascended the throne, making him an antenati and alien?

    But if the Plaintiff’s father be made a denizen, and purchase lands in England to him and his heirs, and die seised, this land shall never descend to the Plaintiff, for that the King by his Letters Patents may make a denizen, but cannot naturalize him to all purposes, as an Act of Parliament may doe; neither can Letters Patents make any inheritable in this case, that by the common Law cannot inherit.

    If the plaintiff’s father was a subject, Michael, he wouldn’t need to be made a denizen, would he? And he wouldn’t need to be naturalized, would he?

    What do you call someone who can be made a denizen or naturalized, but cannot own property if he isn’t made a denizen or naturalized, who, if made a denizen and then dies with property, cannot give that property by will?

    Oh, yeah, an alien!

  68. avatar
    Greg March 5, 2011 at 12:20 am #

    MichaelN: Cite the text in Calvin’s case that pertains to Calvin’s dad was “unable to own land or exercise other privileges of being a subject”

    Just so we’re clear, you know the case better than effing Blackstone himself, yet you don’t even realize that Calvin’s dad was born before James I ascended the throne, making him an antenati and alien?

    But if the Plaintiff’s father be made a denizen, and purchase lands in England to him and his heirs, and die seised, this land shall never descend to the Plaintiff, for that the King by his Letters Patents may make a denizen, but cannot naturalize him to all purposes, as an Act of Parliament may doe; neither can Letters Patents make any inheritable in this case, that by the common Law cannot inherit.

    If the plaintiff’s father was a subject, Michael, he wouldn’t need to be made a denizen, would he? And he wouldn’t need to be naturalized, would he?

    What do you call someone who can be made a denizen or naturalized, but cannot own property if he isn’t made a denizen or naturalized, who, if made a denizen and then dies with property, cannot give that property by will?

    Oh, yeah, an alien!

  69. avatar
    Greg March 5, 2011 at 12:32 am #

    Apparently, the English were so stupid that, even after having been told by Coke that alien friends became subjects automatically, they STILL naturalized and denized them! They had a whole process that was entirely superfluous! They charged money for it! Lots of money!

    The whole English system, from soup to nuts, from the day after Calvin’s Case was decided down through Blackstone and on to the American revolution operated with this misapprehension about English law.

    And Horace Gray demonstrated quite clearly that the American colonies operated under this EXACT SAME UNDERSTANDING of Calvin’s Case! He showed that England operated under a certain understanding of Calvin’s Case and that America had ADOPTED that understanding.

    Explaining that England was mistaken in their understanding of Calvin’s Case is off point, Michael.

    You need to show that England, at the time of the Founding of America, understood Calvin’s Case to be in accord with what you say, and then you need to prove that the Founders understood it that way, and that they, well…

    wait a second…

    here’s where your arguments get confusing. Did America reject the understanding of Calvin’s Case that England was using? Did America reject the understanding of Calvin’s Case that England should have been using? Or, did America adopt Calvin’s Case as you explain it.

    As you demonstrated on FB, Michael,

    Well, it doesn’t matter. You’re desperately trying to prove that you did, in fact, accurately paint the house across the street blue. Sorry, bud. that doesn’t make my house any less orange!

  70. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 5, 2011 at 12:41 am #

    MichaelN,

    Greg’s last two – make that three – posts show why you should be treated with contempt. You claim a better understanding of Calvin’s case than Blackstone, the writer of the cannonical treatise on the law, while at the same time you demonstrate your ignorance of the basic facts of the case. This kind of juvenile behavior is deserving of only scorn. Just like I wouldn’t trust someone who’s shown that they know nothing about algebra to solve a calculus problem, no rational person would grant your interpretation of the meaning of Calvin’s case any credibility whatsoever.

  71. avatar
    obsolete March 5, 2011 at 12:43 am #

    MichaelN –
    “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,

    This line means that it is a soldier of an invading army we are talking about. Because of that, his son is NOT a natural-born subject. Was Obama’s father part of an invading army? No? Then your example does not apply to Obama. No one born in the USA to an invading soldier would be considered a natural-born subject, yet that is the example you are using and claiming it somehow relates to Obama.

    Again, here is the full sentence:
    “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”

    Here is what you post, conveniently cutting off the part that identifies the subject as an invading soldier:
    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”

    See what you did there? The sentence is about an invading soldier. You hide that part. The reason it matters is because:
    A- Everyone agrees that invading soldiers offspring are not natural-born.
    B- Obama’s dad was not part of an invading army, so the sentence doesn’t apply to him. Only if you chop off the first part, could you maybe fool someone into believing that it could be applied to Obama’s father.

    You have been told this repeatedly, and you are either:
    A- An idiot for not understanding how chopping off the first part of the sentence affects its meaning.
    or
    B- A Liar

    Since you have had it explained to you at least two dozen times on the Fogbow, I’m going with “B”

    Everytime I see you post that lie, I’m going to counter it with the truth.

  72. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 5, 2011 at 12:49 am #

    Well Michael, you’re certainly in a quandary – you can’t answer me because I’m rude to demonstrated lying idiots and you can’t answer Greg because you’re an incompetent lying idiot and he’s an intelligent person who’s actually knowledgeable about the law. Whatever will you do?

  73. avatar
    obsolete March 5, 2011 at 12:51 am #

    Hey everybody- I’m pretending to be MichaelN! Here is the fourth amendment to the constitution:
    searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    See! It says right there that searches and seizures should not be violated– that means no one can interfere with the government when they are conducting a search or seizure. It’s right there in black and white! What do you have to say to that? (insert icon of popcorn muncher)

  74. avatar
    obsolete March 5, 2011 at 12:52 am #

    Hey everybody- I’m pretending to be MichaelN! Here is the fourth amendment to the constitution:
    searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    See! It says right there that searches and seizures should not be violated– that means no one can interfere with the government when they are conducting a search or seizure. It’s right there in black and white! What do you have to say to that? (insert icon of popcorn muncher)

  75. avatar
    obsolete March 5, 2011 at 12:53 am #

    repeat 8000 X
    (insert icon of popcorn muncher)

  76. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 5, 2011 at 12:59 am #

    Slartibartfast:
    Well Michael, you’re certainly in a quandary – you can’t answer me because I’m rude to demonstrated lying idiots and you can’t answer Greg because you’re an incompetent lying idiot and he’s an intelligent person who’s actually knowledgeable about the law.Whatever will you do?

    Maybe you’d like to play with obsolete – he seems friendly… 😉 You know, maybe people would treat you better if you didn’t abuse their sensibilities by ignoring facts and repeatedly pushing misinformation that you either know to be wrong or are far too stupid to understand…

  77. avatar
    Slartibartfast1016411 March 5, 2011 at 1:28 am #

    Michael,

    So what made you think that you could come here and spout ignorance, lies, and misunderstanding with impunity? Do you think that everyone else is as ignorant and stupid as you are and that we would believe your lies without any evidence?

  78. avatar
    Greg March 5, 2011 at 1:46 am #

    Calvin’s Case wasn’t the only thing that Lord Coke wrote. He also wrote “The Institutes of the Lawes of England.” A four volume treatise that has been cited by the Supreme Court more than 70 times. Check this out from Volume 1. Compare what happens here with what would happen if the alien became a subject automatically:

    If an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sonnes, these two sonnes are indigenae, subjects borne, because they are borne within the realme. And yet if one of them purchase lands in fee, and dyeth without issue, his brother shall not be his heire (2); for there was never any inheritable blood betweene the father and them; and where the sonnes by no possibility can be heire to the father, the one of them shall not be heire to the other. See more at large of this matter Sect. 198.

    In modern English then:

    An alien comes into England and has two sons. They are both natural born subjects, but they cannot inherit from each other because the dad, who remains an alien, had NO INHERITABLE BLOOD to share with either child.

    Jus sanguinis = law of BLOOD

    Tell me, Michael, if the alien father is a subject, why doesn’t he have ANY INHERITABLE BLOOD? If English law is jus sanguinis then why does the alien’s dad have NO INHERITABLE BLOOD!

    This was the way it worked in the United States, too. See Slater v. Nason, 32 Mass. 345, 349 (1835): an alien is “deemed in law, to have no inheritable blood, and no one therefore can derive title through him or from him.” (See Polly Price, Alien Land Restrictions, 2000)

  79. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 5, 2011 at 1:47 am #

    Goodnight Michael,

    I hope you are ashamed of yourself.

  80. avatar
    MichaelN March 5, 2011 at 2:07 am #

    Here’s a clue that might answer the question as to how it appears that Coke seems to have made conflicting holdings, regarding Calvin’s plea

    “And albeit I concurred with those that adjudged the Plaintiff to be no alien, yet do I find a mere stranger in this case, such a one as the eye of the Law (our books, and book cases) never saw, as the ears of the Law (our Reporters) never heard of, nor the mouth of the Law (for Judex est lex loquens28 ) the Judges our forefathers of the Law never tasted: I say, such a one, as the stomack of the Law, our exquisit and perfect Records of pleadings, entries, and judgments, (that make equal and true distribution of all cases in question) never digested. In a word, this little plea is a great stranger to the Laws of England, as shall manifestly appear by the resolution of this case..”

    “The Court, considering arguments based on the nature of allegiance, majesty, conquest, natural reason, and an unalterable law of nature, held that Calvin was not an alien, and he could hold land in England. This case had tremendous implications for James’s view of forging a single nation of Great Britain, as well as for the rights of subjects living in the new colonies overseas”

    It may well have been against the grain per municipal, judicial law, etc, but the fact remains that Coke ruled Calvin as no alien and could inherit the property.

    Coke stated…

    “That jus naturale est, quod apud omnes homines eandem habet potentiam.124 And herewith doth agree Bracton, lib. 1. cap. 5. and Fortescue, cap. 8, 12, 13, and 16. Doctor and Student, cap. 2. and 4. And the reason hereof is, for that God and Nature is one |[13 a] to all, and therefore the Law of God and Nature is one to all. By this Law of Nature is the Faith, Ligeance, and Obedience of the Subject due to his Sovereign or Superiour”
    [124. ][Ed.: The law of nature is that which has the same power among all men.]

    This was what Coke emphasized throughout Calvin’s case.

    Coke stated …

    “Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 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: a fortiori52 he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which as it hath been said, is alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to be a natural born subject; for localis ligeantia est ligeantia infima et minima, et maxime incerta.53 And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject,”

    The Frenchman was a natural subject by The Law of Nature, and had he not been a subject, then one such as Calvin, being a ‘natural born subject’ would not be such, if ‘not born under the ligeance of a subject’.

    It’s basic logic, even in the face of what appears to be conflicting holdings on the part of Coke, that for Calvin to be a ‘natural born subject’, he must essentially be ‘born under the ligeance of a subject’, it therefore follows that if the Frenchman must have been a ‘subject’ for his child to be a NBS, even though the Frenchman and possibly also Calvin’s dad had no legal standing with the Law of England.

    The ligeance by The Law of Nature, as Coke stated ………

    “That ligeance, or obedience of the subject to the Sovereign, is due by the Law of nature: 2. That this Law of nature is part of the Laws of England: 3. That the Law of nature was before any judicial or municipal Law in the world: 4. That the Law of nature is immutable and cannot be changed.” …….. which makes one a subject to the king, but not necessarily enjoy any legal standing, i.e inheritence, etc.

    Interesting to note that Robert Calvin already held the property in freehold title and the matter only came into question when the tenants tried to seize it.

    It was not a question of whether Calvin owned the land, but rather whether Calvin had legal standing to resist the defendant parties.

    “Richard Smith, and Nicholas Smith unjustly, and without judgment, did disseise Rob. Calvin, gent. of his freehold in Haggard, otherwise Haggerston, otherwise Aggerston, in the parish of St. Leonard in Shoreditch, within thirty years now last past: and whereupon the said Robert, who is within the age of twenty-one years, by John Parkinson, and William Parkinson, his guardians, by the Court of the said King here to this being jointly and severally specially admitted, complaineth that they disseised him of one messuage with the appurtenances, &c.Aliance pleaded in bar. And the said Richard and Nicholas, by William Edwards, their attorney, come and say, that the said Robert ought not to be answered to his writ aforesaid, because they say that the said Robert is an alien born”

    So it was never really a question as to the subject status of Calvin’s dad.

  81. avatar
    obsolete March 5, 2011 at 2:23 am #

    MichaelN: More deceptive cutting-and-pasting

    Ho-hum. You won’t convince anyone unless you post it 8000 more times.
    Do you ever worry about breaking your “command” and “v” keys from overuse?

  82. avatar
    MichaelN March 5, 2011 at 2:25 am #

    Coke:

    “That ligeance, or obedience of the subject to the Sovereign, is due by the Law of nature: 2. That this Law of nature is part of the Laws of England: 3. That the Law of nature was before any judicial or municipal Law in the world: 4. That the Law of nature is immutable and cannot be changed.”

    “That jus naturale est, quod apud omnes homines eandem habet potentiam.124 And herewith doth agree Bracton, lib. 1. cap. 5. and Fortescue, cap. 8, 12, 13, and 16. Doctor and Student, cap. 2. and 4. And the reason hereof is, for that God and Nature is one |[13 a] to all, and therefore the Law of God and Nature is one to all. By this Law of Nature is the Faith, Ligeance, and Obedience of the Subject due to his Sovereign or Superiour. And Aristotle 1. Politicorum proveth, that to Command and to Obey is of Nature, and that Magistracy is of Nature: For whatsoever is necessary and profitable for the preservation of the society of man, is due by the Law of nature: But Magistracy and Government are necessary and profitable for the Preservation of the society of man; therefore Magistracy and Government are of Nature. And herewith accordeth Tully lib. 3. de legibus, Sineimperio nec domus ulla, nec civitas, nec gens, nec hominum universum genus stare, nec ipse denique mundus potest.125 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. And certain it is, That before Judicial or Municipal Laws were made, Kings did decide causes according to natural equity, and were not tied to any rule or formality of Law, but did dare jura.126 And this appeareth by Fortescue, cap. 12 & 13. and by Virgil that Philosophical Poet, 7th Aeneid.”

    Jus naturale (Law of Nature)

    http://theunitedpersons.org/blog/jus-naturale-jus-gentium-jus-civile

    “Natural law is that which nature teaches to all animals, for this law is not peculiar to the human race, but affects all creatures which deduce their origin from the sea or the land, and it is also common to birds. From it proceeds the union of male and female which we designate as marriage; hence also arises the procreation of children and the bringing up of the same; for we see that all animals, and even wild beasts, appear to be acquainted with this law.”

    ““TIT. 1 OF JUSTICE AND LAW.

    Justice is the set and constant purpose which gives to every man his due.

    1. Jurisprudence is the knowledge of things divine and human, the science of the just and the unjust.

    […]

    3. The precepts of the law are these: to live honestly, to injure no one, and to give every man his due.

    4 The study of law consists of two branches, law public, and law private. The former relates to the welfare of the Roman State; the latter to the advantage of the individual citizen. Of private law then we may say that it is of threefold origin, being collected from the precepts of nature, from those of the law of nations, or from those of the civil law of Rome.

    TIT. 2 OF THE LAW OF NATURE, THE LAW OF NATIONS, AND THE CIVIL LAW.

    The law of nature is that which she has taught all animals; a law not peculiar to the human race, but shared by all living creatures, whether denizens of the air, the dry land, or the sea. Hence comes the union of male and female, which we call marriage; hence the procreation and rearing of children, for this is a law by the knowledge of which we see even the lower animals are distinguished.

    1. The civil law of Rome, and the law of all nations, differ from each other thus. The laws of every people governed by statutes and customs are partly peculiar to itself, partly common to all mankind. Those rules which a state enacts for its own members are peculiar to itself, and are called civil law: those rules prescribed by natural reason for all men are observed by all peoples alike, and are called the law of nations. […]

    2. […] But the law of nations [ius gentium] is common to the whole human race; for nations have settled certain things for themselves as occasion and the necessities of human life required. For instance, wars arose, and then followed captivity and slavery, which are contrary to the law of nature; for by the law of nature all men from the beginning were born free. The law of nations [ius gentium] again is the source of almost all contracts; for instance, sale, hire, partnership, deposit, loan for consumption, and very many others.” http://web.upmf-grenoble.fr/Haiti/Cours/Ak/ –> Lingua Anglica –> The Institutes of Justinian…Moyle –> Book I.”

  83. avatar
    obsolete March 5, 2011 at 3:55 am #

    7999 to go…

  84. avatar
    MichaelN March 5, 2011 at 5:55 am #

    Greg:
    Calvin’s Case wasn’t the only thing that Lord Coke wrote. He also wrote “The Institutes of the Lawes of England.” A four volume treatise that has been cited by the Supreme Court more than 70 times. Check this out from Volume 1. Compare what happens here with what would happen if the alien became a subject automatically:

    In modern English then:

    An alien comes into England and has two sons. They are both natural born subjects, but they cannot inherit from each other because the dad, who remains an alien, had NO INHERITABLE BLOOD to share with either child.

    Jus sanguinis = law of BLOOD

    Tell me, Michael, if the alien father is a subject, why doesn’t he have ANY INHERITABLE BLOOD? If English law is jus sanguinis then why does the alien’s dad have NO INHERITABLE BLOOD!

    This was the way it worked in the United States, too. See Slater v. Nason, 32 Mass. 345, 349 (1835): an alien is “deemed in law, to have no inheritable blood, and no one therefore can derive title through him or from him.” (See Polly Price, Alien Land Restrictions, 2000)

    Correction: we are discussing how the child of the alien is a NBS, not how the father of an alien is a subject.

    You might give a link to your source.

    And you might be so kind as to show how jus sanguinis actually has anything to do with ‘inheritable blood’ legal doctrine.

    “Legal Dictionary

    Main Entry: jus sanguinis
    Pronunciation: -‘sa[ng]-gwi-nis, -‘sä[ng]-gwE-“nEs
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Latin, right of blood
    : a rule of law that a child’s citizenship is determined by that of his or her parents”

    Nothing to do with legal property title.

    As I understand ‘inheritable blood’ has only to do with legal inheritance which may be affected by an action on the part of the parent in spite of NATURAL blood-line derived from the parent.

    If one does not have any inheritable blood, it doesn’t mean they don’t have natural blood-line of the parent.

    “Calvin the plaintiff, naturalized by procreation and birthright” by “nature and birthright”

    In any event, there is no evidence that Robert Calvin actually inherited the property from his parent, the case was about whether Robert Calvin had legal standing to hold the property he already had freehold, because if he was indeed an alien, he wouldn’t have even got it into the court.

    So Calvin must have had inheritable blood to hold the property as an inheritance or he didn’t inherit the property.

    The fact remains that Robert Calvin was adjudged no alien and was a NBS by nature and birthright and by procreation and birthright and had to be born under the ligeance of a subject to be a NBS.

  85. avatar
    MichaelN March 5, 2011 at 6:29 am #

    To the clown(s) who keep blurting about ‘intellectual dishonesty’

    How ‘intellectually dishonest’ do you suppose it is to assert that an image on the internet is actual proof of anything?

  86. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 5, 2011 at 8:00 am #

    For those who don’t know MichaelN yet. On other blogs he has done the following, and I am sure he will do it here (he may already have done it, I am definitely NOT looking through his word salads for the 200th time):

    1) he misrepresented a Coke argument about the natural allegiance of the born subject as not even being related to soil. Coke was mentioning the case of natural born subjects born in Calais or Tournai when these were possessions of the King of England – the medieval view of things being that Calais and Tournai were French soil, but held in full jurisdiction by the King of England acting as a vassal to the King of France – since the King of England also claimed to be King of France at the time, there was no legal contradiction. Coke of course used the argument in reverse, to claim that since jurisdiction at birth was the principle – children of foreign diplomats or invading armies were not natural subjects.

    2) he misrepresented several sentences with the word “make” (meaning in the context and the time of writing the same as “produce issue”, “generate”, “father” and not, as he insisted “lead to”. When it was pointed out that there were a few words missing in the sentence to give his interpretation some credence, and that his interpretation clashed with the final decision, he went on regardless.

    3) he has used British Colonial law from the 19th century (some of which was obviously tailored to hurt the Boer republics) to again argue that natural born subjects should have a natural born subject as father. For those who do not understand the implication – even if these colonial laws interpret Calvin’s case, they are foreign law to the common law of the United States, since they were promulgated after 1776. In view of the fact that the USA went to war with Britain over Britain trying to press American citizens into its army or navy claiming no one could renounce British citizenship, to rely on anti-Boer legislation from 100 years after US independence sounds rather un-American to me. I have no idea whether MichaelN is American.

    4) in general, MichaelN tends to truncate sentences in order to completely change their meaning – the one where he talks about the Scottish father of Calvin as “the Scot, being a subject” (truncating everything that clarifies the father was only a subject in the jurisdiction of Scotland) is typical.

    5) like all birfers before him, when all his pseudo-arguments have been thoroughly refuted, he will jump onto the birth certificate

    Anyone who wants to argue with MichaelN has been warned.

  87. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 5, 2011 at 8:25 am #

    Greg: Also, do you even know what sanguinis means? It’s Latin for BLOOD. That means that it is not temporary – an alien doesn’t get the BLOOD by coming into England and then LOSE the blood by leaving England! That doesn’t describe sanguinis, Michael, it describes SOIL!

    OK, I’ll argue that one whatever I said in my previous posts. The friendly alien coming to England does not become a “subject” in the modern sense of the word, but a “person subjected to the jurisdiction of the King of England”. That little bit of allegiance is enough for him to “make” (meaning to father, not to lead to, which would mean he himself becomes one) a natural born subject – IF he has issue in England.

    Your argument about temporary (at the time, they would of course have said “temporal”l blood looks funny, but is in fact correct and historically rather important. Calais, an English possession on the “soyle” of France, also was the favourite embarkation and disembarkation place of salesman travelling between Northern and Southern Europe – no way anyone who came to Calais would have continued on his way taking some kind of English citizenship along – otherwise all commercial and diplomatic travellers of the day would have acquired English citizenship at some point in their career.

    I just noticed that no one really disputes that foreign diplomats are exempt from “making” natural born subjects. Strange, it seems that in MichaelN’s world they were both subjects and non-subjects at the same time.

    Of course, in a reality setting not affected by the Tardis, travelling salesmen coming to Calais only had just enough “subjectship” to produce a natural born subject of the King of England while present there and diplomats did not even have that subjectship from the moment they reached Calais bound for England.

  88. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 5, 2011 at 9:04 am #

    MichaelN: So it was never really a question as to the subject status of Calvin’s dad.

    That’s right!

    “All parties to Calvin’s case agreed that those who were born in Scotland before the accession were aliens in England.”

    From Aliens in Medieval Law: The Origins of Modern Citizenship, Cambridge University Press 2000

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/49862330/7/CALVIN-S-CASE-1608

    At least there was no question until your inept reading tried to turn aliens into subjects.

    The text from that book continues:

    The focal issue of Calvin’s case was therefore whether the children born in Scotland after the accession (postnati) were to be treated as subjects or aliens in England. It was a question of law, that is,whether James Stuart’s accession to the English crown altered the scope of allegiance so that birth in Scotland became from then on birth `within the allegiance’.

    Not a word about parents in that.

    If you’re going to try some crazy argument that Calvin’s father was BOTH a subject and an alien, I would point out (from the same text): “No one in Calvin’s case doubted that the division between subjects and aliens was fundamental to the law of personal status.”

    MichaelN, your profuse posting has become tiresome. You have shown that you don’t understand your material, and that you do not respond to plain reason. For this reason, I have stopped reading your comments.

  89. avatar
    Northland10 March 5, 2011 at 9:17 am #

    for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King

    For many birthers, they may well see all aliens and immigrants (undocumented or otherwise) as an invading army, thus, unable to produce an “issue” who is NBC. That makes their position rather resistant to debate.

    However, I enjoy reading the responses from Greg, Slartibartfast, Obsolete, the Doc and others. I suppose I should thank the birthers for that.

  90. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy10164 March 5, 2011 at 9:44 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: Anyone who wants to argue with MichaelN has been warned.

    I think you nailed it.

  91. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 5, 2011 at 9:51 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: OK, I’ll argue that one whatever I said in my previous posts. The friendly alien coming to England does not become a “subject” in the modern sense of the word, but a “person subjected to the jurisdiction of the King of England”. That little bit of allegiance is enough for him to “make” (meaning to father, not to lead to, which would mean he himself becomes one) a natural born subject – IF he has issue in England.

    OK, help me out here.

    What I read says that allegiance follows protection. There is this two-way contract: the king provides protection; the subject allegiance. How does parentage enter in to this formulation? How does it advance Coke’s argument?

    I realize that Barack Obama Sr. had a local allegiance to the United States; he was bound to obey its laws as best he could, and so (domiciled or not) his status is no barrier to applying the formula in Calvin’s case to President Obama. However, I still miss the point of how this local allegiance of the parent fits in to the grand scheme of things.

  92. avatar
    James M March 5, 2011 at 10:14 am #

    MichaelN:

    To the clown(s) who keep blurting about intellectual dishonesty’

    How intellectually dishonest’ do you suppose it is to assert that an image on the internet is actual proof of anything?

    “Evidence” is not necessarily the same thing as “proof”. What image are you referring to, and who has asserted that it constitutes “actual proof”, and of what?

  93. avatar
    Lupin March 5, 2011 at 10:24 am #

    BTW slightly off-topic but there’s quite a body of work about children born of local mothers and occupying German soldiers during WWII — according to some estimates, 200,000 in France alone (according to some as many as 600,000 more might have been aborted).

    Circumstances vary from outright rape to consensual affairs, and of course the infamous Lebensborn program (of which there was one establishment in France).

    I don’t want to get into a lot of details here, but all those children were automatically considered French — although the behavior towards them was often shameful.

    Germany only recognized their right to dual German citizenship more recently. If you wish, you can read more about this in English here:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-finally-acknowledges-its-war-children-1917444.html

    My point is that, unlike what I’ve read here, children from invading armies do in act inherit their mother’s nationality — at least in modern times.

    Had Hawaii been invaded by the Japanese, and a baby been born from an American woman raped by a Japanese soldier, I can’t possibly imagine that your country would be cruel enough to deny him his full citizenship status and the right to run for President.

  94. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 5, 2011 at 10:48 am #

    MichaelN: the alien Frenchman, because he was under local and temporary allegiance to the king by virtue of him being in the country, was a subject’, combined with jus soli to make the child a natural born subject by procreation and birthright’, by sanguinis and soli.

    OK, so explain to me the difference between Calvin and Obama.

  95. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 5, 2011 at 11:14 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: I have no idea whether MichaelN is American.

    He is certainly not commenting from America.

  96. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 5, 2011 at 11:20 am #

    Lupin:
    BTW slightly off-topic but there’s quite a body of work about children born of local mothers and occupying German soldiers during WWII — according to some estimates, 200,000 in France alone (according to some as many as 600,000 more might have been aborted).

    Circumstances vary from outright rape to consensual affairs, and of course the infamous Lebensborn program (of which there was one establishment in France).

    I don’t want to get into a lot of details here, but all those children were automatically considered French — although the behavior towards them was often shameful.

    Germany only recognized their right to dual German citizenship more recently. If you wish, you can read more about this in English here:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-finally-acknowledges-its-war-children-1917444.html

    My point is that, unlike what I’ve read here, children from invading armies do in act inherit their mother’s nationality — at least in modern times.

    Had Hawaii been invaded by the Japanese, and a baby been born from an American woman raped by a Japanese soldier, I can’t possibly imagine that your country would be cruel enough to deny him his full citizenship status and the right to run for President.

    Excellent point, Lupin! Even if the birthers got their faux Vattelist point of view acknowledged as law, they would almost certainly run into the brick wall of birthright citizenship from Dr. Dunham…

  97. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 5, 2011 at 12:09 pm #

    MichaelN:
    To the clown(s) who keep blurting about intellectual dishonesty’

    No one is ‘blurting’ anything, just calmly explaining why you are an intellectually dishonest idiot. I should also point out birthers calling their opponents ‘intellectually dishonest’ (as Dr. Kate and others have been doing for the last few months) is a perfect example of the standard right-wing tactic of attempting to paint your opponent with your own sins – and any rational, objective person can see right through it…

    How intellectually dishonest’ do you suppose it is to assert that an image on the internet is actual proof of anything?

    Listen dude, I know you’re not very bright, but you really don’t want to go there. No one here has asserted that an image on a website is proof of anything (although an image on a website that was confirmed to be a copy of President Obama’s birth certificate by the sworn testimony of the official custodian of his original birth certificate seems pretty damn persuasive to me). If you want to attribute any statement made by anyone in support of President Obama’s eligibility to everyone supporting President Obama’s eligibility, then you are admitting responsibility for all of the vile seditious lies and downright treasonous bile that’s spewed from the birthers in the last two and a half years…

  98. avatar
    gorefan March 5, 2011 at 12:43 pm #

    MichaelN: Yes Blackstone was sorta’ generalizing, because not all alien’s children were English natural born subjects’

    In 1795, Zephaniah Swift published a book about the laws of Connecticut, he was a member of Congress when he published this book. He went on to become the Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court.

    He wrote, “It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born.”

    And he paraphrases both Lord Coke and Blackstone when he writes, “Local allegiance is that subjection which every stranger, or foreigner owes to the state, while within its limits. It commences on his entering into the bounds of it, and ceases on his departure. This allegiance is therefore of a temporary nature, and results from the principle that every person owes obedience to a state, and its laws, so long as they afford him protection.”

    Justice Swift goes on to write, “The children of aliens, born in this state, are considerded as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

    Justice Blackstone said, ““THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges.”

  99. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 5, 2011 at 2:00 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: OK, help me out here.

    What I read says that allegiance follows protection. There is this two-way contract: the king provides protection; the subject allegiance. How does parentage enter in to this formulation? How does it advance Coke’s argument?

    I realize that Barack Obama Sr. had a local allegiance to the United States; he was bound to obey its laws as best he could, and so (domiciled or not) his status is no barrier to applying the formula in Calvin’s case to President Obama. However, I still miss the point of how this local allegiance of the parent fits in to the grand scheme of things.

    Doc, this is about a sentence MichaellN simply loves to quote:

    “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.”

    … without of course the last part “for if he hath issue here…” because it completely destroys his (=MichaelN’s) argument.

    Strong enough to make a natural subject, where “make” means “to father” – and of course, the visitor does not become a subject (in the modern meaning of the word, since Michael also LURVES to quote anyone from before 1900 who uses “a subject” to mean “a person subjected to”) – the word “him is missing in that sentence, but perhaps MichaelN thinks Coke wrote in SMS language.

    The only point for Coke here is that there is indeed a “sanguinis” angle here, but a negative one: descendants of non-friendly aliens (and those include foreign diplomats) are not natural born subjects.

  100. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 5, 2011 at 2:11 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: Doc, this is about a sentence MichaellN simply loves to quote:

    “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.”

    … without of course the last part “for if he hath issue here…” because it completely destroys his (=MichaelN’s) argument.

    Strong enough to make a natural subject, where “make” means “to father” – and of course, the visitor does not become a subject (in the modern meaning of the word, since Micael also LURVES to quote qnyone from before 1900 who uses “a subject” to mean “a person subjected to”) – the word “him is missing in that sentence, but perhaps MichaelN thinks Coke wrote in SMS language.

    The only point for Coke here is that there is indeed a “sanguinis” angle here, but a negative one: descendants of non-friendly aliens (and those include foreign diplomats) are not natural born subjects.

    I completely agree (and think you have done a great job of deconstructing Michael’s argument ;-)). His whole argument rests on the implicit ‘him’ that he has dishonestly put between ‘make’ and ‘a subject’ in Lord Coke’s quote. I wouldn’t be surprised if he put the word in if he were asked to repeat the quote from memory (he’s already demonstrated a powerful confirmation bias…). Ultimately, though, whether he thinks that he will convince us with his obvious lies or he truly believes his naive misunderstandings his behavior here (and apparently elsewhere) has been pretty pathetic…

  101. avatar
    misha March 5, 2011 at 2:21 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: OK, so explain to me the difference between Calvin and Obama.

    Take a guess. No white man ever had to show his birth certificate.

  102. avatar
    MichaelN March 5, 2011 at 7:59 pm #

    @ Greg

    Coke – Calvin’s case:

    “For the Law esteemeth it a point of high Prerogative, Jus majestatis, et inter insignia summae potestatis to make aliens born subjects of the Realm, and capable of the lands and inheritances of England, in such sort as any natural born subject is.”

    Ergo: Alien born can be subjects and capable of land ownership and inheritance.

    My other post in the matter of ‘inheritable blood’ appears top have been scrubbed.

    In addressing your post, jus sanguinis is to do with inheritance of citizenship/subject/nationality by genealogical blood, whereas ‘inheritable blood’ is in the context you cited from Coke’s other writings, to do with legal aspect of inheritance.

    e.g. an act of treason on the part of the father of a natural born subject, who would normally be inheritable of property, can cause the child to have no ‘inheritable blood’ connection and thus not be legally capable of inheritance of property, yet still per sanguinis be able to inherit subject/citizen/nationality status.

    Once a NBS, always a NBS, but not all NBS can inherit for the reasons above stated.

    Ergo: Jus sanguinis has nothing to do with the legal right to inherit property.

    http://definitions.uslegal.com/j/jus-sanguinis/

    [Jus Sanguinis is a Latin term which means right of blood. This term when used in the context of citizenship refer to acquisition of citizenship, by the citizenship of the parents. It lays down the principle that the nationality or citizenship of a person is determined by the citizenship of the parents who is a national or citizen of a state.]

  103. avatar
    Northland10 March 5, 2011 at 8:40 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: He is certainly not commenting from America.

    Why am I not surprised?

  104. avatar
    misha March 5, 2011 at 8:48 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: He is certainly not commenting from America.

    Probably Moldova.

  105. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 5, 2011 at 9:07 pm #

    You really shouldn’t take on Greg – the phrase ‘out of your league’ comes to mind…

    Really, you don’t win an argument by ignoring the fact that your opponent, in addition to refuting your argument, exposed the fact that you don’t understand the basic premises of the case. That pretty much destroyed most of your credibility. Fortunately, you didn’t have that much credibility left…

    MichaelN:
    @ Greg

    Coke – Calvin’s case:

    “For the Law esteemeth it a point of high Prerogative, Jus majestatis, et inter insignia summae potestatis to make aliens born subjects of the Realm, and capable of the lands and inheritances of England, in such sort as any natural born subject is.”

    Ergo: Alien born can be subjects and capable of land ownership and inheritance.

    Yes, the power of naturalization exists.

    My other post in the matter of inheritable blood’ appears top have been scrubbed.

    Yeah, right – Doc doesn’t moderate. Even if he did, the other regulars here would protest if you were censored – your posts are very amusing…

    In addressing your post, jus sanguinis is to do with inheritance of citizenship/subject/nationality by genealogical blood, whereas inheritable blood’ is in the context you cited from Coke’s other writings, to do with legal aspect of inheritance.

    I fail to see any citations supporting this interpretation of ‘genealogical blood’ vs. ‘inheritable blood’ – could that be because you have nothing to support this notion that you just pulled out of your ass?

    e.g. an act of treason on the part of the father of a natural born subject, who would normally be inheritable of property, can cause the child to have no inheritable blood’ connection and thus not be legally capable of inheritance of property, yet still per sanguinis be able to inherit subject/citizen/nationality status.

    So you’re saying that Calvin’s case holds that a son is responsible for the crimes of his father… Interesting – again, I don’t see where this is a view held by anyone that actually understands the case, so I’m guessing it’s another ass pull…

    Once a NBS, always a NBS, but not all NBS can inherit for the reasons above stated.

    Three things:

    1. You’re just making this stuff up

    2. This theory isn’t even logically consistent – a natural born subject can lose the right to inherit due to actions by his father? That doesn’t make any sense…

    3. Isn’t your ass getting sore?

    Ergo: Jus sanguinis has nothing to do with the legal right to inherit property.

    You really should learn something about logic – faulty reasoning and stuff you made up don’t constitute a logical argument…

    [Jus Sanguinis is a Latin term which means right of blood. This term when used in the context of citizenship refer to acquisition of citizenship, by the citizenship of the parents. It lays down the principle that the nationality or citizenship of a person is determined by the citizenship of the parents who is a national or citizen of a state.]

    Both England and the US are jus soli nations – that means that soil is the primary test of natural born subjects. It does not, however, mean that jus sanguinis is inoperative – just that there is no need to consider blood if there is soil.

    By the way, the discussion on Calvin’s case has been moved to its own thread – I guess you weren’t clever enough to figure that out on your own…

  106. avatar
    MichaelN March 5, 2011 at 11:41 pm #

    Greg:
    Michael.

    It’s simple. Calvin wanted to own property. He could only own property if he was a subject. His dad wasn’t a subject, but Calvin was born under an English King.

    The fact that his dad was NEVER a subject is clear from the fact that his dad could not own property.

    Calvin = subject
    Calvin’s dad = NOT subject.

    The Frenchman – he cannot own property. He isn’t a subject.

    You’ve got it backwards. Magic M didn’t say your conclusions were wrong because you are a birther and a liar, he said you were a birther and liar BECAUSE your conclusions were wrong (and deliberately misleading).

    This is yet another example, as if we needed any, that shows your inability to clearly reason, Michael. The fallacy article you quoted is pretty clear (false conclusion BECAUSE of ad hominem, not insult BECAUSE of false conclusion) yet you read it, or Magic’s statement entirely backwards!

    1. Subjects can own property. Non-naturalized aliens were not subjects. Calvin was a natural born subject because his dad was in England and owed LIGEANCE to the King. He didn’t become a subject. He couldn’t own property.

    2. The US embraces all aliens as under the jurisdiction of the United States. Any alien who enters the US owes the US its allegiance, enough so that they can be tried for any crime. Aliens can be tried for treason.

    The alien who came into England in amity couldn’t own property.
    The alien who came into America in amity could, in some states, own property.

    The alien who came into England in amity could be tried for treason.
    The alien who came into America in amity could be tried for treason.

    The alien who came into England in amity owed the sovereign his loyalty.
    The alien who came into America in amity owed the sovereign his loyalty.

    So, Michael, you’ve made two mistakes:

    1. You’re misreading Calvin’s Case to invent a new form of subject.
    2. It doesn’t matter because Wong Kim Ark makes clear that the US ADOPTED THE SAME RULE AS ENGLAND!

    I showed you above how Gray specifically talked about the alien in amity versus the alien enemy.

    Your misreading of Calvin’s Case is irrelevant to the fact that the US has always believed that England made the children of aliens into citizens by dint of the soil of England, and the US explicitly adopted that rule in Wong Kim Ark.

    I’ve got a house. I like the color that the house across the street is painted. So, I paint my house the same color. You repaint the house across the street a different color. Does that change the color of my house? No. Does it change the fact that I painted my house the color I believed your house to be when I painted it? No.

    Your interpretation of Calvin’s Case, unsupported by more than 400 years of English law interpreting it (no case, no legal scholar, no cartoon writer has ever suggested a pseudo-subject status for all alien friends in England) is funny, but irrelevant. The Founders understood the Case to mean what everyone has always said it meant. Horace Gray understood Calvin’s Case to mean what everyone has always said it meant. That you, now, in 2011, think it means something else is so much pissing in the wind.

    Go find me SOME evidence that anyone has EVER read Calvin’s Case the way you have, and I’ll give some credence to the view that the Founders read Calvin’s Case the way you have!

    Robert Calvin did NOT ‘want to own property’ …….. he ALREADY OWNED IT.

    Calvin was suing to retain it.

    “Robert Calvin, gent. hath complained to us, that Richard Smith and Nicholas Smith, unjustly, and without judgment, have disseised him of his freehold in |[1 b] Haggard, otherwise Haggerston, otherwise Aggerston, in the parish of St. Leonard, in Shoreditch”

    Here, from Calvin’s case, is some text that elaborates on the sanguinis principle and how it was held as a paramount consideration and distinct from inheritance eligibility.

    “So if there be Mother and Daughter, and the Daughter is attainted of felony, now cannot she be heir to her Mother for the cause aforesaid; yet after her attainder if she kill her Mother, this is Paricide and Petit treason; for she remaineth her daughter, for that is of nature, and herewith agreeth 21 Edw. 3. 17. b. If a man be attainted of Felony or Treason, he hath lost the King’s legal protection, for he is thereby utterly disabled to sue any action real or personal (which is a greater disability than an alien in league hath) and yet such a person so attainted hath not lost that |[14 a] protection which by the law of nature is given to the King; for that is indelebilis et immutabilis,137 andtherefore the King may protect and pardon him, and if any man kill him without warrant, he shall be punished by the Law as a Manslayer; and thereunto accordeth 4 Edw. 4. and 35 Hen. 6. 57. 2 Ass. pl. 3. By the statute of 25 Edw. 3. cap. 22. a man attainted in a Praemunire,138 is by expresse words out of the King’s protection generally; and yet this extendeth onely to legal protection, as it appeareth by Littleton, fol. 43. for the Parliament could not take away that protection which the Law of Nature giveth unto him; and therefore, notwithstanding that Statute, the King may protect and pardon him. And though by that Statute it was further enacted, That it should be done with him as with an enemy, by which words any man might have slain such a person (as it is holden in 24 Hen. 8. tit. Coron. Br. 197.) until the statute made anno 5 Eliz. cap. 1. yet the King might protect and pardon him. A man Outlawed is out of the benefit of the Municipal Law; for so saith Fitzh. Nat. Brev. 161. Utlagatus est quasi extra legem positus:139 and Bracton lib. 3. tract. 2. cap 11. saith, that caput geret lupinum;140 and yet is he not out either of his natural ligeance, or of the King’s natural protection; for neither of them are tyed to Municipal Laws, but is due by the Law of Nature”

    Regarding aliens being subjects of English sovereign & aliens can purchase but not inherit.

    “so in case of an alien born, you must of necessity have two several ligeances to two several persons”

    “For the Law esteemeth it a point of high Prerogative, Jus majestatis, et inter insignia summae potestatis237 to make aliens born subjects of the Realm, and capable of the lands and inheritances of England, in such sort as any natural born subject is.”

    Aliens can own property as long as it is only for dwelling in ………

    “Alien friends cannot acquire, or get, nor maintain any action real or personal, for any land or house, unless the house be for their necessary habitation.”

    Aliens can purchase land, but have no legal recourse or redress ……..

    “When an alien born purchaseth any lands, the King onely shall have them, though they be holden of a subject, in which case the subject loseth his Seigniorie. And as it is said in our Books, an Alien may purchase ad proficuum Regis;234 but the act of Law giveth the alien nothing”

    It’s not the law that deals with the matter of aliens, but the king alone .

    “So as the pleading against an alien, the purchase by an alien, leagues and wars between aliens, denizations, and safe conducts of aliens, have aspect onely and wholly unto the king.”

    Clarifying the two qualities of a NBS i.e. nature/procreation and birthright.

    i.e.sanguinis and soli

    “That all those that were born under one natural obedience, whiles the Realms were united under one Sovereign, should remain natural born Subjects, and no aliens; for that naturalization due and vested by birthright, cannot by any separation of the Crowns afterward be taken away: nor he that was by judgment of Law a natural Subject at the time of his birth, become an alien by such a matter ex post facto.”

    “Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right”

    .

  107. avatar
    MichaelN March 6, 2011 at 12:11 am #

    Aliens visiting England in amity are subjects of the king with, ‘out of necessity’, dual ligeance, due by the Law of Nature, but aliens are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ (law) although aliens may purchase land but not inherit land, aliens have no legal standing and yet may be subject.

    Aliens who may, by the kings prerogative, be made subjects and enjoy full benefits as a NBS.

    Aliens visiting USA don’t get to enjoy the same automated citizen status because the Law of Nature as it applies in England is regarding subjection per ligeance to a sovereign king, based on a necessity of ligeance to two sovereign monarchs.

    Ligeance is due to the king and has nothing to do with ‘subject to jurisdiction’ (law) as In England, an alien has no legal standing.

    There is no ligeance between an alien visiting US and the sovereign Citizens of republic of USA, although an alien may be subject to the jurisdiction (law) of USA the ligeance cannot be established without due process of the US laws., where an oath must be sworn renouncing the ONLY ligeance the alien has and replacing it with ONE ligeance to USA.

    The ligeance of an alien to US sovereign Citizens must be applied for and granted through due process under nationality statute/act.

  108. avatar
    Greg March 6, 2011 at 12:35 am #

    Let’s back up, a minute, Michael. Let’s clarify exactly what you are saying. I’m going to summarize your argument, and you tell me if I’ve got it right.

    1. England requires a subject father to make a natural born subject.
    2. England makes aliens in amity into automatic subjects.
    3. The Founders rejected the automatic subject thing, by adopting natural born citizen in the Constitution.

    Have I got it right?

  109. avatar
    Greg March 6, 2011 at 12:41 am #

    MichaelN: Aliens visiting USA don’t get to enjoy the same automated citizen status because the Law of Nature as it applies in England is regarding subjection per ligeance to a sovereign king, based on a necessity of ligeance to two sovereign monarchs.

    What makes you think the United States doesn’t grant the same rights to aliens that England did?

    In fact, the United States adopted Calvin’s Case at every opportunity. See, e.g., Martin v. Brown, 7 N.J. L. 305, 336-37 (N.J. Sup. 1799) (“Calvin’s Case has been considered as establishing legal principles, which have been uniformly recognized and approved of
    whenever occasion offered
    .”).

    The United States adopted the rule of Calvin’s Case, which is what Horace Gray was on about in Wong Kim Ark. He spent page after page discussing how the courts had adopted English Common law as reflected in Calvin’s Case.

  110. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 6, 2011 at 12:46 am #

    Greg:
    Let’s back up, a minute, Michael. Let’s clarify exactly what you are saying. I’m going to summarize your argument, and you tell me if I’ve got it right.

    1. England requires a subject father to make a natural born subject.
    2. England makes aliens in amity into automatic subjects.
    3. The Founders rejected the automatic subject thing, by adopting natural born citizen in the Constitution.

    Have I got it right?

    Greg,

    I think that his thesis on #3 is that the Constitution gives the power of naturalization to Congress – thus nullifying the subject-o-matic for aliens in amity. The putz. Also, I’m not sure that he’s found this thread yet – I think the Doc has moved his post here from the NBC thread…

  111. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 6, 2011 at 12:51 am #

    Greg: What makes you think the United States doesn’t grant the same rights to aliens that England did?

    In fact, the United States adopted Calvin’s Case at every opportunity. See, e.g., Martin v. Brown, 7 N.J. L. 305, 336-37 (N.J. Sup. 1799) (“Calvin’s Case has been considered as establishing legal principles, which have been uniformly recognized and approved of
    whenever occasion offered
    .”).

    The United States adopted the rule of Calvin’s Case, which is what Horace Gray was on about in Wong Kim Ark. He spent page after page discussing how the courts had adopted English Common law as reflected in Calvin’s Case.

    Thanks for the education on Calvin’s case in this and other posts – I knew nothing but what the holding was before this discussion…

  112. avatar
    Greg March 6, 2011 at 12:55 am #

    MichaelN: There is no ligeance between an alien visiting US and the sovereign Citizens of republic of USA

    But there is! Here’s Kent on the subject:

    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.

    Here’s Binney:

    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 o the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned,

    Here’s a great case from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Ainslee v. Martin:

    It was therefore then considered as the law of the land, that all persons born within the territories of the government and people, although before the declaration of independence, were born within the allegiance of the same government and people, as the successor of the former sovereign, who had abdicated his throne. And as his successor, the same government and people have succeeded to all the crown lands within the territory, as lawfully appertaining to them. And as the inhabitants of England, born in the reign of the second James, were considered as born within the allegiance of his successor, William the third; because born in the territory, of which he was the sovereign, he having succeeded by parliamentary designation: so all persons, born within the territories of the province of Massachusetts Bay during the reign of the late king, are considered as born within the allegiance of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, as his lawful successor.

    The United States followed the same rules as England and just substituted, like Massachusetts did, their government for that of England.

    Since I’ve outlined your argument, it might be helpful for you if I outline mine.

    1. English law makes the children of aliens natural born subjects as long as the alien was neither an ambassador or from a nation at war with England.
    2. America adopted this rule consistently, every time the issue came up. It adopted it in court cases and in every state constitution.
    3. There is no evidence the Founders ever considered any other rule. There is no evidence the Founders adopted any other rule.

    There, which point do you want to disprove?

  113. avatar
    obsolete March 6, 2011 at 1:08 am #

    Doc C, If you don’t want to read MichaelN posts anymore, what makes you think anyone else wants too?
    😉

  114. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 6, 2011 at 1:13 am #

    obsolete:
    Doc C, If you don’t want to read MichaelN posts anymore, what makes you think anyone else wants too?

    Speak for yourself, obsolete – I’m having fun insulting him… 😉

  115. avatar
    MichaelN March 6, 2011 at 1:18 am #

    Greg:
    Let’s back up, a minute, Michael. Let’s clarify exactly what you are saying. I’m going to summarize your argument, and you tell me if I’ve got it right.

    1. England requires a subject father to make a natural born subject.
    2. England makes aliens in amity into automatic subjects.
    3. The Founders rejected the automatic subject thing, by adopting natural born citizen in the Constitution.

    Have I got it right?

    Yes.

    Yes.

    No ……….. the Framers embraced the sanguinis principle that it takes a subject father to make a NBS, so they adopted ‘natural born Citizen’.

    Remember the aim was to break from monarchy and establish the Citizens as sovereign.

    With consideration of the basic principle of monarchical blood-line sovereign begets sovereign, it was perfectly sensible on the part of the framers to maintain the same principle where sovereign Citizen begets sovereign Citizen.

    To the English, the status of NBS was only to be a subject of a king and of no great importance with regard to high office.

    To the framers the sanguinis principle was essential to ensure security and protection from any foreign influence and claim on a president of a constitutional republic.

    To the English, a NBS was merely for the purposes of property holding, inheritance and standing in the courts & had no significance or import with regards to sovereign leader such as POTUS in a republic.

    It is obvious that the framers rejected automated citizenship as can be observed where the states had people who were suspected of being Torys, swear oath of allegiance and where it is written in the USC that Congress had the role to enact nationality laws.

    The importance of sanguinis to the Congress is further evidenced with the first nationality act of 1790.

    What do you suppose Coke meant by stating that if one was ‘not born under the ligeance of a subject’ then one was not a subject?

    What did Coke mean? by ‘Calvin the plaintiff, naturalized by procreation and birthright’?

    What did Coke mean? by stating that a NBS was such, due ‘by nature and birthright’?

    What did Coke mean? when he stated …..

    “But if a man hath the Wardship of his own Son or Daughter, which is his heir apparent, and is Outlawed, he doth not forfeit this Wardship; for nature hath annexed it to the person of the Father”

    What did Coke mean? when he stated this about the ‘nature’ quality of the subject?

    So if there be Mother and Daughter, and the Daughter is attainted of felony, now cannot she be heir to her Mother for the cause aforesaid; yet after her attainder if she kill her Mother, this is Paricide and Petit treason; for she remaineth her daughter, for that is of nature, and herewith agreeth 21 Edw. 3. 17. b. If a man be attainted of Felony or Treason, he hath lost the King’s legal protection, for he is thereby utterly disabled to sue any action real or personal (which is a greater disability than an alien in league hath) and yet such a person so attainted hath not lost that |[14 a] protection which by the law of nature is given to the King …………….

    A man Outlawed is out of the benefit of the Municipal Law; for so saith Fitzh. Nat. Brev. 161. Utlagatus est quasi extra legem positus:139 and Bracton lib. 3. tract. 2. cap 11. saith, that caput geret lupinum;140 and yet is he not out either of his natural ligeance, or of the King’s natural protection;”

    Here is the part that relates to the ‘nature’/’procreation’ quality of the subject ….

    “There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia42a ”

    [42. ][Ed.: natural, absolute, pure and unlimited allegiance.]
    [42a. ][Ed.: high allegiance.]

    Do you suppose the framers didn’t notice all this?

    .

  116. avatar
    Greg March 6, 2011 at 1:29 am #

    MichaelN: Do you suppose the framers didn’t notice all this?

    Well, we’ve shown that Blackstone missed it. And, well, everyone else that has ever looked at the case.

    What makes you think that you and the Founders are on the same wavelength but EVERYONE else was not?

    What did Coke mean? by Calvin the plaintiff, naturalized by procreation and birthright’?

    1. Calvin was born in England
    2. Calvin had a birthright to his naturalization.

    To the English, the status of NBS was only to be a subject of a king and of no great importance with regard to high office.

    Do you know what the Privy Council was? Why could only Natural born subjects serve in the Privy Council if NBS was “of no great importance with regard to high office?”

    Why could no naturalized or denized subjects serve in Parliament? Why was Parliament limited to natural born subjects if NBS was “of no great importance with regard to high office?”

  117. avatar
    MichaelN March 6, 2011 at 1:30 am #

    Greg said ……….

    Since I’ve outlined your argument, it might be helpful for you if I outline mine.

    1. English law makes the children of aliens natural born subjects as long as the alien was neither an ambassador or from a nation at war with England.
    2. America adopted this rule consistently, every time the issue came up. It adopted it in court cases and in every state constitution.
    3. There is no evidence the Founders ever considered any other rule. There is no evidence the Founders adopted any other rule.

    There, which point do you want to disprove?

    1. English law makes the children of SOME aliens natural born subjects, due by two qualities i.e. nature/procreation and birthright.

    What dis Coke mean by this?

    2. That’s your opinion and there is plenty of evidence that suggest otherwise, furthermore state constitution is irrelevant to USC NBC clause.

    3. That is your opinion, there is plenty of evidence that the founders and framers gave consideration to a variety of laws and principles.

  118. avatar
    Greg March 6, 2011 at 1:34 am #

    MichaelN: It is obvious that the framers rejected automated citizenship as can be observed where the states had people who were suspected of being Torys, swear oath of allegiance and where it is written in the USC that Congress had the role to enact nationality laws.

    Where does it say that Congress had the role to enact nationality laws? Here’s what the Constitution says:

    The Congress shall have Power * * * To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.

    Only aliens can be naturalized, Michael.

    Can Congress say that from now on, those citizens who descend from Australia cannot have children who are citizens?

    As for the Tory oaths, I’d point you to the Massachusetts case I just cited, Ainslee v. Martin. They denaturalized those who aligned themselves with Britain, but still considered those born in Massachusetts to be natural born Massachusetters, automatically.

  119. avatar
    MichaelN March 6, 2011 at 1:39 am #

    Greg: Well, we’ve shown that Blackstone missed it. And, well, everyone else that has ever looked at the case.

    What makes you think that you and the Founders are on the same wavelength but EVERYONE else was not?

    1. Calvin was born in England
    2. Calvin had a birthright to his naturalization.

    Do you know what the Privy Council was? Why could only Natural born subjects serve in the Privy Council if NBS was “of no great importance with regard to high office?”

    Why could no naturalized or denized subjects serve in Parliament? Why was Parliament limited to natural born subjects if NBS was “of no great importance with regard to high office?”

    Why should Blackstone be concerned when he gave his ‘generally speaking comment?

    Blackstone was not addressing the matter of USC Article II eligibility for POTUS republic.

    You are evading the questions.

    By ‘high office’, let’s say king/president.

    See if you can answer each of my questions now.

    Why are you evading answering them?

  120. avatar
    Greg March 6, 2011 at 1:43 am #

    MichaelN: 2. That’s your opinion and there is plenty of evidence that suggest otherwise, furthermore state constitution is irrelevant to USC NBC clause.

    1. Show some evidence.
    2. State constitutions and laws which were adopted BEFORE the US Constitution are relevant to how the writers of the US Constitution used words that they used.

    Massachusetts Constitution: 1780
    US Constitution: 1787

    But, please, keep demonstrating your complete ignorance of American history.

    MichaelN: 3. That is your opinion, there is plenty of evidence that the founders and framers gave consideration to a variety of laws and principles.

    Evidence, please.

    Lynch v. Clarke and Wong Kim Ark trace a significant and consistent history suggesting two things:

    1. The US adopted English common law.
    2. The US did not adopt any other law.

    Also, you have acknowledged that the US adopted Calvin’s Case. Show us where anyone ever mentioned they were adopting only part of Calvin’s Case. Let me point you back to Martin v. Brown, 7 N.J. L. 305, 336-37 (N.J. Sup. 1799) (“Calvin’s Case has been considered as establishing legal principles, which have been uniformly recognized and approved of whenever occasion offered.”).

  121. avatar
    MichaelN March 6, 2011 at 1:47 am #

    Greg.

    You are obviously in this to have some kind of pseudo ‘win’.

    Try to get with the program and ferret out, without bias or partisan political agenda, what Coke actually meant by what he said, then you can apply it to what was happening, did happen, should have ,might happen or how it might have impacted on the subsequent courts’ proceedings.

    See if you can honestly, without the evasive tactics, answer the specific points and questions I have put forward.

  122. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 6, 2011 at 1:48 am #

    MichaelN:
    1. English law makes the children of SOME aliens natural born subjects, due by two qualities i.e. nature/procreation and birthright. What dis[sic] Coke mean by this?

    Please give a citation from any court (US or English) that says that the children of aliens other than invading enemies and diplomats were not natural born. If you can’t do this then we will know that you extracted your entire argument from your anus…

    2. That’s your opinion and there is plenty of evidence that suggest otherwise, furthermore state constitution is irrelevant to USC NBC clause.

    If there is plenty of evidence of this, why haven’t you cited it and given links? Are you lying or are you incompetent? I think that it is because you are lying and incompetent…

    3. That is your opinion, there is plenty of evidence that the founders and framers gave consideration to a variety of laws and principles.

    But no evidence that the adopted anything but the same policy as English common law… And once again: no references – one more FAIL on your part.

  123. avatar
    Greg March 6, 2011 at 1:57 am #

    MichaelN: By ‘high office’, let’s say king/president.

    Let’s not. Let’s say high office means high office. The Founders considered requiring natural born citizenship for those serving in Congress.

    Why do you think the restriction of parliament and the Privy Council to NBS wasn’t of the same nature as restricting the Presidency to NBC?

    It certainly makes this statement to be a lie, doesn’t it: “To the English, a NBS was merely for the purposes of property holding, inheritance and standing in the courts…”

    Let’s correct it, shall we: “NBS was for the purposes of property holding, inheritance, standing in court, and all of the highest offices of government…”

    Okay, so the US liberalized things and only required NBC for the Presidency. Not seeing how this helps your case.

    MichaelN: Why should Blackstone be concerned when he gave his ‘generally speaking comment?

    Of the dozens of sources we’ve cited, not one has agreed with your insta-subject theory of Calvin’s Case.

    How many sources have you cited that agree with your interpretation?

    Blackstone, Chitty, Cochburn, Kenyon, Dicey, Binney, Kent, Story, Thompson, etc. etc., they all disagree.

    Here, for example, is Justice Story describing Calvin’s Case:

    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 is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto.

    So, Story got it wrong, and Michael didn’t.

    Why do you think your interpretation, unknown to history, influenced the Founders?

  124. avatar
    MichaelN March 6, 2011 at 2:00 am #

    Greg: 1. Show some evidence.
    2. State constitutions and laws which were adopted BEFORE the US Constitution are relevant to how the writers of the US Constitution used words that they used.

    Massachusetts Constitution: 1780
    US Constitution: 1787

    But, please, keep demonstrating your complete ignorance of American history.

    Evidence, please.

    Lynch v. Clarke and Wong Kim Ark trace a significant and consistent history suggesting two things:

    1. The US adopted English common law.
    2. The US did not adopt any other law.

    Also, you have acknowledged that the US adopted Calvin’s Case. Show us where anyone ever mentioned they were adopting only part of Calvin’s Case. Let me point you back toMartin v. Brown, 7 N.J. L. 305, 336-37 (N.J. Sup. 1799) (“Calvin’s Case has been considered as establishing legal principles, which have been uniformly recognized and approved of whenever occasion offered.”).

    The US did not ‘adopt’ Calvin’s case.

    It was cited and cherry-picked in some court proceedings.

    To answer your question about citing cases, etc to support my responses to your baiting questions, go to this link and read what someone else has researched, which I am checking for myself as time permits.

    I simple don’t have the time to expend doing research at your whim in your effort to bait and evade the very basic observations and points I have raised from Coke in Calvin’s case.

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/02/arizonas-proposed-interstate-birth.html

  125. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 6, 2011 at 2:02 am #

    MichaelN: Why should Blackstone be concerned when he gave his ‘generally speaking comment?

    Blackstone was not addressing the matter of USC Article II eligibility for POTUS republic.

    But he was, as Greg pointed out, addressing the matter of eligibility for Parliament and the Privy Council – don’t you think Blackstone would have considered these important? That’s why he would have been concerned with his ‘generally speaking’ comment, Onionhead.

    You are evading the questions.

    Pot. Kettle. Black. ‘Nuff said.

    By ‘high office’, let’s say king/president.

    But apparently not Prime Minister or member of the Privy Council… It is so pathetically obvious that you are out of your depth here.

    See if you can answer each of my questions now.

    I answered the question in your post – will you answer Greg’s argument now? I doubt it because you cannot refute it (I don’t think that you would be able to do it even if you had the facts on your side, but considering that your entire argument is a fabrication that has no support in 400 years of ruling and writings on Calvin’s case all you can do is dig yourself deeper, run away, or admit that you are full of $hit…

    Why are you evading answering them?

    Greg has answered your questions – saying otherwise just makes you look like more of an idiot.

  126. avatar
    MichaelN March 6, 2011 at 2:02 am #

    Greg: Let’s not. Let’s say high office means high office. The Founders considered requiring natural born citizenship for those serving in Congress.

    Why do you think the restriction of parliament and the Privy Council to NBS wasn’t of the same nature as restricting the Presidency to NBC?

    It certainly makes this statement to be a lie, doesn’t it: “To the English, a NBS was merely for the purposes of property holding, inheritance and standing in the courts…”

    Let’s correct it, shall we: “NBS was for the purposes of property holding, inheritance, standing in court, and all of the highest offices of government…”

    Okay, so the US liberalized things and only required NBC for the Presidency. Not seeing how this helps your case.

    Of the dozens of sources we’ve cited, not one has agreed with your insta-subject theory of Calvin’s Case.

    How many sources have you cited that agree with your interpretation?

    Blackstone, Chitty, Cochburn, Kenyon, Dicey, Binney, Kent, Story, Thompson, etc. etc., they all disagree.

    Here, for example, is Justice Story describing Calvin’s Case:

    So, Story got it wrong, and Michael didn’t.

    Why do you think your interpretation, unknown to history, influenced the Founders?

    I am not in a competition as who who can cite the most cases about this or that.

    Simply address the specific observations I have made found in Coke’s report of Calvin’s case, then we can move on from there.

  127. avatar
    MichaelN March 6, 2011 at 2:04 am #

    I have shown the evidence from Coke in Calvin’s case.

    Deal with the evidence.

  128. avatar
    MichaelN March 6, 2011 at 2:05 am #

    Slartibartfast:

    buzz-off idiot!

  129. avatar
    Greg March 6, 2011 at 2:06 am #

    MichaelN: Try to get with the program and ferret out, without bias or partisan political agenda, what Coke actually meant by what he said

    Michael. I cannot have a discussion of Calvin’s Case with a person who has read only the six sentences he copies and pastes ad nauseum. It is a 66 page case about land ownership, a fact that took you by surprise.

    I also know the limits of my own capabilities. I can bring the horse to water, but I cannot make him drink. I cannot convince you that you are reading Calvin’s Case entirely backward. I am now only trying to convince you that it is the year 2011, and interpretations that arise sui generis cannot have influenced the founders operating in 1787.

    Let’s do a thought experiment.

    Let’s pretend, for a second, that I convince you that Calvin’s Case means German people can never be citizens. I come up with the most convincing evidence ever contrived. It convinces MichaelN 100%. It is an interpretation that never before existed. Do you think that interpretation could have influenced John Adams?

  130. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 6, 2011 at 2:11 am #

    MichaelN: Simply address the specific observations I have made found in Coke’s report of Calvin’s case, then we can move on from there.

    Greg has repeatedly shown that your observations are incorrect (as in NO ONE ELSE IN THE LAST FOUR CENTURIES AGREES WITH YOU!). There – your observations have been addressed, can we please move on so that you can stop embarrassing yourself?

  131. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 6, 2011 at 2:11 am #

    MichaelN: buzz-off idiot!

    Awww… you still care 😉

  132. avatar
    sfjeff March 6, 2011 at 2:12 am #

    Ballantine: “Oh gee, Mikey has shown up here. Now he will repost the same post 100 times claiming that he alone understands the true meaning of Calvin’s Case and that Blackstone, Chitty, Cochburn, Kenyon, Dicey and every subsequent court and legal authority in English history got it wrong. ”

    Did Ballantine nail it or what?

    I notice that Michael has yet to explain why virtually every authority disagrees with his interpretation

  133. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 6, 2011 at 2:16 am #

    MichaelN:
    I have shown the evidence from Coke in Calvin’s case.

    Deal with the evidence.

    You presented evidence? Repeating the same stuff over and over again while failing to source your information is not evidence.

  134. avatar
    Greg March 6, 2011 at 2:17 am #

    MichaelN:
    I have shown the evidence from Coke in Calvin’s case.

    Deal with the evidence.

    Sorry, Michael, Calvin’s Case does not, and cannot provide evidence where I have asked for it. To wit, here is where your evidence is lacking:

    2. America adopted this rule consistently, every time the issue came up. It adopted it in court cases and in every state constitution.
    3. There is no evidence the Founders ever considered any other rule. There is no evidence the Founders adopted any other rule.

    Calvin’s Case was decided in 1608. It cannot provide, in itself, evidence that America adopted the rules thereof, nor can it provide evidence the Founders considered other sources.

    MichaelN: I am not in a competition as who who can cite the most cases about this or that.

    That is SO not the point.

    If John Adams believed Calvin’s Case said X, then he believed it said X. It doesn’t matter that you come along later and decide it means Y.

    These other cases show that everyone, everywhere, has believed Calvin’s Case meant X, despite your incessant copying/pasting of those same six sentences!

    MichaelN: To answer your question about citing cases, etc to support my responses to your baiting questions, go to this link and read what someone else has researched, which I am checking for myself as time permits.

    That link doesn’t mention Calvin’s Case. Is that really the link you want to rely on when addressing the assertion that the United States didn’t “adopt” Calvin’s Case, it cherry picked Calvin’s Case.

    By the way, when you say courts cherry picked Calvin’s Case, just so we’re clear, you mean they ignored the automatic subjectship, right? Like Horace Gray ignored the automatic subjectship?

  135. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 6, 2011 at 2:17 am #

    MichaelN:
    I have shown the evidence from Coke in Calvin’s case.

    No, you have made up your own interpretation which has no basis in 400 years of commentary and citation of the case.

    Deal with the evidence.

    Um… The stuff Greg gives you – with names like ‘MichaelN vs. Reality’ and all of the legal mumbo-jumbo… THAT’S EVIDENCE. As opposed to the unsupported crap that you pull out of your butt.

  136. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 6, 2011 at 2:19 am #

    sfjeff:
    Ballantine: “Oh gee, Mikey has shown up here. Now he will repost the same post 100 times claiming that he alone understands the true meaning of Calvin’s Case and that Blackstone, Chitty, Cochburn, Kenyon, Dicey and every subsequent court and legal authority in English history got it wrong. ”

    Did Ballantine nail it or what?

    I notice that Michael has yet to explain why virtually every authority disagrees with his interpretation

    Thats not true I’m sure several of his authorities in his head agrees with him

  137. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 6, 2011 at 2:23 am #

    sfjeff:
    Ballantine: “Oh gee, Mikey has shown up here. Now he will repost the same post 100 times claiming that he alone understands the true meaning of Calvin’s Case and that Blackstone, Chitty, Cochburn, Kenyon, Dicey and every subsequent court and legal authority in English history got it wrong. ”

    Did Ballantine nail it or what?

    I notice that Michael has yet to explain why virtually every authority disagrees with his interpretation

    Ballantine was dead on. What I’d like to know is how Michael can be so unaware of how big of an ignorant fool he is making of himself. Oh, well – at least I seem to be annoying him, so I got that going for me…

  138. avatar
    G March 6, 2011 at 2:26 am #

    MichaelN: I simple don’t have the time to expend doing research at your whim in your effort to bait and evade the very basic observations and points I have raised from Coke in Calvin’s case.
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/02/arizonas-proposed-interstate-birth.html

    So, your example of evidence is quoting from a wacky DUI birther attorney with a 100% record of failing on such matters?

    How sad. All that does is hurt your credibility further. It shows you are nothing but a gullible parrot who can’t support an argument outside of fringe birther nonsense that has no legal support in the real world.

    FAIL!

  139. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 6, 2011 at 2:28 am #

    MichaelN: I simple don’t have the time to expend doing research at your whim in your effort to bait and evade the very basic observations and points I have raised from Coke in Calvin’s case.

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/02/arizonas-proposed-interstate-birth.html

    You do realize that when Mario comes here he gets his a$$ handed to him until he runs back to the safety of his own blog where, like the coward he is, he can censor anyone that eviscerates his arguments, don’t you? Maybe you should be a little more discriminating in your sources…

  140. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 6, 2011 at 2:31 am #

    G: So, your example of evidence is quoting from a wacky DUI birther attorney with a 100% record of failing on such matters?

    How sad.All that does is hurt your credibility further.It shows you are nothing but a gullible parrot who can’t support an argument outside of fringe birther nonsense that has no legal support in the real world.

    FAIL!

    I have to disagree – it hurts his credibility not at all. You can’t hurt what you don’t have.

  141. avatar
    Greg March 6, 2011 at 2:32 am #

    Ballantine got it right, but the best description of the MichaelN approach to argumentation was provided by Verbalobe on Fogbow:

    Here’s the essential dishonesty of the “MichaelN” argument:

    On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays:

    1. Ancient English Common Law made ‘natural subjects’ of aliens as soon as they came into the country. This kind of subject is the same as a born subject. (No explanation for why such a thing as naturalization came to be.) This theory (unsupported by any citation) explains how Calvin was considered a subject: his father was a subject. (No explanation for why the court case was brought in first place, which averred that because Calvin’s parentage was alien, he was not a subject.) Again, no citations exist to support the interpretation that in order to find Calvin a subject, the Court had to first find his parents to be subjects. But, the argument is what it is. It also explains the precedential finding cited in the Calvin case, of the ‘alien in amity,’ the Frenchman Sherley, who was found guilty of treason. (Never mind that the citation is only there expressly to provide support for the assertion that aliens owe allegiance — MichaelN uses it to provide support for the assertion, nowhere else suggested, that aliens are subjects.)

    2. This state of English law existed from before Calvin’s case, until 1787, and everyone knew of it and accepted it (although, curiously, nobody wrote anything about it). Unlike when he espousing theory 2 (below), MichaelN doesn’t find anything objectionable in all this — it’s just those wacky English and their wacky Dr. Who customs.

    3. However, if this dream universe were true, AND the young American colonies had adopted English Common Law into the fledgling nation’s Constitution, it would mean that Barack Obama Sr., visiting Hawaii from Kenya, would have been a citizen (a “natural citizen”, whatever that is), and therefore President Barack Obama would be a NBC. Since this is unacceptable, what must have happened is that the young American country rejected English Common Law (at least with respect to the definitions of allegiance and citizenship). There is no evidence of this, either, except for the absurd result that Obama became President, which is self-evidently an abomination.

    4. Nothing in law since then has been on point, since WKA was ‘only a citizen’, so it’s never really been answered. All the civics classes in the 20th Century where American schoolchildren were taught “if you were born in this country you can grow up to be President,” were taught by liberals.

    But on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays:

    1. Ancient English Common Law made it clear (through the commentator Coke) that subjecthood is a matter of both jus soli and jus sanguinis. This part of the argument is similar to Part 1 above, but has the following differences:

    * This argument doesn’t say anything in particular about how aliens are treated, or how aliens gain subjecthood or citizenship. It focuses on children. We don’t care how or where or when the father gained ligeance or natural subjecthood or amity or whatever — what we DO know is that the child follows the father. To prove this point, all one need do is point out that the phrase “procreation and birthright” is used in the texts of the day. The only thing that “procreation and birthright” can mean is that the blood of the son carries in it the allegiance — and thus the subjecthood — of the father. (Of course this theory ignores the fact that if you imagine, say, a fantasy country where children are hatched from eggs and there is no notion of heritance and no knowledge of one’s biological parents, and citizenship is derived purely from the location where one’s egg hatches, that the phrase “procreation and birthright” still makes perfect sense. But oh well.)

    * This argument also doesn’t say anything about the state of the law prior to Calvin’s case. Coke’s commentary stands alone (albeit completely misinterpreted), as the beacon of truth establishing jus sanguinis as an essential component of the rule of law underlying natural born subjects and citizens.

    2. But what happened next is enough to make a patriot cry. One need only review all the citations and quotes provided by Ballantine and Gentrfam to see the progressive deterioration of the law. From 1650 to 1675 to 1700 to 1725 to 1750 to 1775 there is a steady parade of allegiance/citizenship legal decisions and inferences, some of which actually cite Calvin’s case (horrors!), saying that natural born subjects can be born of aliens. This may have been due to just a single lazy judge in 1617 — we have no way of knowing exactly when — who misread Coke, and set the world hurtling on its fateful course toward disaster (the Obama Presidency).

    3. When it came time to found the young America, the Framers were smart enough to know that even though all the precedent of the past 170 years stated that NBC (NBS) was jus soli, that it was based on a misreading of Calvin. (In other words, the Framers were as smart as MichaelN.) Consequently, when they wrote Article II requiring that Presidents be NBC, they intentionally meant it to reflect the true jus sanguinis foundation that was almost lost in history. Unfortunately, they were too trusting, and made no mention of the fact that their underlying meaning of this term — even though there is ample documentary evidence that they consciously sought to make the Constitution comprehensible to the common man, using common meanings — was derived from a single interpretation of a single ancient case, and was opposite to that understood by all legal minds of their time.

    4. Further woe for patriots: Due to the Framers’ trusting nature, the Courts in the young USA almost immediately went down the wrong path, and started ruling that the children of aliens were citizens. The Framers and Founders who were still alive when this mistake in the English Common Law started to take hold in America, didn’t say anything or object, because most of the cases were just about ‘citizenship’ or ‘born citizenship.’ They didn’t imagine that ‘natural born citizenship’ would ever be tainted by these decisions.

    5. Over time, the question became political, as the US was taken over by socialists (FDR), communist sympathizers (Kennedy), internationalists (Carter), and sex maniacs (Clinton), and any hope of reason was completely lost. So today everybody — even the poor deluded GOP and Republican-nominated SCOTUS justices — believes that the current law follows in a line through history all the way back to English Common Law, and that NBC is jus soli, when in fact it is all based on first a mistake, and then the Framers’ innocent miscalculation in not making their intentions clear when they tried to correct the mistake.

    6. And Obama supporters don’t care about truth, or about law, or about their country — they just want their wonderful President to stay in the WH, so they just keep citing all this abundant precedent and judicial reasoning, oblivious to the fact that it is all meaningless, that all that matters is the sekrit meaning that MichaelN uniquely knows the Framers really intended.

    Two theories.

    Both irrational, mutually incompatible.

  142. avatar
    G March 6, 2011 at 3:21 am #

    Slartibartfast: I have to disagree – it hurts his credibility not at all. You can’t hurt what you don’t have.

    Point taken.

    I will correct what I said to say that quoting Mario is just another nail in the coffin proving why MichaelN completely lacks ANY credibility whatsoever at all.

  143. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 6, 2011 at 11:10 am #

    G: Point taken.

    I will correct what I said to say that quoting Mario is just another nail in the coffin proving why MichaelN completely lacks ANY credibility whatsoever at all.

    I find it interesting how birthers always seem to think that they have credibility and should be treated with respect even though they never do anything to merit credibility nor do they every refer to the President with ANY respect whatsoever – in fact they refer to both him and his family with the most contemptuous expressions of disrespect they can think of. (Hey Michael, you’re a really crappy human being – did you know that?) The question I have is if the article by Mario wasn’t on point, where did he get his theory? I’ve never heard Mario arguing this Calvin’s case crap – even he has enough legal acumen to stay away from Michael’s argument (hell, this argument is probably even too bat$hit for ORLY…) – so where did Michael get it from? Or is it his own bull$hit? Or is Michael just yanking our chains with a bit of Poe’s law performance art? (If that is the case, Michael, then well done, man! I was completely taken in even though I should have been telling myself that no one could possibly be that stupid… ;-)) By the way, I thought that Verbalope did a nice job of summarizing Michael’s arguments and showing them to be incompatible – thanks for posting it.

  144. avatar
    MichaelN March 6, 2011 at 9:55 pm #

    Problem you have is ………..

    Coke – Calvin’s case

    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject,”

    The reason the father is not a subject is completely irrelevant, it is because the parent father is not a subject that the child is not a NBS.

    Sanguinis is essential to being a NBS.

    If you think or believe otherwise, then explain.

  145. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 6, 2011 at 10:30 pm #

    MichaelN:
    Problem you have is ………..

    Coke – Calvin’s case

    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject,”

    The reason the father is not a subject is completely irrelevant, it is because the parent father is not a subject that the child is not a NBS.

    Sanguinis is essential to being a NBS.

    If you think or believe otherwise, then explain.

    The problem you have is no expert on law, courts, historians agree with you. Sanguinas is not essential to being NBS in England or NBC in America.

  146. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 6, 2011 at 10:31 pm #

    MichaelN:
    Problem you have is ………..

    The problem you have is that you are a disingenuous, ignorant, small-minded bigot. But I’m sure that apart from that you’re a real swell guy…

    Coke – Calvin’s case

    What? That every commentary on and every citation of Calvin’s case agrees with our interpretation? I’ll take that over the problems you have any day…

    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject,”

    You have never responded to repeated queries as to what ‘born under the ligeance of a subject’ means. Clearly this is because you are too much of a coward to admit that this doesn’t mean what you are implying it does… Every time you avoid addressing this definition you show yourself to be a craven moron bent on disinformation – your entire argument hinges on it, yet you’re so scared of what this phrase means that you wont even mention it. Remember, “the coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave man only one” – you can man up and take your lumps or you can continue along your pathetic and ignoble path.

    The reason the father is not a subject is completely irrelevant, it is because the parent father is not a subject that the child is not a NBS.

    It says that the child was not a NBS because he was not ‘born under the ligeance of a subject’ NOT because the father wasn’t a subject. If you wont define that term, you’re just further proving yourself to be a colossal loser who’s either too dumb, too craven, or too dishonest to engage in rational debate.

    Sanguinis is essential to being a NBS.

    I don’t see anything that says that – what does ‘born under the ligeance of a subject’ mean – THAT is what is essential to being a NBS. Answer the question… or implicitly admit that you are either a liar, a coward, or an idiot and most likely all three.

    If you think or believe otherwise, then explain.

    I hope that I have made it clear that the passage hinges on what ‘born under the ligeance of a subject’ means – can you tell us that? More importantly, can you tell us what Lord Coke and the founding fathers thought that it meant? If not, then can you tell us why we shouldn’t assume that you are a sniveling, lying, cowardly idiot?

  147. avatar
    MichaelN March 6, 2011 at 10:32 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): The problem you have is no expert on law, courts, historians agree with you.Sanguinas is not essential to being NBS in England or NBC in America.

    So what does Coke mean by this statement?

  148. avatar
    MichaelN March 6, 2011 at 10:36 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): The problem you have is no expert on law, courts, historians agree with you.Sanguinas is not essential to being NBS in England or NBC in America.
    ———————————————————————————————————————–

    MichaelN says,

    How do you know they don’t agree, have you asked them?

    Probably the reason ‘no expert on law, courts, historians agree’, is because they haven’t been confronted with this FACT, to either agree or disagree.

    Why do YOU disagree?

    Be a man! …………… make your OWN statement as to why this is so ‘incorrect

  149. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 6, 2011 at 10:42 pm #

    MichaelN: “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject,”

    Tsk, tsk, tsk. We were warned that you cut off the ends of sentences you quoted in order to mislead. Here’s the full sentence:

    And it is to be observed, that it is nec c¦lum, nec solum, neither the soil, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born; for come into the realm, and possess town or fort, and have issue the subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject protection of the King.

    and similarly:

    But if enemies should come into any of the King’s dominions, and surprise any castle or fort, and possess the same by hostility, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King, though he be born within his dominions, for that he was not born under the King’s ligeance or obedience.

    In both cases, it obviously doesn’t say anything about parents.

    You asked others to “explain” how the quote you gave is not jus sanquinis. The explanation is that your quote is a fraud, cropped to make it say something that it obviously doesn’t in context.

  150. avatar
    MichaelN March 6, 2011 at 10:45 pm #

    Slartibartfast

    MichaelN:
    Problem you have is ………..

    The problem you have is that you are a disingenuous, ignorant, small-minded bigot. But I’m sure that apart from that you’re a real swell guy…

    Coke – Calvin’s case
    ————————————————————————
    Slartibartfast

    You have never responded to repeated queries as to what born under the ligeance of a subject’ means.
    ———————————————————————-

    MichaelN

    Ok, the subject (the father) must have ligeance to be a subject.

    If the father doesn’t have the ligeance, then he is not a subject, then because he is not a subject, his child cannot be a NBS, even if born in the land.

    get it?

    I don’t know how to dumb-it-down any better for you, if you are dumber then the level of dumb I have allowed for then I suppose you had better ask mommy.

  151. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 6, 2011 at 10:46 pm #

    MichaelN: So what does Coke mean by this statement?

    As I understand it, Coke (and, well, everyone but you…) understand ‘born under the ligeance of a subject’ to mean that they (and their parents) were born on the soil and obligated to obey the crown’s laws and entitled to the crown’s protection – i.e. neither a diplomat or invading enemy. By the way, as Lupin pointed out, the children of enemy soldiers and local women (whatever the circumstances of their conception) are almost certainly considered natural born (there were 200,000 French precedents in the wake of WWII, according to Lupin) – so even if Barack Obama Sr. was a one man invasion force, the president is still an natural born citizen. Do you get lonely being the only one that believes in your imbecilic theories or do the voices in your head keep you company?

  152. avatar
    MichaelN March 6, 2011 at 10:50 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy

    MichaelN: “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject,”

    ——————————————————————————————-
    Dr. Conspiracy
    Tsk, tsk, tsk. We were warned that you cut off the ends of sentences you quoted in order to mislead. Here’s the full sentence:

    “And it is to be observed, that it is nec c¦lum, nec solum, neither the soil, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born; for come into the realm, and possess town or fort, and have issue the subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject protection of the King.”

    That’s not the full sentence.

    Here:

    “And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum, neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.

    Doesn’t change the FACt that if the father is not a subject (ligeance required to be such) then the child is not a NBS.

  153. avatar
    MichaelN March 6, 2011 at 10:53 pm #

    Slartibartfast: As I understand it, Coke (and, well, everyone but you…) understand born under the ligeance of a subject’ to mean that they (and their parents) were born on the soil and obligated to obey the crown’s laws and entitled to the crown’s protection

    Won’t work, you forget that alien born visitors can make NBS

  154. avatar
    MichaelN March 6, 2011 at 10:59 pm #

    Why can’t you simply accept that it says what it says?

    After all you are prepared to accept an internet image as proof of things.

    Should I put Coke’s statement in an image on the internet for you?

  155. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 6, 2011 at 11:03 pm #

    MichaelN: So what does Coke mean by this statement?

    It has been explained to you over and over again the line means being born under the subject of the king. It matters where he was born not who he was born to.

  156. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 6, 2011 at 11:06 pm #

    MichaelN:
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): The problem you have is no expert on law, courts, historians agree with you.Sanguinas is not essential to being NBS in England or NBC in America.
    ———————————————————————————————————————–

    MichaelN says,

    How do you know they don’t agree, have you asked them?

    Probably the reason no expert on law, courts, historians agree’, is because they haven’t been confronted with this FACT, to either agree or disagree.

    Why do YOU disagree?

    Be a man! …………… make your OWN statement as to why this is so incorrect

    Calling figments of your imagination facts, does not make them so. This case has been explained to you over and over again. He was a subject based on his birth not because of his father

  157. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 6, 2011 at 11:06 pm #

    MichaelN:
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): The problem you have is no expert on law, courts, historians agree with you.Sanguinas is not essential to being NBS in England or NBC in America.
    ———————————————————————————————————————–

    MichaelN says,

    How do you know they don’t agree, have you asked them?

    Probably the reason no expert on law, courts, historians agree’, is because they haven’t been confronted with this FACT, to either agree or disagree.

    Why do YOU disagree?

    Be a man! …………… make your OWN statement as to why this is so incorrect

    Be a man read the entire case instead of a few sentences before deciding what you think it means

  158. avatar
    obsolete March 6, 2011 at 11:20 pm #

    Since MichaelN continues to cut-n-paste, I will just copy my previous answeres to him:

    MichaelN, aka nomatter, keeps dishonestly chopping off the first part of this sentence when he pastes it all over the internet:

    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”

    The longer sentence is:
    “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”

    Anyone can read the long version and see that it means if an invading soldier has a baby, that baby is not a natural-born citizen. He cuts off the part that explains that it is an invading soldier under discussion, in a maddeningly dishonest attempt to try to apply it to Obama’s father.

    That is all you need to know about MichaelN (aka nomatter) and his arguments- they are all dishonest cut-n-paste B.S.

    MichaelN –
    “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,

    This line means that it is a soldier of an invading army we are talking about. Because of that, his son is NOT a natural-born subject. Was Obama’s father part of an invading army? No? Then your example does not apply to Obama. No one born in the USA to an invading soldier would be considered a natural-born subject, yet that is the example you are using and claiming it somehow relates to Obama.

    Again, here is the full sentence:
    “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”

    Here is what you post, conveniently cutting off the part that identifies the subject as an invading soldier:
    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”

    See what you did there? The sentence is about an invading soldier. You hide that part. The reason it matters is because:
    A- Everyone agrees that invading soldiers offspring are not natural-born.
    B- Obama’s dad was not part of an invading army, so the sentence doesn’t apply to him. Only if you chop off the first part, could you maybe fool someone into believing that it could be applied to Obama’s father.

    You have been told this repeatedly, and you are either:
    A- An idiot for not understanding how chopping off the first part of the sentence affects its meaning.
    or
    B- A Liar

    Since you have had it explained to you at least two dozen times on the Fogbow, I’m going with “B”

    Everytime I see you post that lie, I’m going to counter it with the truth.

  159. avatar
    G March 6, 2011 at 11:21 pm #

    MichaelN: Why can’t you simply accept that it says what it says?After all you are prepared to accept an internet image as proof of things.Should I put Coke’s statement in an image on the internet for you?

    *sigh* Everyone has constantly answered your question, yet for some reason… you either blindly ignore it or utterly lack the capacity to grasp the simple truth.

    Let’s use simple english for you and cut to the chase of these matters:

    Born on US soil makes you a US NBC – period. Other than a few constantly stated obvious exceptions (children of diplomats & the such) it is as simple as that. Nothing further is required. No citizenship requirement of the parents, nada. Born on US soil is good enough.

    Is that the ONLY way someone can be a US NBC? No. By our history of laws, we ALSO consider most children born of a US citizen to be NBC as well, even when not born on US soil.

    It is not a matter of just one (jus soli) or the other (jus sanquinis) that applies. It is that EITHER satisfies our criteria.

    Second, your “internet image” snide remark is completely lame. For one thing, ANY bit of info you wish to share to the public on a broad forum these days, which can be viewed at any time of convenience would most efficiently be sent via internet. That would pretty much always result in an image, if you are dealing with visual information. *duh* Are you really that dense to not understand how a scanner works and what the end result of putting a real piece of paper in one is? Sorry, but Wonka Vision doesn’t exist, so you can’t pull an actual document off the screen. *sheesh*

    Furthermore, we’re NOT just dealing with only some “image” out there. You seem to conveniently ignore that ALL supporting data backs up and/or supports the veracity of the info we see on that image – all the statements from HI officials, his passport, the birth index notices, etc. ALL point to the SAME conclusion: born in Honolulu, HI. Hence NBC. Simple as that and end of story. Nothing you babble on about changes that or provides any credible evidence contradicting that.

  160. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 6, 2011 at 11:23 pm #

    MichaelN:
    Ok, the subject (the father) must have ligeance to be a subject.

    [I can just imagine Michael starting a “Got Ligeance?” ad campaign…] In that case (and you’re already screwing up in your parsing of the language – I’m guessing English isn’t your native tongue… or maybe you’re just stupid), what does it mean to ‘have ligeance’ to the crown? When you finish answering that question, you should consider the fact that the father is not said TO BE a subject – he is said to have the ligeance OF a subject. How do you think these two phrases differ in their meanings?

    If the father doesn’t have the ligeance, then he is not a subject, then because he is not a subject, his child cannot be a NBS, even if born in the land.

    If the father doesn’t have the ligeance, then the child is not a NBS even if born in the land. That is true. Interjecting that this is because the ligeance makes the father a subject is complete and utter BS that has absolutely no support in 400 years of jurisprudence. Doing this repeatedly shows a person to be pathetic, ignorant, lying, coward like yourself.

    get it?

    I get it. I’m the one that has 400 years of established law backing me up. Have you heard the saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs? Well, you’ve made extraordinary claims and your proofs consist of ‘I said so!’ – that’s not extraordinary, that pathetic…

    I don’t know how to dumb-it-down any better for you, if you are dumber then the level of dumb I have allowed for then I suppose you had better ask mommy.

    My mother is dead, a$$hole. Your problem with ‘dumbing it down’ is that ‘dumb’ is all you’ve got. The problem is not that we don’t understand what you are saying, the problem is that what you are saying demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what Lord Coke was saying. How do we know this? 400 years of commentary and judicial citations. How do you know that your interpretation is correct? (The answer is that you are to stupid to do the critical thinking necessary to intelligently decide whether or not your theory is correct. If I am wrong, prove it – tell me what outweighs 400 years of jurisprudence.

    Won’t work, you forget that alien born visitors can make NBS

    My interpretation works perfectly – visitors subject to the crown’s laws and under the crown’s protection are subject to the ligeance of the crown and any children that they have are natural born by right of soil. It’s you that has a problem (well, you have many problems, but you’ve got a logical problem here…). In your attempt to pull a qualification out of your a$$, you explicitly contradicted yourself – Calvin’s father is explicitly NOT a subject, so by your interpretation he COULD NOT have passed natural born status.

  161. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 6, 2011 at 11:34 pm #

    obsolete: You have been told this repeatedly, and you are either:
    A- An idiot for not understanding how chopping off the first part of the sentence affects its meaning.
    or
    B- A Liar

    Since you have had it explained to you at least two dozen times on the Fogbow, I’m going with “B”

    Everytime I see you post that lie, I’m going to counter it with the truth.

    Given Michael’s behavior (just on this site alone), I think that it is safe to assume that Michael is either a coward, a liar, a bigot, AND an idiot or he is a Poe’s law ninja who has been counting coup on all of us. I wonder what this worthless piece of trash thinks that he is accomplishing here since his propaganda attempts have failed so miserably…

  162. avatar
    MichaelN March 6, 2011 at 11:54 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): It has been explained to you over and over again the line means being born under the subject of the king.It matters where he was born not who he was born to.

    It clearly says ‘born under the ligeance OF a subject’.

    I.e. the father must be a subject & to be such a subject, the father must according to Coke have ligeance.

    OF a subject, it’s dependent on the father being a subject & the father cannot be a subject without ligeance.

    It means sanguinis is essential to make a NBS.

    You will just have to accept it, even if it shatters your follow-the-lead belief.

    I know how you feel, but you are not alone in this, imagine how the follow-the-pack flat earth believers felt when they found out the earth was spherical.

    Shock horror.

  163. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 6, 2011 at 11:57 pm #

    MichaelN: It clearly says born under the ligeance OF a subject’.

    I.e. the father must be a subject & to be such a subject, the father must according to Coke have ligeance.

    There is nothing about fathers in that quote. If you replaced “subject” to say “born under the legiance of a father” it would make sense since the child owes legiance to the king, not to his father.

  164. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 7, 2011 at 12:02 am #

    MichaelN:
    Why can’t I simply say that Coke put an image on the internet?

    I accept an internet images as proof of all statements.

    Michael, if you aren’t smart enough to understand how ignorant and stupid this makes you sound, then I don’t think I can help you…

    [Everyone else – this is a direct quote from Michael (by his rules, anyway…). What a moron.]

  165. avatar
    MichaelN March 7, 2011 at 12:06 am #

    Slartibartfast
    Calvin’s father is explicitly NOT a subject, so by your interpretation he COULD NOT have passed natural born status.
    ——————————————————————————-

    I don’t see ANY mention of Calvin’s father in Coke’s report, except for when an example was given of a denizen.

    Here:

    “But if the Plaintiff’s father be made a denizen, and purchase lands in England to him and his heirs, and die seised, this land shall never descend to the Plaintiff, for that the King by his Letters Patents may make a denizen, but cannot naturalize him to all purposes, as an Act of Parliament may doe”

    Remember that Robert Calvin ALREADY OWNED the property.

    Robert Calvin was adjudged a NBS and for that to be the case, then his father must have had ligeance, either as an alien friend or as an existing subject or by an act of parliament.

    There is certainly nothing ‘explicit’ that mentions Calvin’s father’s status……. you’re dreamin’!

  166. avatar
    Sef March 7, 2011 at 12:21 am #

    All this discussion about Calvin’s case is really of only tangential importance. The ONLY thing that matters is that SCOTUS in WKA affirmed that anyone born in the U.S., excepting the usual suspects, is a natural born citizen. Any other discussion is just a waste of time.

  167. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP March 7, 2011 at 12:24 am #

    Sef:
    All this discussion about Calvin’s case is really of only tangential importance.The ONLY thing that matters is that SCOTUS in WKA affirmed that anyone born in the U.S., excepting the usual suspects, is a natural born citizen. Any other discussion is just a waste of time.

    It’s also a waste of time when the only place it is being discussed is on the internet rather than a place real of importance, Sef, like Congress for example.

  168. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 7, 2011 at 12:31 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Be a man read the entire case instead of a few sentences before deciding what you think it means

    I do not think that would help. He could read (and perhaps has read) the whole thing, but his confirmation bias only lets him see the parts of sentences that confirm his bias. Plus, we must admit, Coke isn’t easy reading in the first place.

    As for me, I get extremely uncomfortable when I understand something that goes against the usual reading of something, or against some authority. I read it 10 times and then sleep on it. I look for other authorities. I try my opinion out on other people.

  169. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 7, 2011 at 12:36 am #

    Remember, it was here on this blog that I told Mario Apuzzo that he would have to overturn US v Wong to get his view of natural born citizen to go anywhere. This attack on the interpretation of Calvin’s case is rooted in that attempt. It’s extremely unlikely to go anywhere as US v Wong has been settled law for over 100 years.

  170. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 7, 2011 at 12:44 am #

    MichaelN: It clearly says born under the ligeance OF a subject’.

    And you clearly haven’t a clue what that phrase means.

    I.e. the father must be a subject & to be such a subject, the father must according to Coke have ligeance.

    It does NOT say that the father must be a subject, just that he must have the ‘ligeance of a subject’. Since we know that Calvin’s father was not a subject, then, AS IS OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WHO ISN’T A COMPLETE AND UTTER MORON, it must be possible to posses ‘the ligeance of a subject’ WITHOUT ACTUALLY BEING A SUBJECT (as Calvin’s father did).

    OF a subject, it’s dependent on the father being a subject & the father cannot be a subject without ligeance.

    As usual, you’ve gotten it bass ackwards. To prove your point you need to argue that the father cannot have ligeance without being a subject – I guess you’re a dishonest, ignorant idiot who is too stupid to even understand his own argument or too gutless to admit that, once again, you have shown yourself to be spectacularly uninformed about the basics (logic, this time…).

    It means sanguinis is essential to make a NBS.

    No – you’re a lying slimeball who extracted that putrid claim from your rear.

    You will just have to accept it, even if it shatters your follow-the-lead belief.

    Because you say it’s true, I have to go against 400 years of settled law… Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. But I think you might be able to obtain entrance to a mental health facility if you explain that reasoning to the staff…

    I know how you feel, but you are not alone in this, imagine how the follow-the-pack flat earth believers felt when they found out the earth was spherical.

    Well, you certainly aren’t following the pack… Unfortunately, in this case, what the pack thinks is the only thing that is important. There is unequivocal evidence that the people writing, sitting in judgement on, and commenting on our laws all disagreed with your interpretation. That’s it – game over. The law is what we collectively understand it to be – it does not conform itself to the febrile fantasies of a craven, idiotic bigot like yourself.

    Shock horror.

    Yes, it will probably shock you if you ever regain contact with the reality-based world. What a pathetic loser you are…

  171. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 7, 2011 at 12:45 am #

    MichaelN: Doesn’t change the FACt that if the father is not a subject (ligeance required to be such) then the child is not a NBS.

    The FACT is that your truncated quote (nor anything else in Calvin’s case) supports your contention. There is a difference between “a subject” and “subject protection.”

  172. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 7, 2011 at 12:54 am #

    MichaelN:
    Slartibartfast
    Calvin’s father is explicitly NOT a subject, so by your interpretation he COULD NOT have passed natural born status.
    ——————————————————————————-

    I don’t see ANY mention of Calvin’s father in Coke’s report, except for when an example was given of a denizen.

    Here:

    “But if the Plaintiff’s father be made a denizen, and purchase lands in England to him and his heirs, and die seised, this land shall never descend to the Plaintiff, for that the King by his Letters Patents may make a denizen, but cannot naturalize him to all purposes, as an Act of Parliament may doe”

    Remember that Robert Calvin ALREADY OWNED the property.

    Robert Calvin was adjudged a NBS and for that to be the case, then his father must have had ligeance, either as an alien friend or as an existing subject or by an act of parliament.

    There is certainly nothing explicit’ that mentions Calvin’s father’s status……. you’re dreamin’!

    You know, if you really want to build your case, you should start by explaining the facts of the case and what the holding was. Or, if you what to further prove what a functionally illiterate, incompetent, ignorant, lying bigot you are, you can keep cutting and pasting the same worthless argument and implicitly acknowledge that you don’t have the faintest idea what Calvin’s case was about…

  173. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 7, 2011 at 1:03 am #

    Slartibartfast: AS IS OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WHO ISN’T A COMPLETE AND UTTER MORON, it must be possible to posses the ligeance of a subject’ WITHOUT ACTUALLY BEING A SUBJECT (as Calvin’s father did).

    Yes of course. A foreigner (alien) is obliged to obey the laws of the country where he is. This is called local allegiance.

    This from US v Wong:

    Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:

    “‘British subject’ means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. ‘Permanent’ allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes ‘temporary‘ allegiance to the Crown.

    The court cites INGLIS V. TRUSTEES OF SAILOR’S SNUG HARBOR, 28 U. S. 99 (1830)

    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.

    It is in this context that we understand the word “momentary” (“temporary”) used by Lord Coke:

    so long as he was within the King’s protection; which even though but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject; a fortiori under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King…

    Temporary local allegiance does not turn an alien into a subject.

  174. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 7, 2011 at 1:19 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Yes of course. A foreigner (alien) is obliged to obey the laws of the country where he is. This is called local allegiance.

    This from US v Wong:

    The court cites INGLIS V. TRUSTEES OF SAILOR’S SNUG HARBOR, 28 U. S. 99 (1830)

    It is in this context that we understand the word “momentary” (“temporary”) used by Lord Coke:

    Temporary local allegiance does not turn an alien into a subject.

    Thanks for backing up my ranting with citations – and further proving that either Michael is too much of a coward to admit that he’s been lying all along or too stupid for his opinion about anything to have any credibility whatsoever.

    I am curious about this strain of birtherism, however – have you seen anyone else using this argument or is it too dumb even for other birthers?

  175. avatar
    MichaelN March 7, 2011 at 1:22 am #

    Slartibartfast: You know, if you really want to build your case, you should start by explaining the facts of the case and what the holding was.Or, if you what to further prove what a functionally illiterate, incompetent, ignorant, lying bigot you are, you can keep cutting and pasting the same worthless argument and implicitly acknowledge that you don’t have the faintest idea what Calvin’s case was about…

    Obviously you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

    You are lashing out any anything that blows your beliefs.

    Here are a few facts on what was held in Calvin’s case.

    A subject can only be so by ligeance.

    An alien friend in the king’s realm is a subject of that king.

    Because the alien is a subject of the king, via local ligeance, his child is a natural born subject, if born in the same realm the father is visiting.

    Aliens can purchase land.

    Aliens cannot inherit.

    Robert Calvin already owned the property that was the subject of the writ of Robert Calvin.

    There is no explicit mention of Calvin;s father’s subject status. (i.e. YOU were wrong to suggest otherwise)

    Not all children of aliens are NBS, only those who are children of friendly aliens, who happen to be subjects, via ligeance, due by the Law of Nature.

    A NBS can lose their right of inheritance, but not their ligeance, in other words, they are still a subject, but cannot inherit.

    In the case of a NBS, the subject status of the father matters, because without the father being a subject (a status that is required via ligeance), then his child cannot be a NBS, even if born in the realm.

    There goes the soli notion, out the door.

    See no cutting and pasting, simply a statement of FACTS.

    Now take your pathetic, silly, small-minded, disgusting insults and jam them where you seem to have your finger.

    I did promise to not respond to you and have broken that promise, silly me, I did hold some hope you might improve your manners.

    If you continue with your disgusting behavior, then you will have no more response from me, which apparently should please you, then you can graffiti-blog away with your thread spoiling garbage, which I am sure is at the mutual displeasure of most here who seek to have a rational discussion on the matter.

  176. avatar
    G March 7, 2011 at 1:26 am #

    Slartibartfast: I am curious about this strain of birtherism, however – have you seen anyone else using this argument or is it too dumb even for other birthers?

    I think its become quite apparent that it is increasingly difficult to view ANY argument as being too dumb or out there for other birthers.

    Case in point #1: The crazy “lizard people” / chem trails line of thinking starting to infect certain birther sites. Yeah, some don’t buy it… but a disturbingly sad portion of their population does.

    Case in point #2: See nc1’s latest utter stupidity on re-imagining the english language under the Huckabee thread on this site in order to grasp at new non-existant straws. Just total face-palm stupidity there…

  177. avatar
    MichaelN March 7, 2011 at 1:27 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Yes of course. A foreigner (alien) is obliged to obey the laws of the country where he is. This is called local allegiance.

    Correction:

    The ligeance is due ONLY to the king.

    Nothing to do with the laws.

    “Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign. This ligeance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every subject; for as soon as he is born he oweth by birth right ligeance and obedience to his Sovereign.”

    “By that which hath been said it appeareth, that this ligeance is due only to the King”

  178. avatar
    MichaelN March 7, 2011 at 1:31 am #

    @ Dr. Conspiracy.

    Here, this will help you with your misunderstanding, where you will see that there is a difference in the types of ligeance.

    “The third is ligeantia localis46 wrought by the law, and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is there, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other. The fourth is a legal obedience, or ligeance which is called legal, because the municipal laws of this realm have prescribed the order and form of it; and this to be done upon oath at the Torn or Leet.Ligeantia naturalis.”

  179. avatar
    MichaelN March 7, 2011 at 1:36 am #

    @ Dr. Conspiracy.

    More to help you understand

    “A man Outlawed is out of the benefit of the Municipal Law; for so saith Fitzh. Nat. Brev. 161. Utlagatus est quasi extra legem positus:139 and Bracton lib. 3. tract. 2. cap 11. saith, that caput geret lupinum;140 and yet is he not out either of his natural ligeance, or of the King’s natural protection; “

  180. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 7, 2011 at 1:36 am #

    MichaelN: See no cutting and pasting, simply a statement of FACTS.

    I’ll let those more knowledgeable that I dissect your ‘facts’, but thank you for presenting them.

    Now take your pathetic, silly, small-minded, disgusting insults and jam them where you seem to have your finger.

    I’ve been insulting you for a reason – to highlight the fact that everything you’ve said in this discussion has either been in ignorance or bad faith. I you start engaging in the discussion and addressing other people’s arguments in good faith, then I would be happy to treat you with respect, but as long as you continue your dishonest tactics, I’ll point them out as rudely as I see fit…

    I did promise to not respond to you and have broken that promise, silly me, I did hold some hope you might improve your manners.

    It is within your power to get me to play nice – just engage in discussion in good faith.

    If you continue with your disgusting behavior, then you will have no more response from me, which apparently should please you, then you can graffiti-blog away with your thread spoiling garbage, which I am sure is at the mutual displeasure of most here who seek to have a rational discussion on the matter.

    You know, it’s really too bad we don’t have the thumbs up/down for each post that we used to have here – I suspect my posts would be rated far higher than yours. The regulars here know that I am very respectful of those that deserve it and they also all saw through your transparently disingenuous tactics before I or anyone else pointed them out. You have not, as of yet, shown yourself willing to engage in a rational discussion, but if you should change your mind I know that many of the people here would be happy to oblige you.

  181. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 7, 2011 at 1:42 am #

    MichaelN: Correction:

    The ligeance is due ONLY to the king.

    Nothing to do with the laws.

    “Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign. This ligeance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every subject; for as soon as he is born he oweth by birth right ligeance and obedience to his Sovereign.”

    “By that which hath been said it appeareth, that this ligeance is due only to the King”

    Your quote says that every subject owes ligeance to the king but your argument REQUIRES that ONLY subjects owe ligeance to the king if it is to be true. 400 years of jurisprudence clearly say that any aliens in amity owe ligeance to the king while they are in his realm. Thus your argument is shown to be logically false.

  182. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 7, 2011 at 1:49 am #

    G: I think its become quite apparent that it is increasingly difficult to view ANY argument as being too dumb or out there for other birthers.

    You’re right, of course, but I am more interesting in the genealogy of this argument – is it Michael’s original theory? And to see how it will spread (I think I know the answer to IF it will spread…)

    Case in point #1:The crazy “lizard people” / chem trails line of thinking starting to infect certain birther sites.Yeah, some don’t buy it… but a disturbingly sad portion of their population does.

    It amazes me that people don’t realize that the taint of theories like ‘lizard people’ inoculates rational people from birther propaganda.

    Case in point #2:See nc1′s latest utter stupidity on re-imagining the english language under the Huckabee thread on this site in order to grasp at new non-existant straws.Just total face-palm stupidity there…

    I’ll have to check it out.

  183. avatar
    MichaelN March 7, 2011 at 1:54 am #

    The alien is the ‘natural subject’ in the example of the Frenchman.

    It is the local ligeance that makes him a ‘natural subject’ by The Law of Nature’.

    The defendants against Robert Calvin argued this …

    “Leges. From the several and distinct lawes of either kingdom, they did reason thus; 1. Every subject that is born out of the extent and reach of the Laws of England, cannot by judgment of those laws be a natural subject to the King”

    But Coke & Co ruled otherwise and also said.

    “For the Laws: 1. That ligeance, or obedience of the subject to the Sovereign, is due by the Law of nature:”

    Then Coke said …..

    “There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia”

    Then Coke said that Robert Calvin was a NBS, born out of the extent and Laws of England.

    “Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of the subject’s part. And this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. and 3 and 4 Ph. and Mar. Dyer 144. Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 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: a fortiori52 he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which as it hath been said, is alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to be a natural born subject;”

    It was the local ligeance of the Frenchman (not his child) that was strong enough to make him a ‘natural subject’ THEN if he has a child in the realm, the child is a NBS.

  184. avatar
    G March 7, 2011 at 2:09 am #

    Slartibartfast: It amazes me that people don’t realize that the taint of theories like lizard people’ inoculates rational people from birther propaganda.

    Birthers would have to be capable of being rational in the first place… they can’t see what they can’t themselves comprehend.

  185. avatar
    MichaelN March 7, 2011 at 2:59 am #

    The thread is not about ‘birthers’.

    How about taking the ‘birther’ discussion elsewhere and leave this thread for what it is about.

  186. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 7, 2011 at 3:02 am #

    MichaelN: It was the local ligeance of the Frenchman (not his child) that was strong enough to make HIM a natural subject’ THEN if he has a child in the realm, the child is a NBS.

    You inserted a word which changed the meaning of the passage – were you being incompetent or dishonest? The ‘local ligeance’ of the Frenchman is strong enough to MAKE a natural subject i.e. the Frenchman, based on his temporary and local ligeance, can produce a natural born subject – A CHILD. The local ligeance, however, is not strong enough to make the Frenchman a subject in any sense (naturalized or natural born). Once again it is pointed out that your reasoning is flawed (namely you inserted a word which changed the meaning of the passage). If you want to lay claim to any shred of intellectual honesty, please admit that you were wrong.

  187. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 7, 2011 at 3:08 am #

    MichaelN:
    The thread is not about birthers’.

    How about taking the birther’ discussion elsewhere and leave this thread for what it is about.

    This site is about birhters… and you are one of them. If Doc C tells me that I’m off topic, I’ll take the conversation elsewhere, but I was discussing the origin and propagation of a screwball birther argument (namely your theory) regarding Calvin’s case – something I believe is clearly well within the topic of ‘Calvin’s case’…

    If you don’t want to be called a birther, then admit that all of the available evidence and jurisprudence indicates that President Obama is a natural born citizen and eligible for his office – that shouldn’t be a problem if all you care about is your unorthodox interpretation of a 400 year old case…

  188. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 7, 2011 at 3:12 am #

    G: Birthers would have to be capable of being rational in the first place… they can’t see what they can’t themselves comprehend.

    The thought of the amount of cognitive dissonance in a birther’s mind makes my head hurt… It’s amazing what illogical, self-contradictory things people can convince themselves of when they don’t have any objective standard of comparison.

  189. avatar
    MichaelN March 7, 2011 at 4:35 am #

    Person A, who is born in the land of a republic where the citizens are sovereign, says
    ‘I am a natural born Citizen of this republic because my parents are sovereign Citizens of this republic and I am born in this republic of my parents’.

    Person B, who is born in the same land of a republic where his parents are not sovereign citizens of the republic, says I am a natural born Citizen of this republic because I was born in this republic and my parents are citizens or subjects of another place.

    Who’s the real natural born sovereign Citizen?

    Food for thought.

    John Locke:
    “All Kings either are, or are to be reputed, the next Heirs to those first Progenitors, who were at first the Natural Parents of the whole People,”

    Wiki:
    “Succession to the British throne is governed both by common law and statute. Under common law the crown is passed on by male-preference primogeniture.”

  190. avatar
    misha March 7, 2011 at 4:54 am #

    MichaelN: Who’s the real natural born sovereign Citizen?

    I see your, nc1’s, and slcraig’s concerns all the time. Where are your concerns about the possibility that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990?

    Why haven’t you addressed the persistent internet rumor that barnyard animals become skittish when Joseph Farah is near? Where is your concern that Orly Taitz might have been a streetwalker in Moldova?

    I’ll tell you what you are engaging in: tribalism.

  191. avatar
    MichaelN March 7, 2011 at 5:35 am #

    misha: I see your, nc1′s, and slcraig’s concerns all the time. Where are your concerns about the possibility that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990?

    Why haven’t you addressed the persistent internet rumor that barnyard animals become skittish when Joseph Farah is near? Where is your concern that Orly Taitz might have been a streetwalker in Moldova?

    I’ll tell you what you are engaging in: tribalism.

    Have you thought about starting another thread about your weird concerns in these matters?

    This one’s about Calvin’s case.

    Maybe you should return whatever your using and get your money back.

    Are things sorta swirling around and all rainbow like?

    Let me guess, you have a kombi with flowers painted all over it?

  192. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 7, 2011 at 5:50 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: And it is to be observed, that it is nec c¦lum, nec solum, neither the soil, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born; for come into the realm, and possess town or fort, and have issue the subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject protection of the King.

    Yes, he is truncating but in all fairness to MichaelN, the quote seems to be “he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King”. No use trying to convince him that the last part after “nor” is crucial, of course.

    To understand the context, Coke used the “nec caelum nec solum” argument based on the fact that people born in Calais and Tournai when they were English possessions were considered under the laws of England to be natural born subjects of the King of England.

    Even though Calais was on French soil and Tournai on the river Scheldt was half French, half German.

    In other words, do not read too much into Coke’s assertion of neither climate nor soil, actual protection of the King is what counts – and that means place and time are the major factors – blood only plays its part when the father is an “unfriendly” alien, and therefore not under the protection.

  193. avatar
    Lupin March 7, 2011 at 7:27 am #

    I refrain from commenting on matters about which I know nothing (such as British Law) but at the risk of being naive, I still don’t quite see the relevance of all this.

    For instance, French citizenship was only granted to Jews, Protestants and people of color in 1789, 90 and 91. (Jews from the South first, then the East.) Anyway, it’s all very interesting from a historical standpoint, but it has absolutely zero relevance today. No one would build a case based on such things.

    Whether MichaelN (whose argument I confess I fail to grasp) is correct or not, it still as devoid of practical significance just as if I tried using a loophole in the Law of December 27 1791 to try to show that some Jews from, say, a small section of the Alsace are not actually French.

    If this is a historical discussion, why not? If it is deemed to have any relevance to President Obama’s legitimacy it is sheer lunacy.

  194. avatar
    misha March 7, 2011 at 7:27 am #

    MichaelN: Have you thought about starting another thread about your weird concerns in these matters?

    Sure, just like Glenn Beck – refusing to acknowledge involvment in a heinous crime, and then changing the subject.

    MichaelN: Are things sorta swirling around and all rainbow like?

    No, they just swirl around through Glenn Beck’s new glasses.

    MichaelN: Let me guess, you have a kombi with flowers painted all over it?

    No, I drove one in college. It’s been replaced by a Cruze.

  195. avatar
    misha March 7, 2011 at 8:09 am #

    Lupin: If it is deemed to have any relevance to President Obama’s legitimacy it is sheer lunacy.

    That’s exactly what I have been wondering. Concepts and laws from centuries ago in England, Greece and every place else, are somehow applicable to Obama.

    What are these people going to do when Cory Booker announces for ’16? Booker was born in DC, and that’s not a state – Al Gore was born there, too.

  196. avatar
    misha March 7, 2011 at 8:11 am #

    MichaelN: Let me guess, you have a kombi with flowers painted all over it?

    I was a Trotskyite in college. You are lucky I have calmed down.

  197. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 7, 2011 at 8:56 am #

    MichaelN: It clearly says born under the ligeance..’.I.e. the father must be to be such…, the father must according to Coke have ligeance.it’s dependent on the father being the father …It means sanguinis is essential to make a follow-the-lead belief.I know how the follow-the-pack flat earth believers felt when they found out the earth was spherical.Shock horror.

    Yeah it clearly says that if you remove words that give meaning to the entire passage. It says of a subject protection. That changes the entire meaning of that sentence. You continue to show yourself to be a dishonest hack and I’m sure you’re pretty close to getting nailed for the same thing draggingcanoe, dancingrabbit, etc got nailed for and that is falsifying quotes from cases or authorities. Truncating quotes is up there with falsifying quotes. But I’ll play your game, see how easy it is up above.

  198. avatar
    Judge Mental March 7, 2011 at 9:24 am #

    One thing appears consistent to the likes of Polarik, slcaig and the Michaelin’s etc….to a man they all seem to have convinced themselves that they are likely to be debating only with half-wits.

    Nothing else can really explain why they would think for a nanosecond that their wholly transparent and utterly disingenuous attempts to tamper with potential evidence or with supporting citations wouldn’t be instantly recognised as such by anyone with even a modicum of intelligence and observation skills.

  199. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 7, 2011 at 9:33 am #

    Lupin: If this is a historical discussion, why not? If it is deemed to have any relevance to President Obama’s legitimacy it is sheer lunacy.

    Agreed. All this is ultimately only relevant in as far as it is related to how people interpreted “natural born subject” in 1787.

    If you detach yourself a little bit from the debate, it is easy to see that MichaelN is actually claiming everybody, including therefore the writers of the US constitution, got the meaning of “natural born subject” wrong.

    But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand (yes, MichaelN, you are not the only one who can pun on the word subject). If MichaelN really believes his view is correct, he should leave the birfer scene and write an academic book explaining why everyone has been wrong since 1608.

    Remember what Snoopy said, however: “Those who CAN, DO. Those who CANNOT, TEACH. Those who cannot teach, write books about it.”

  200. avatar
    Scientist March 7, 2011 at 9:48 am #

    Lupin: I agree with you. The world changes and the meaning of words changes. Let’s look at a few examples from the US Constitution:

    1. Freedom of the press-In 1788, “press” meant newspapers, magaines and pamphlets only. Does that mean censorship of radio, TV, the internet, EMail, twitters, etc. are permitted? Of course not.

    2. The right to keep and bear arms. In 1788, there were no rifles or anything resemblling modern guns. Can Congress ban all guns that didn’t exist iin 1788? Magic 8 ball says doubtful.

    3. Congress is given the right to raise and support armies and provide and maintain a Navy. Does that mean the Air Force is unconstiitutional? Sorry, try again.

    It just amazes me that anyone would give a vote in modern electoral contests to dead English judges or even dead Americans in short pants and wigs. Only living people get a vote.

  201. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 7, 2011 at 9:52 am #

    MichaelN: To use your logic, Calvin’s father apparently owned land, therefore Calvin’s father was a subject’.

    THIS needs an urgent refutation.

    Two reasons why this claim is garbage:

    1) how do we know Calvin was not set to inherit property from his mother’s side?

    2) “an alien could become a denizen, which meant that he had been “enfranchised here in England by the Prince’s charter, and enabled . . . to do as the King’s native subjects do: namely, to purchase, and to possess lands, to be capable of any office or dignity”

    http://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/9YJLH73.htm

    So he could purchase and possess, but not pass on to a child not born in the country. And I am sure you knew that. What does that make you, Michael?

  202. avatar
    JoZeppy March 7, 2011 at 10:00 am #

    MichaelN: Who’s the real natural born sovereign Citizen

    Oh dear….could MichaelN also be a sovereign citizen nut? Considering he thinks it makes sense that in 400 years of jurisprudence, everyone who studied the law has somehow come to the wrong interpretation of Calvin’s Case, and that he, without any legal training whatsoever, suddenly found the meaning that had gone unnoticed for 4 centuires, it really would not surprise me that he also believes other junk law like “sovereign citizen” bunk?

  203. avatar
    G March 7, 2011 at 10:34 am #

    JoZeppy: Oh dear….could MichaelN also be a sovereign citizen nut? Considering he thinks it makes sense that in 400 years of jurisprudence, everyone who studied the law has somehow come to the wrong interpretation of Calvin’s Case, and that he, without any legal training whatsoever, suddenly found the meaning that had gone unnoticed for 4 centuires, it really would not surprise me that he also believes other junk law like “sovereign citizen” bunk?

    There sure seems to be a lot of sovereign citizen nuts amongst the birthers… once you go crazy, it seems like any kind of crazy will do…

  204. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 7, 2011 at 11:58 am #

    JoZeppy: Oh dear….could MichaelN also be a sovereign citizen nut? Considering he thinks it makes sense that in 400 years of jurisprudence, everyone who studied the law has somehow come to the wrong interpretation of Calvin’s Case, and that he, without any legal training whatsoever, suddenly found the meaning that had gone unnoticed for 4 centuires, it really would not surprise me that he also believes other junk law like “sovereign citizen” bunk?

    Wouldn’t suprise me, after all NC1 is one was well

  205. avatar
    Bovril March 7, 2011 at 1:45 pm #

    MichaelN is not your classic Sovvie muppet….he’s Australian (Fogbow/Politijab passim)

    Personally I think his ancestors got the “free passage” over to Oz and he and his have been arsey ever since.

    So clasically he’s a drongo chundering up a Bondi Cigar.

  206. avatar
    misha March 7, 2011 at 1:57 pm #

    Bovril: MichaelN is ….Australian

    I knew he was overseas. He called a VW bus, a ‘kombi.’

  207. avatar
    MichaelN March 7, 2011 at 3:47 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: when the father is

    Operative words.

    The father’s status matters.

    It’s that simple.

  208. avatar
    misha March 7, 2011 at 3:50 pm #

    MichaelN: The father’s status matters.

    Glenn Beck’s silence is what matters.

  209. avatar
    MichaelN March 7, 2011 at 4:01 pm #

    Slartibartfast: You inserted a word which changed the meaning of the passage – were you being incompetent or dishonest?The local ligeance’ of the Frenchman is strong enough to MAKE a natural subject i.e. the Frenchman, based on his temporary and local ligeance, can produce a natural born subject – A CHILD.The local ligeance, however, is not strong enough to make the Frenchman a subject in any sense (naturalized or natural born).Once again it is pointed out that your reasoning is flawed (namely you inserted a word which changed the meaning of the passage).If you want to lay claim to any shred of intellectual honesty, please admit that you were wrong.

    Think!

    “The third is ligeantia localis46 wrought by the law, and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is there, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other. ”

    “And therefore it is holden in 20 H. 7, 8. that there is a liege or ligeance between the King and the subject.”

    “a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 for he owed to the King a local obedience”

    The Frenchman was a ‘natural subject by’ the Law of Nature.

  210. avatar
    James M March 7, 2011 at 4:11 pm #

    All I can say is “good luck” if your last hope of getting Congress to impeach President Obama rests on a convoluted story about Kings and Frenchmen as old as Old Bushmill’s.

    Hint: It’s not going to happen.

  211. avatar
    misha March 7, 2011 at 4:20 pm #

    James M: as old as Old Bushmill’s

    Hey, don’t drag my favorite whisky into this.

  212. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 7, 2011 at 4:47 pm #

    MichaelN: Think!

    “The third is ligeantia localis46 wrought by the law, and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is there, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other. ”

    “And therefore it is holden in 20 H. 7, 8. that there is a liege or ligeance between the King and the subject.”

    “a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 for he owed to the King a local obedience”

    The paragraphs you quoted to not appear together in the original. Further the argument you are trying to make is a formal logical fallacy.

    You are claiming that the existence of a legiance between subject and king implies that there is legiance ONLY between subject and king. Calvin’s case is full of explanations of other types of legiance involving aliens.

    In England there were three classes: subjects, denizens and aliens. There is no overlap.

    You don’t understand logic; you won’t accept authority; it’s crazy to attempt to argue with such a person.

  213. avatar
    Scientist March 7, 2011 at 5:10 pm #

    MichaelN: The father’s status matters.
    It’s that simple.

    No it doesn’t. Not to anyone. That’s even simpler.

  214. avatar
    Scientist March 7, 2011 at 5:11 pm #

    MichaelN: Try this. The guy who wins the election gets to be President. Period. The losers can try again in 4 years.

  215. avatar
    Keith March 7, 2011 at 5:11 pm #

    misha: I knew he was overseas. He called a VW bus, a ‘kombi.’

    So did I when I owned one in Tucson where I grew up.

    I now live in Australia and don’t call them anything, because they don’t exist anymore.

    Panel Vans and Utes are everywhere, but, alas, no Kombis

  216. avatar
    misha March 7, 2011 at 5:15 pm #

    Scientist: The losers can try again in 4 years.

    Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. Better get used to it.

  217. avatar
    misha March 7, 2011 at 5:18 pm #

    Keith: I now live in Australia

    Hoover lived in Austrailia. His 14 years were cumulative, not consecutive, like Eisenhower’s.

  218. avatar
    obsolete March 7, 2011 at 5:22 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You don’t understand logic; you won’t accept authority; it’s crazy to attempt to argue with such a person.

    Don’t forget he also truncates quotes and adds words to change the meaning.
    He has discovered that 400 years of law are wrong, and cases like Wong and Ankeny were decided wrong because they are based on this 400 year old error.
    From his mom’s attic in Australia, he alone has discovered the truth in a 400 year old case that will bring down the entire western concept of law, not to mention our current and past Presidents. The world turned upside-down.

  219. avatar
    misha March 7, 2011 at 5:27 pm #

    obsolete: From his mom’s attic in Australia

    If he was in Paris, it would be from his garret.

  220. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 7, 2011 at 5:28 pm #

    misha: I knew he was overseas. He called a VW bus, a ‘kombi.’

    What do you mean, he never shouted “Oi, oi, oi” ? Not a real Ozzie then.

  221. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 7, 2011 at 6:14 pm #

    MichaelN: Operative words.

    The father’s status matters.

    It’s that simple.

    Bignoting and grinning like a shot fox, you are. That claim is a cactus. The status only matters when the father is an unfriendly alien: a foreign diplomat or an invading soldier. Obama’s father was neither.

    You have been sprung here too, Michael, your arguments have been found to be rorting, shonky and earbashing bowls of rice devoid of deadset. You do not even notice that the Obots are barracking you on for enjoyment. And a ripper rage it is.

    Of course we’re all waiting for you to jump into your Vee dub (did you really call it a kombi?) and bail out. So MichaelN, throw a sickie, have a smoko. Have a root.

  222. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 7, 2011 at 6:22 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: Of course we’re all waiting for you to jump into your Vee dub (did you really call it a kombi?) and bail out. So MichaelN, throw a sickie, have a smoko. Have a root.

    Sorry, forgot. Write a book. Many people here will love reading it.

    And no, I am not telling you to go away, mate. Just get out and have a Captain Cook instead of Lord Coke. At all the nice things in life.

  223. avatar
    Daniel March 7, 2011 at 6:24 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: Of course we’re all waiting for you to jump into your Vee dub (did you really call it a kombi?) and bail out. So MichaelN, throw a sickie, have a smoko. Have a root.

    “Top-hole. Bally Jerry, pranged his kite right in the how’s-your-father; hairy blighter, dicky-birded, feathered back on his sammy, took a waspy, flipped over on his Betty Harpers and caught his can in the Bertie.” Eric Idle

  224. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 7, 2011 at 6:38 pm #

    misha: If he was in Paris, it would be from his garret.

    Around here it would be a “bonus room.”

  225. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 7, 2011 at 6:46 pm #

    MichaelN: Think!

    First and last warning – if you continue to debate in bad faith, I’ll go back to insulting you. I’m giving you a chance to prove that you are not the dishonest person that your previous behavior suggests and so far you have just given us more evidence that you are exactly what you appear to be – a birther trying to push lies and propaganda as truth.

    “The third is ligeantia localis46 wrought by the law, and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is there, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other. ”

    Okay – so when an alien comes into England in amity, he has the ligeance of a subject (please note that he IS NOT A SUBJECT (at least this passage doesn’t say he is, other passages say he isn’t and no passages unearthed to date say differently) – he just has the ligeance of a subject while in England).

    “And therefore it is holden in 20 H. 7, 8. that there is a liege or ligeance between the King and the subject.”

    Yes, we all know that there is ligeance between the king and his subjects – that DOES NOT mean that there CAN NOT BE ligeance between the king and non-subjects.

    “a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 for he owed to the King a local obedience”

    The Frenchman was a natural subject by’ the Law of Nature.

    No he was not. He owed the King a ‘local obedience’ or ‘ligeance’ (by the strength of which he can be charged with treason) but the only subjects mentioned in this passage are his co-conspiritors.

    Okay, so here’s the whole argument so everyone is on the same page: If Michael weighs the same as a duck, then he is made of wood, and therefore he is a witch and we can BURN HIM! (I mean this metaphorically, but if you once more show that yourself unworthy, I’m going to flame you until you are well-done… and I’m guessing that I will not be the only one! ;-))

  226. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 7, 2011 at 6:49 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Around here it would be a “bonus room.”

    Is that a southern thing? I never knew anyone with a bonus room until my sister moved to North Carolina…

  227. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 7, 2011 at 6:57 pm #

    MichaelN: Operative words. The father’s status matters. It’s that simple.

    Yes, the father’s status matters. If he does not have a local and temporary ligeance to the King then the son is not natural born. Beyond that, any child born on the soil of England is a natural born subject of the King.

  228. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 7, 2011 at 7:17 pm #

    MichaelN:
    Person A, who is born in the land of a republic where the citizens are sovereign, says
    I am a natural born Citizen of this republic because my parents are sovereign Citizens of this republic and I am born in this republic of my parents’.

    In fact, at least if you are referring to the United States, only one of those things need be true (blood OR soil).

    Person B, who is born in the same land of a republic where his parents are not sovereign citizens of the republic, says I am a natural born Citizen of this republic because I was born in this republic and my parents are citizens or subjects of another place.

    And he’s right – unless his parents are diplomats or enemies.

    Who’s the real natural born sovereign Citizen?

    Clearly both are natural born.

    Food for thought.

    Not a very good meal, but there are my thoughts (which are in agreement with everyone who matters).

    John Locke:
    “All Kings either are, or are to be reputed, the next Heirs to those first Progenitors, who were at first the Natural Parents of the whole People,”
    Wiki:
    “Succession to the British throne is governed both by common law and statute. Under common law the crown is passed on by male-preference primogeniture.”

    Don’y you understand that there is a difference between a subject and the sovereign? By the way, the King is not a subject, yet his children – wherever they may be born – are subjects. By the logic that you are using, this means that no children of subjects are themselves subjects – so is this the case or is your logic fallacious?

    MichaelN: [To Misha] Have you thought about starting another thread about your weird concerns in these matters?

    Have you thought about the fact that you are Doc C’s guest here and really shouldn’t be telling others what they can and cannot do? You do realize that the Doc is the only one that can start a new thread… right?

    This one’s about Calvin’s case.

    At least Misha doesn’t lie and propagandize excessively, like you do. Why does he bug you so?

    Maybe you should return whatever your using and get your money back.

    This may have been a devastating attack in your mind, but it got lost in translation…

    Are things sorta swirling around and all rainbow like?
    Let me guess, you have a kombi with flowers painted all over it?

    Again, not much of an insult…

  229. avatar
    MichaelN March 7, 2011 at 8:27 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Yes, the father’s status matters.If he does not have a local and temporary ligeance to the King then the son is not natural born.Beyond that, any child born on the soil of England is a natural born subject of the King.

    It’s about time you found the ability to reason, yes the subject status of the father matters.

    The father has the local ligeance, he is a subject of the king, and because he is a subject, then his child if born in the realm is a NBS.

    That’s why it should be easy to deduce, that if the alien born father did not have the ligeance as a subject, then his child would not be “born under the ligeance of a subject” & would thus not be a NBS, even though the father is alien born and can purchase land, but cannot inherit.

    That’s why the Frenchman’s child was a NBS, because of the ligeance of the subject father, which was due by the Law of Nature.

    And that’s why the NBS child is such, due by two qualities, i.e. nature/procreation and birthright.

    The NBS child would be inheritable but in this instance of an alien born father, there would be nothing to inherit from the father, so the child must make his own way or be gifted property.

  230. avatar
    MichaelN March 7, 2011 at 8:42 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Okay, so here’s the whole argument so everyone is on the same page:If Michael weighs the same as a duck, then he is made of wood, and therefore he is a witch and we can BURN HIM!(I mean this metaphorically, but if you once more show that yourself unworthy, I’m going to flame you until you are well-done… and I’m guessing that I will not be the only one! )

    FAIL!

    Think again!

    “Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of THE SUBJECTS’S part. ”

    “And therefore we daily see, that when either Ireland or any other of his Majesty’s dominions be infested with invasion or insurrection, the king of England sendeth his subjects out of England, and his subjects out of Scotland also into Ireland, for the withstanding or suppressing of the same, to the end his rebels may feel the swords of either nation. And so may his subjects of Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Man, &c. be commanded to make their swords good against either rebel or enemy, as occasion shall be offered: whereas IF NATURAL LIGEANCE OF THE SUBJECTS OF ENGLAND SHOULD BE LOCAL, that is, confined within the realm of England or Scotland, &c. then were not they bound to goe out of the continent of the realm of England or Scotland, &c.”

  231. avatar
    MichaelN March 7, 2011 at 8:42 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Okay, so here’s the whole argument so everyone is on the same page:If Michael weighs the same as a duck, then he is made of wood, and therefore he is a witch and we can BURN HIM!(I mean this metaphorically, but if you once more show that yourself unworthy, I’m going to flame you until you are well-done… and I’m guessing that I will not be the only one! )

    FAIL!

    Think again!

    “Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of THE SUBJECT’S part. ”

    “And therefore we daily see, that when either Ireland or any other of his Majesty’s dominions be infested with invasion or insurrection, the king of England sendeth his subjects out of England, and his subjects out of Scotland also into Ireland, for the withstanding or suppressing of the same, to the end his rebels may feel the swords of either nation. And so may his subjects of Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Man, &c. be commanded to make their swords good against either rebel or enemy, as occasion shall be offered: whereas IF NATURAL LIGEANCE OF THE SUBJECTS OF ENGLAND SHOULD BE LOCAL, that is, confined within the realm of England or Scotland, &c. then were not they bound to goe out of the continent of the realm of England or Scotland, &c.”

  232. avatar
    MichaelN March 7, 2011 at 8:46 pm #

    Slartibartfast:

    FAIL!

    Think again!

    “Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of THE SUBJECT’S part. ”

    “And therefore we daily see, that when either Ireland or any other of his Majesty’s dominions be infested with invasion or insurrection, the king of England sendeth his subjects out of England, and his subjects out of Scotland also into Ireland, for the withstanding or suppressing of the same, to the end his rebels may feel the swords of either nation. And so may his subjects of Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Man, &c. be commanded to make their swords good against either rebel or enemy, as occasion shall be offered: whereas IF NATURAL LIGEANCE OF THE SUBJECTS OF ENGLAND SHOULD BE LOCAL, that is, confined within the realm of England or Scotland, &c. then were not they bound to goe out of the continent of the realm of England or Scotland, &c.”

  233. avatar
    obsolete March 7, 2011 at 9:19 pm #

    MichaelN,
    Thanks for pre-labeling your posts with “FAIL!”, it saves us the trouble of doing it.

  234. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 7, 2011 at 9:28 pm #

    MichaelN: “Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of THE SUBJECT’S part. ”

    That and the other say that a subject may have a local allegiance, not that local allegiance makes a subject. Sorry, but this and your other citation does not support your absurd contention that a Frenchman visiting England becomes a “natural subject” the moment he arrives.

    Why don’t you try to find a citation that catalogs the different kinds of subjects. Surely a case that deals with who is and who is not a natural born subject should list distinctly and define each type.

    And by the way, while you’re answering, how about that question you’ve been asked half a dozen times about how you think the Frenchman in Calvin’s case and Barack Obama Sr. are different?

  235. avatar
    James M March 8, 2011 at 12:02 am #

    misha: Hey, don’t drag my favorite whisky into this.

    Oh don’t worry! There’s a reason why it’s the first thing that comes to my mind with regard to the relevance of the year 1608 😉

  236. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 12:33 am #

    MichaelN: It’s about time you found the ability to reason, yes the subject status of the father matters.

    This is how you’re starting off a$$wipe? That doesn’t seem like an action in good faith to me. The next time you demonstrate your reasoning and critical thinking skills will be the first. If we can agree to exclude the cases of enemy aliens and foreign diplomats, then we can say that the subject status of the father has nothing (else) to do with the subject status of the child – all children born on the soil are subjects.

    The father has the local ligeance, he is a subject of the king, and because heis a subject, then his child if born in the realm is a NBS.

    Not true – local ligeance is not the same as being a subject. Every time you try to imply that you are lying. Every single person at this site besides you knows that you are lying your a$$ off and if you want to have any prayer of changing their minds you will have to find evidence that supports your interpretation – evidence that does not exist (think I’m wrong – prove it. Until you can do that everyone here will treat you like the lying wanktard you are…). Since you can’t produce evidence that your interpretation is shared by anyone but the voices in your head, this goes down as your first logical fallacy… moron.

    That’s why it should be easy to deduce, that if the alien born father did not have the ligeance AS a subject, then his child would not be “born under the ligeance of a subject” & would thus not be a NBS, even though the father is alien born and can purchase land, but cannot inherit.

    Once again, you’ve changed a critical word – it’s ‘OF’ not ‘AS’. Once again, for a child to be ‘born under the ligeance of a subject’ does not necessarily mean that the child’s father is a subject – in fact, every child born on the soil is born under the ligeance of a subject except children of invaders or diplomats. That’s another example of bad faith… more evidence putting you in the ‘ignorant, lying birther’ bin – just one more piece of scum floating in the cesspool.

    That’s why the Frenchman’s child was a NBS, because of the ligeance of the subject father, which was due by the Law of Nature.

    And yet you continually refuse to answer how the status of the Frenchman differs from that of the president’s father (and you have avoided mention of Dr. Dunham like the plague – probably because you know that even if your juvenile and pathetic arguments were true that the president’s mother (since she was legally unmarried) transmitted citizenship to her son regardless of where he was born. So that up to five examples of bad faith – you’ve been a naughty little boy. We’ll score that as a double – that’s 5 examples of you being a stupid, ignorant, bigoted, lying turd already and we’re not done yet…

    And that’s why the NBS child is such, due by two qualities, i.e. nature/procreation and birthright.

    Two qualities – ligeance of the father (which does not require that the father be a subject – despite your pathetic lies to the contrary) and birth upon the soil. And if you’re keeping score at home, the score is 2 for the President’s natural born status, 0 examples of you acting in good faith, and a half dozen cases of you showing why you are a festering boil who deserves nothing but contempt for the bigoted, ignorant lies with which you try to smear the lawful POTUS.

    The NBS child would be inheritable but in this instance of an alien born father, there would be nothing to inherit from the father, so the child must make his own way or be gifted property.

    Once again we have an interpretation pulled out of your a$$ that has no support whatsoever outside of your febrile delusions. What a complete waste of a human being you are (which isd really par for the course amongst the birtherstani). It’s not very surprising – in all of the time that I’ve been coming to this site, Doc has offered honest debate based on the facts to any and all, but none of you sniveling, seditious birther scumbags have been able to perform. Why are birthers like you so impotent when it comes to qualities like intellectual honesty, integrity, intelligence, and knowledge? I think it’s because your minds have putrified into vacuous swamps of decay because you’ve strangled any bit of integrity or honesty you might have once had before it could threaten your confirmation bias or your bigotry… What an infantile piece of dung you have made of yourself – I’d say you should be ashamed, but I’m guessing that you lack the slightest awareness of the mountains of shame you bring on yourself and anyone dumb enough to associate themselves with you. The only question now is how long will it take for your cowardice to overwhelm your dishonesty and send you running off with your tail between your legs…

    Well, I guess that’s about it – you’ve been judged and found to be a sniveling, lying, stupid, ignorant, a$$hole – in short you are a perfect example of a birhter. The only thing that I can see that distinguishes you from the other birthers is that most of them aren’t stupid enough to try to push a theory which is obviously and blatently contradicted by 400 years of jurisprudence and commentary – and some of them believe in lizard people! So be sure your tinfoil hat is up to code as you sit in a dark corner festering in your own waste too scared of chemtrails and lizard people to emerge from under your rock – you wouldn’t want those orbital mind control lasers to get to you like they’ve gotten to every lawyer and judge for the past 400 years… What a feckless wienie of a whackjob you are.

  237. avatar
    MichaelN March 8, 2011 at 1:36 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: That and the other say that a subject may have a local allegiance, not that local allegiance makes a subject. Sorry, but this and your other citation does not support your absurd contention that a Frenchman visiting England becomes a “natural subject” the moment he arrives.

    Why don’t you try to find a citation that catalogs the different kinds of subjects. Surely a case that deals with who is and who is not a natural born subject should list distinctly and define each type.

    And by the way, while you’re answering, how about that question you’ve been asked half a dozen times about how you think the Frenchman in Calvin’s case and Barack Obama Sr. are different?

    Correction:

    The Frenchman had local ligeance and obediance, which was not the same as the ligeance of a NBS.

    The subject with local ligeance is only an alien & is referred to as a subject.

    “Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so THERE IS A LOCAL LIGEANCE ON THE SUBJECT’S PART. And this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. and 3 and 4 Ph. and Mar. Dyer 144. Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 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”

    The local ligeance pertained to aliens & not those who had ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita.

    “the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia42a and he that oweth this is called subditus natus.”

    These subditus natus have ligeance everywhere so they are not described as having local ligeance.

    “that the subjects of England are bound by their ligeance to goe with the King, &c. in his wars, as well within the Realm, &c. as without.”

    “That the ligeance of a natural-born subject was not local, and confined only to England.”

    Those who are NOT NBS, are subject with lLOCAL ligeance such as an alien born, here again they are referred to as subjects …………..

    “And therefore we daily see, that when either Ireland or any other of his Majesty’s dominions be infested with invasion or insurrection, the king of England sendeth his subjects out of England, and his subjects out of Scotland also into Ireland, for the withstanding or suppressing of the same, to the end his rebels may feel the swords of either nation. And so may his subjects of Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Man, &c. be commanded to make their swords good against either rebel or enemy, as occasion shall be offered: whereas IF NATURAL LIGEANCE OF THE SUBJECTS OF ENGLAND SHOULD BE LOCAL, that is, confined within the realm of England or Scotland, &c. then were not they bound to goe out of the continent of the realm of England or Scotland, &c.”

    Here I will repeat it, so it sinks in ..

    “That the ligeance of a natural-born subject was not local, and confined only to England.”

    As I have shown you in the above quotes from Coke, ligeance of the alien is local & the alien with this ligeance is referred to as a subject, such a subject that can not be sent to off-shore wars, but a subject all the same, who can purchase land but not inherit.

  238. avatar
    MichaelN March 8, 2011 at 1:50 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy said .

    “And by the way, while you’re answering, how about that question you’ve been asked half a dozen times about how you think the Frenchman in Calvin’s case and Barack Obama Sr. are different?”

    Barack Obama senior was visiting a place that does not automate citizenship to visiting aliens, whereas the Frenchman visiting England was.

    OB senior’s ligeance was not local, because the local ligeance is due ONLY to the sovereign and not the jurisdiction of the law.

    The US doesn’t have any local ligeance in it’s constitution or in it’s laws that cater for aliens to get automated citizenship, the alien or immigrant must apply and get granted citizenship by due process and swear an oath of allegiance.

    But that is another topic & can be argued in another thread, this is about Calvin’s case.

  239. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 1:52 am #

    Michael,

    What a load of horse$hit… You are clearly an inferior grade moron and a troll. Everyone here sees through your pathetic lies and knows you for the ignorant, bigoted imbecile you are. NO ONE BUT YOU refers to ‘the alien with this ligeance’ as a ‘subject’ and even if others did your agreement is strong evidence against any conclusion – empirical evidence suggests that everything you say contains some sort of misunderstanding or lie. Why do you choose to be such a feckless loser? The lies and dishonesty are bad enough, but your complete disregard for reality and your sheer incompetence is staggering. Do you really thing that repeating the same lies over and over even after they have been exposed as misinformation and propaganda is an effective technique to persuade people? Sorry, but the big lie doesn’t work in the face of the truth – you can’t even do propaganda right. What an incompetent, ignorant, idiot you are…

  240. avatar
    Lupin March 8, 2011 at 1:53 am #

    @ MichaelN:

    Once you boiled down your complicated thesis to a simple statement, ie: “the father does matter” (in re citizenships), then I feel I’m on ground solid enough to say categorically, no, he doesn’t, if the mother is a citizen.

    If that is your thesis, you are indeed spectacularly wrong.

  241. avatar
    gorefan March 8, 2011 at 1:57 am #

    MichaelN: “Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so THERE IS A LOCAL LIGEANCE ON THE SUBJECT’S PART. And this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. and 3 and 4 Ph. and Mar. Dyer 144. Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 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”

    You forgot to include this last line,
    ” for if he hath issue here, that issue is (g) a natural born subject;”

    Now why would you leave this important point out of the quote? Actually, I think I know why.

    If I quoted Vattel as saying,

    “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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country”

    would you say I was being intellectually dishonest?

    Stop being dishonest. ok

  242. avatar
    MichaelN March 8, 2011 at 2:03 am #

    @ Dr. C.

    Would you be kind enough to have the idiot who gushes all these disgusting, insulting rants, grow some basic manners?

    It is really not a good look and spoils the thread discussion.

  243. avatar
    MichaelN March 8, 2011 at 2:10 am #

    MichaelN:
    “Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so THERE IS A LOCAL LIGEANCE ON THE SUBJECT’S PART. And this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. and 3 and 4 Ph. and Mar. Dyer 144. Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 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”
    ————————————————————————

    gorefan said

    You forgot to include this last line,
    ” for if he hath issue here, that issue is (g) a natural born subject;”

    Now why would you leave this important point out of the quote? Actually, I think I know why.

    ——————————————————————

    You are just being paranoid.

    I have quoted the full text of this on numerous occasions, in this instance I am emphasizing that fact that the alien is referred to as a subject.

    The Frenchman is an example by Coke, as can be seen, of one with local ligeance, who is referred to as a subject.

    Now YOU be ‘intellectually honest’ and concede to the fact as proven.

  244. avatar
    gorefan March 8, 2011 at 2:10 am #

    MichaelN: The US doesn’t have any local ligeance in it’s constitution or in it’s laws that cater for aliens to get automated citizenship, the alien or immigrant must apply and get granted citizenship by due process and swear an oath of allegiance.

    Except in 1795, when Swift wrote about the laws of Cannecticut and said,
    “The children of aliens born in this state are considerded as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.“

    and

    “Local allegiance is that subjection which every stranger, or foreigner owes to the state, while within its limits. It commences on his entering into the bounds of it, and ceases on his departure. This allegiance is therefore osa temporary nature, and results from the principle that every person owes obedience to a state, and its laws, so long as they afford him protection.”

    And then there is William Rawle,

    “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”

    Compare what they wrote with what Lord Coke and Blackstonr wrote. This was the understanding in the United States.

  245. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 2:14 am #

    MichaelN:
    Dr. Conspiracy said .

    “And by the way, while you’re answering, how about that question you’ve been asked half a dozen times about how you think the Frenchman in Calvin’s case and Barack Obama Sr. are different?”

    Barack Obama senior was visiting a place that does not automate citizenship to visiting aliens, whereas the Frenchman visiting England was.

    OB senior’s ligeance was not local, because the local ligeance is due ONLY to the sovereign and not the jurisdiction of the law.

    The US doesn’t have any local ligeance in it’s constitution or in it’s laws that cater for aliens to get automated citizenship, the alien or immigrant must apply and get granted citizenship by due process and swear an oath of allegiance.

    But that is another topic & can be argued in another thread, this is about Calvin’s case.

    What a complete pile of $hit from someone who’s most impressive talent is flinging his own poo (which you can’t even do without getting as much of it on yourself as you do anywhere else…)

    Michael,

    The relationship between the sovereign and the alien in amity is exactly the same as the relationship between the sovereign citizens of the United States and Barack Obama Sr. while he was in Hawaii. You have no evidence whatsoever that anything different is the case beyond your own opinion which is less than worthless considering the determined effort you’ve made to show that you’re nothing but a lying idiot. How does it feel to know that even if you are right* you’re too incompetent to convince anyone of the truth and if your wrong then you are just another stupid, ignorant, bigoted birther.

    *The odds of which are equivalent to the odds that Lord Coke will show up at Buckingham Palace tomorrow and explain that what he really meant to say in Calvin’s case was that ‘Michael is a stupid, ignorant, bigoted, lying, juvenile, incompetent birther wanktard – which is a pity (I’m sure that if he read your posts here he would agree completely, however…)

  246. avatar
    MichaelN March 8, 2011 at 2:17 am #

    Lupin:
    @ MichaelN:

    Once you boiled down your complicated thesis to a simple statement, ie: “the father does matter” (in re citizenships), then I feel I’m on ground solid enough to say categorically, no, he doesn’t, if the mother is a citizen.

    If that is your thesis, you are indeed spectacularly wrong.

    Lupin.

    We are first dealing with Calvin’s case, in which it is only the father’s status as a subject that matters.

    You are straying into Obamaland and US citizenship.

    That can follow once we get past this issue.

    So I take it you concede that in Calvin’s case, according to Lord Coke the subject status of the father does matter in determining who or who cannot be a NBS?

  247. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 2:29 am #

    MichaelN:
    @ Dr. C.

    Would you be kind enough to have the idiot who gushes all these disgusting, insulting rants, grow some basic manners?

    Doc has tried to enforce civility in the past and I’m sure he would prefer it if I wasn’t so rude to you (Doc, I do apologize – to you – for this, but apparently Michael rubbed me the wrong way and I’ve got some steam to blow off… sorry), but the fact is that you have just brought this upon yourself. You’ve justified every attack I’ve made on you via the propaganda and lies you have tried to spread in your comments. I’ll even give you one more chance – apologize for your lies and admit your ignorance and I will knock it off – otherwise I’ll keep up the fire that you’ve invited upon yourself until I get distracted by something shiny.

    It is really not a good look and spoils the thread discussion.

    Incessantly repeating the same incompetent lies does not constitute a discussion, so there is nothing here that you haven’t already spoiled. It’s not my fault that no one taught you not to $hit where you eat…

  248. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 2:33 am #

    MichaelN: Lupin.

    We are first dealing with Calvin’s case, in which it is only the father’s status as a subject that matters.

    You are straying into Obamaland and US citizenship.

    That can follow once we get past this issue.

    So I take it you concede that in Calvin’s case, according to Lord Coke the subject status of the father does matter in determining who or who cannot be a NBS?

    I’ve already told you that if you just want to look at Calvin’s case as an abstract legal exercise, then admit that President Obama is a natural born citizen who legitimately holds his office. The fact that you have refused to do so is proof positive that you are a birther (as if we needed any more proof of that…).

  249. avatar
    MichaelN March 8, 2011 at 2:37 am #

    gorefan: Except in 1795, when Swift wrote about the laws of Cannecticut and said,
    “The children of aliens born in this state are considerded as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.“

    and

    “Local allegiance is that subjection which every stranger, or foreigner owes to the state, while within its limits.It commences on his entering into the bounds of it, and ceases on his departure. This allegiance is therefore osa temporary nature, and results from the principle that every person owes obedience to a state, and its laws, so long as they afford him protection.”

    And then there is William Rawle,

    “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”

    Compare what they wrote with what Lord Coke and Blackstonr wrote.This was the understanding in the United States.

    It was the opinion of two people who didn’t frame the USC.

    Look, there is no point drifting into what resulted from various interpretations or understandings of English common law, we are looking AT the English common law for starters.

    As a brief aside, here is what William Rawle said of the USC .

    ” The true rule therefore seems to be no other than

    that which is applied in all cases of impartial and correct exposition;

    which is to DEDUCE THE MEANING FROM ITS KNOWN INTENTION and its entire

    text, and to give effect, if possible, to every part of it, consistently

    with the unity, and the harmony of the whole.”

    Now you must agree that the intention of the framers was to protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim …………. right?

  250. avatar
    MichaelN March 8, 2011 at 2:43 am #

    Well? ………….. do you concede that the alien Frenchman, referred to by Coke, was a subject according to Coke?

    It’s been proven to you, now why can’t you accept this fact?

  251. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 2:52 am #

    MichaelN:
    Well? ………….. do you concede thatthe alien Frenchman, referred to by Coke, was a subject according to Coke?

    It’s been proven to you, now why can’t you accept this fact?

    You haven’t proven Jack about the Frenchman being a subject (to do that you would need to show that ‘in the ligeance of a subject’ means the same thing as ‘a subject’ – something that you are far too much of a coward to address. The only thing that you’ve managed to prove is what a dishonest and deceitful person you are… (well, that and your ignorance and stupidity).

  252. avatar
    gorefan March 8, 2011 at 3:20 am #

    MichaelN: It was the opinion of two people who didn’t frame the USC.

    Then how about showing us a statement from a framer that indicates a different opinion from Swift or Rawle.

    I’ll start you off:

    Swift, “It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born.”

    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;’

  253. avatar
    MichaelN March 8, 2011 at 3:34 am #

    Here’s an example of the ‘high allegiance’ of a ‘natural born subject’ and how it applies.

    Coke – Calvin’s case:

    “There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia42a and he that oweth this is called subditus natus.43”

    [42. ][Ed.: natural, absolute, pure and unlimited allegiance.]

    [42a. ][Ed.: high allegiance.]

    Hence the ‘high allegiance’ of the ambassadors was without doubt whereas the other ligeances were lacking by comparison.

    Such ‘high allegiance’ saw fit to dispense with any notion of soli as the criteria for NBS status.

    The parents’ ligeance of a alta ligeantia child was rock solid, so the NBS, due by procreation and birthjright, born of the trusted ambassadors, relied only on the ligeance of the parents with total; disregard to soli.

    “And therefore if any of the king’s Ambassadors in forein Nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the Common Laws of England they are natural born subjects, and yet they are born out of the king’s dominions.”

    It’s not that they were ambassadors, but the fact that they were of ‘highest ligeance’ that they were ambassadors & their children were NBS wherever they were because of that.

    Although the alien by local ligeance could make a natural born subject, his NBS child was born under a ligeance that was ‘extremely uncertain’, but the NBS status of such an alien subject at least gave the child right of inheritance, which is what NBS status was really about.

    “[53. ][Ed.: local allegiance is something mean and small, and extremely uncertain.]”

  254. avatar
    MichaelN March 8, 2011 at 3:50 am #

    gorefan: Then how about showing us a statement from a framer that indicates a different opinion from Swift or Rawle.

    I’ll start you off:

    Swift, “It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born.”

    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;’

    Political writers?

    According to Coke, the ligeance is owed only to the sovereign king, not the parliament or the jurisdiction of the law.

    If Madison didn’t notice the statements made by Coke that I have found, then it would be no surprise he would think & say this.

    What do you think Madison would have said when he read…

    “Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right,”

    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”

    I think he would have said something completely different.

    Do you suppose Madison didn’t notice those parts?

    Or do you suppose Madison was swayed by an agenda to weaken the standard set?

    There are other quotes that suggest sangiunis as an essential quality for NBC.

    As I have previously said, you can have a cite-the-opinion session til the cows come home, the point is what did Coke mean by.

    A NBS is such ‘by nature and birthright’

    ‘Calvin the plaintiff, naturalized by procreation and birthright’

    ‘that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject’

    No ligeance to the sovereign king (nothing to do with subject to jurisdiction) = no subject = no NBS

  255. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 4:00 am #

    MichaelN: Now you must agree that the intention of the framers was to protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim …………. right?

    The intention of the framers was to protect the presidency from being taken by some out-of-work noble (a common practice at the time for nations with no nobility of their own). There is nothing to suggest that they saw children born on US soil as anything other than natural born US citizens eligible for the presidency – there wasn’t even a concept of illegal aliens in the founders’ day – immigrants were welcome and their children were citizens. That is one of the bedrock principles that America was built on. Since I presume that you are not an American (I certainly hope you are not an American anyway – if you are you have brought shame upon our country), I would note that should you visit here and try to put these ideas into action (i.e. try to usurp our lawful head of state), then the mean and small, and extremely uncertain local and temporary allegiance that you would have to the US would nonetheless be sufficient to make you guilty of treason…

    By the way, your endless repetition of things that you know to be false (unless you are a complete idiot) and your extreme confirmation bias mark you as a birther as surely as if there was a scarlet letter tattooed on your face.

  256. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 4:05 am #

    MichaelN: Political writers?

    According to Coke, the ligeance is owed only to the sovereign king, not the parliament or the jurisdiction of the law.

    If Madison didn’t notice the statements made by Coke that I have found, then it would be no surprise he would think & say this.

    What do you think Madison would have said when he read…

    “Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right,”

    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”

    I think he would have said something completely different.

    Do you suppose Madison didn’t notice those parts?

    Or do you suppose Madison was swayed by an agenda to weaken the standard set?

    There are other quotes that suggest sangiunis as an essential quality for NBC.

    As I have previously said, you can have a cite-the-opinion session til the cows come home, the point is what did Coke mean by.

    A NBS is such by nature and birthright’

    Calvin the plaintiff, naturalized by procreation and birthright’

    that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject’

    No ligeance to the sovereign king (nothing to do with subject to jurisdiction) = no subject = no NBS

    More meaningless blather that you are completely incapable of backing up with any sort of reference which agrees with you. Do you think that you can’t make your case because you are incompetent or is it because you are unequivocally and completely wrong in your interpretation? I think it’s both…

  257. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 4:08 am #

    Michael,

    Why do you keep repeating things you know to be false? Didn’t anyone ever teach you that lying is wrong?

  258. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 4:12 am #

    MichaelN: There are other quotes that suggest sangiunis as an essential quality for NBC.

    I call bull$hit.

    I don’t believe you (and I doubt anyone else does either). If you have quotes suggesting that the founders believed in blood over soil, then prove it, if you can’t (and we all know this is the case – you’re just too much of a coward to admit it) then STFU.

  259. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 8, 2011 at 6:51 am #

    MichaelN:
    Well? ………….. do you concede thatthe alien Frenchman, referred to by Coke, was a subject according to Coke?

    It’s been proven to you, now why can’t you accept this fact?

    I told you so, chaps. You may tell MichaelN myriads of times that the word “him” is missing after “make”, that he is truncating the sentence to make it appear that “make” means “to lead to”, while the part that he omitted clearly indicates that it means “to father, to generate” – the bible of course uses the verb “to beget” – but it will not help.

    There is a reason why the Putz will not put up with him but Orly tolerates him.

    Though even she did not want to use Rogers versus Bellei in her cases against Obama as Michael suggested. Orly can read Wikipedia.

  260. avatar
    Lupin March 8, 2011 at 6:55 am #

    MichaelN: Lupin.

    We are first dealing with Calvin’s case, in which it is only the father’s status as a subject that matters.

    You are straying into Obamaland and US citizenship.

    No we don’t. Your discussion about what Coke said or didn’t say has zero relevance on Obama, US citizenship and/or the eligibility to become President.

    No more than Coke’s has any relevance on the status of the millions of French people (and/or their children who may or may not be dual nationals) who live and work in England today.

    (That is an area about which I feel comfortable making such a statement.)

    If Coke has no demonstrable effect today on modern-day French and British citizens, why should it have any on the American President?

    It is an historical item of some interest, but that’s all.

    You are either ignorant, delusional and/or deceitful.

  261. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 8, 2011 at 7:46 am #

    Slartibartfast: Doc has tried to enforce civility in the past and I’m sure he would prefer it if I wasn’t so rude to you (Doc, I do apologize – to you – for this, but apparently Michael rubbed me the wrong way and I’ve got some steam to blow off… sorry)

    No worries, mate. I am sure that Michael refers to me or Misha. If it refers to me, obviously Michael understands Australian.

    So, Misha, did he really call the Vee Dub a Kombi? Quite an insult, I would say, if MichaelN is Autralian.

    There ‘s no need to be red -haired versus MichaelN. He is nutting out his Obot task of ridiculizing the birfer stand so well that I suspect he is actually the author of the Bomford BC and secretly plotting Nicole Kidman running for US President – as Prime Minister of Australie, heving beaten Julia at the next election, of course.

    Sorry to have dobbed you in, Michael.

  262. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 8, 2011 at 8:31 am #

    Slartibartfast: You haven’t proven Jack about the Frenchman being a subject (to do that you would need to show that in the ligeance of a subject’ means the same thing as a subject’ – something that you are far too much of a coward to address. The only thing that you’ve managed to prove is what a dishonest and deceitful person you are… (well, that and your ignorance and stupidity).

    Michael is confusing the issue entirely. How about we all just tell him to read the whole case and then come back. He still hasn’t done that yet. Local legience is the same as if anyone coming to our country would be subject to our laws upon entering the country. If you commit a crime here you are subject to our laws and their protections even if you’re not a citizen.

  263. avatar
    gorefan March 8, 2011 at 9:48 am #

    MichaelN: Do you suppose Madison didn’t notice those parts?

    I’m sure Madison understood the case (unlike you), that is why he said that allegiance is based on place of birth.

    Pretty arrogant of you to think you know more about the US Constitution then James Madison.

    MichaelN: “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”

    He would absolutely agree that the children of enemy aliens and ambassadors are not natural born.

    Unlike you, Madison did not take statements out of context.

    MichaelN: There are other quotes that suggest sangiunis as an essential quality for NBC.

    And yet you don’t provide them.

    Slartibartfast: No ligeance to the sovereign king (nothing to do with subject to jurisdiction) = no subject = no NBS

    Coming into the country and combined with local allegiance, children become NBS or NBC (in the case of the US).

    So, Michael does an alien that comes into England have the right to vote in Parlimentary elections? or inherit property? If he becomes a subject, then why do they have acts of naturalization?

    In one aspect he does become like a subject, his children become natural born (citizens or subjects).

  264. avatar
    The Magic M March 8, 2011 at 10:28 am #

    MichaelN: It was the opinion of two people who didn’t frame the USC.

    Yet you birthers claim that Vattel (who also didn’t frame the USC) is authoritative on the definition of USC terms?

    Besides, why all the guesswork what the Founders intended and what not? It’s all so easy:

    Step 1. Read the Constitution. (=> “natural born citizen”)
    Step 2. Check the meaning of the term to the general public, not some “secret alternative” (=> same as English Common Law)
    Step 3. Check what ELC says about “natural born subject” => done.

    What you birthers do is:

    Step 1. Define the desired outcome (“Obama is not eligible”)
    Step 2. Read the Constitution.
    Step 3. Realize in horror that it doesn’t support you.
    Step 4. Come up with “creative” ways to try to redefine what the Constitution says. The more, the better.
    Step 5. Get your crap refuted by every sane person on the planet.
    Step 6. Goto Step 4 while dreaming of going to Step 99.

    Step 99. ???
    Step 100. Profit.

    Besides, Michael, as it has been quoted already, even Vattel says “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country”. So you’re done now?

  265. avatar
    Sef March 8, 2011 at 12:23 pm #

    So let me see if I understand MichaelN. He conflates allegiance and jurisdiction and expects his opinion of a centuries old foreign legal decision to take precedence over our own SCOTUS. Does he think that any Frenchman can go to the land of Oz and instantly be a citizen?

    Also, MichaelN could be located anywhere in the world if he is using something like “The Onion Router” (tor) to obfuscate his real IP address.

  266. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 12:32 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: No worries, mate. I am sure that Michael refers to me or Misha. If it refers to me, obviously Michael understands Australian.

    No, Michael was referring to me – he likes me, he really, really likes me… 😉

    So, Misha, did he really call the Vee Dub a Kombi? Quite an insult, I would say, if MichaelN is Autralian.

    He certainly called something a Kombi while implying that Misha was a flower child (not only doesn’t he know the first thing about Calvin’s case, he doesn’t understand how to effectively insult people either – what a putz…).

    There s no need to be red -haired versus MichaelN. He is nutting out his Obot task ofridiculizing the birfer stand so well that I suspect he is actually the author of the Bomford BC and secretly plotting Nicole Kidman running for US President – as Prime Minister of Australie, heving beaten Julia at the next election, of course.

    Sorry to have dobbed you in, Michael.

    I don’t speak your wacky furrin language, so I’m not sure what you’re saying when you lapse into Aussie… I guess I’ll just assume that you’re saying that Michael is a wanktard with the intellectual capacity of roadkill or some such…

    No worries, mate…

    (did I get that right? I’m not very good at speaking furrin… ;-))

  267. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 12:36 pm #

    gorefan (incorrectly – and presumably unintentionally – putting Michael’s words in my mouth…): Slartibartfast: No ligeance to the sovereign king (nothing to do with subject to jurisdiction) = no subject = no NBS

    Get it off me! Get it off me! Get it off me! The stupid – it BURNS!!!

  268. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 12:49 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Michael is confusing the issue entirely.

    Yup. What did you expect a birther to do, tell the truth?

    How about we all just tell him to read the whole case and then come back.

    Oh ye of little faith – his confirmation bias is much stronger than that… Lord Coke could show up on his doorstep tomorrow and explain precisely what Calvin’s case meant and he still wouldn’t change his opinion – look at the birther’s response to Dr. Fukino’s statements and testimony

    He still hasn’t done that yet.

    True, but it wouldn’t change a thing if he had (well, he would probably be able to cut and paste more things out of context… but that’s all)

    Local legience is the same as if anyone coming to our country would be subject to our laws upon entering the country.If you commit a crime here you are subject to our laws and their protections even if you’re not a citizen.

    Says you… and Lord Coke, and Blackstone, and the founders, and every court case on point and…

  269. avatar
    gorefan March 8, 2011 at 1:01 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Slartibartfast:

    Very unintentionally. Sorry about that.

  270. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 1:06 pm #

    Lupin: If Coke has no demonstrable effect today on modern-day French and British citizens, why should it have any on the American President?

    No fair – using logic and reason. You know that Michael is incapable of understanding that…

    It is an historical item of some interest, but that’s all.

    Pretty much – by the way (speaking of historical items), I found your comment about the citizenship status of the children of German soldiers after WW II very insightful. If the birthers understood logic (and admitted that both France and the US are primarily jus soli nations when it comes to citizenship) this would be devastating to their cause – kind of hard to argue that the child of an enemy soldier (who is also a rapist) is a natural born citizen by the child of a legal alien is not…

    [Michael is] either ignorant, delusional and/or deceitful.

    I think he’s pretty much proved that he’s all three… I would throw in stupid and bigoted (all cases of ODS have some sort of bigotry at their root, in my opinion), as well…

  271. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 1:08 pm #

    gorefan: Very unintentionally.Sorry about that.

    No problem, it allowed me to take a gratuitous poke at Michael, so it’s all good…

  272. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 1:18 pm #

    Sef:
    So let me see if I understand MichaelN.

    Be careful, I’m not sure you can truly understand insanity without being insane yourself…

    He conflates allegiance and jurisdiction and expects his opinion of a centuries old foreign legal decision to take precedence over our own SCOTUS.

    Apparently – notice that he quietly avoids any mention of what should be done with the shiny new lies he pulled out of his a$$ (of course all birhters know that any information whatsoever – even if it is irrelevant – should be used to get the evul furrin usurper out of the White House…)

    Does he think that any Frenchman can go to the land of Oz and instantly be a citizen?

    No, it magically only works in England – otherwise President Obama would be natural born by his theory…

    Also, MichaelN could be located anywhere in the world if he is using something like “The Onion Router” (tor) to obfuscate his real IP address.

    Could be, but I doubt he’s that clever…

  273. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 1:25 pm #

    The Magic M: Yet you birthers claim that Vattel (who also didn’t frame the USC) is authoritative on the definition of USC terms?

    Michael’s been trying to hide his birther nature so that he can avoid questions that he can’t answer… like that one.

    Besides, why all the guesswork what the Founders intended and what not? It’s all so easy:

    Step 1. Read the Constitution. (=> “natural born citizen”)
    Step 2. Check the meaning of the term to the general public, not some “secret alternative” (=> same as English Common Law)
    Step 3. Check what ELC says about “natural born subject” => done.

    In order for this to have any effect on the birthers you need to add:

    Step 0. Remove tinfoil hat.

    What you birthers do is:

    Step 1. Define the desired outcome (“Obama is not eligible”)
    Step 2. Read the Constitution.
    Step 3. Realize in horror that it doesn’t support you.
    Step 4. Come up with “creative” ways to try to redefine what the Constitution says. The more, the better.
    Step 5. Get your crap refuted by every sane person on the planet.
    Step 6. Goto Step 4 while dreaming of going to Step 99.

    Step 99. ???
    Step 100. Profit.

    Look at it this way, at least they’re not stealing your underwear…

    Besides, Michael, as it has been quoted already, even Vattel says “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country”. So you’re done now?

    If he was able to honestly accept the truth he wouldn’t be a birther, so I’m guessing that he’ll keep spewing lies and propaganda…

  274. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 8, 2011 at 2:14 pm #

    Slartibartfast: There s no need to be red -haired versus MichaelN. He is nutting out his Obot task ofridiculizing the birfer stand so well that I suspect he is actually the author of the Bomford BC and secretly plotting Nicole Kidman running for US President – as Prime Minister of Australie, heving beaten Julia at the next election, of course.

    Sorry to have dobbed you in, Michael.

    I don’t speak your wacky furrin language, so I’m not sure what you’re saying when you lapse into Aussie… I guess I’ll just assume that you’re saying that Michael is a wanktard with the intellectual capacity of roadkill or some such…

    No worries, mate…

    (did I get that right? I’m not very good at speaking furrin…

    Well, you did get the tone right, Here it is in the Queen’s EngIish, without the tone:

    “There s no need to be rude to MichaelN. He is carrying out his Obot job of ridiculizing the birfer class so well that I suspect he is actually the author of the Bomford BC and secretly plotting Nicole Kidman running for US President – as Prime Minister of Australia, having beaten Mrs Julia Gillard at the next election, of course.
    Sorry to have informed on you, Michael.”

    I’m not in Australia, nor from Australia. But I have family living there. My parents after the war wanted to to emigrate there but were refused (my mother always claimed we looked too Asian – quite different from my nephew; his wife and kids, who are all so blonde that you do not notice two of them have an epicanthic fold). Oh; and my second girl-friend whom I met at university was Australian (the first one was Scottish, from Oban -explains the kilt.)

    I think all this talk about the dangers of dual or multiple allegiance in a fast shrinking world is just cleverly coded racism.

  275. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 2:37 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny:
    Thanks for the translation.

    I think all this talk about the dangers of dual or multiple allegiance in a fast shrinking world is just cleverly coded racism.

    I completely agree except for the word ‘cleverly’…

  276. avatar
    MichaelN March 8, 2011 at 3:16 pm #

    Lord Coke.

    “THERE IS A LOCAL LIGEANCE ON THE SUBJECT’S PART”

    Ergo: because local ligeance is the ligeance of an alien visiting in amity, then it is obvious the ‘subject’ here is the alien.

    The reason the alien is a subject is because of the Law of Nature, hence the alien subject is naturally a subject, hence as Coke says, a ‘natural subject’.

    The other example by Coke that refers to an alien with local ligeance as a ‘subject’ is here, where they are not bound to fight off-shore & shows that their ligeance is NATURAL…..

    “whereas if natural ligeance of the subjects of England should be local, that is, confined within the realm of England or Scotland, &c. then were not they bound to goe out of the continent of the realm of England or Scotland,”

  277. avatar
    Greg March 8, 2011 at 3:29 pm #

    The local ligeance, whereby the alien who came into England owed allegiance to the King, was the same in the United States.

    Binney:

    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 o the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned

  278. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 8, 2011 at 3:44 pm #

    MichaelN: Lord Coke.

    “THERE IS A LOCAL LIGEANCE ON THE SUBJECT’S PART”

    Ergo: because local ligeance is the ligeance of an alien visiting in amity, then it is obvious the subject’ here is the alien.

    Exactly NOT “ergo.”

    “All subjects have local legiance” does not imply “all those with local legiance are subjects.”

    If you think that’s valid logic, then you’re wrong. Take a logic course of something

    That would be analogous to saying:

    All people who own 100,000 shares of IBM have a lot of money” implies “all people with a lot of money own 100,000 shares of IBM.”

  279. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP March 8, 2011 at 3:47 pm #

    Birthers try so hard to redefine terms to suit their purpose but all they do is fail when it comes to anyone of importance actually accepting their redefinitions and historical revisions.

  280. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 3:56 pm #

    MichaelN:
    Lord Coke.

    [bull$hit deleted]

    Michael,

    Do you really think that taking quotes out of context and using fallacious logic to make assertions that are not justified by your assumptions convinces anyone of anything except what an a$$ you are? Don’t you have some birther friends that you can go play in traffic with?

  281. avatar
    Daniel March 8, 2011 at 4:00 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Michael,

    Do you really think that taking quotes out of context and using fallacious logic to make assertions that are not justified by your assumptions convinces anyone?

    Rgrettably, I suspect that he does believe just that.

  282. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 8, 2011 at 4:04 pm #

    MichaelN: But that is another topic & can be argued in another thread, this is about Calvin’s case.

    This my blog and I decide what belongs on a thread and what does not. If you don’t like it, you know where the door is.

    You said that Justice Gray “cherry picked” Calvin’s case, but it appears that you are the one doing the cherry picking. You’re willing to argue that some kind of allegiance is necessary on the part of a father for his child to be a natural born subject, and I presume apply that qualification to a natural born citizen of the United States, while at the same time you deny Coke’s argument that such a condition exists when it is applied to the United States. That’s hypocritical. It’s also wrong.

    In particular, you said “OB senior’s ligeance was not local, because the local ligeance is due ONLY to the sovereign and not the jurisdiction of the law.”

    Chief Justice Marshall states that your contention is bullshit in his decision in the case of The Exchange by saying:

    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. …

    Marshall declares that the jurisdiction of a country within its borders is absolute.

    “Unlike in Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so.” Judge Clay D. Land,” Federal judge Clay D. Land in Rhodes v. MacDonald.

  283. avatar
    gorefan March 8, 2011 at 4:32 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Chief Justice Marshall states that your contention is bullshit in his decision in the case of The Exchange by saying:

    Also restated in CARLISLE V. UNITED STATES, 83 U. S. 147 (1872)

    “By allegiance is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation or it may be a qualified and temporary one. The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign. The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence.

  284. avatar
    gorefan March 8, 2011 at 4:35 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Chief Justice Marshall states that your contention is bullsh*t in his decision in the case of The Exchange by saying:

    Also restated in CARLISLE V. UNITED STATES, 83 U. S. 147 (1872)

    “By allegiance is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation or it may be a qualified and temporary one. The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign. The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence.“

  285. avatar
    MichaelN March 8, 2011 at 4:49 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: whereas if natural ligeance of the subjects of England should be local

    “whereas if natural ligeance of the subjects of England should be local”

    This is referring to an alien with local ligeance, who is a subject, because the ligeance is natural, the alien subject is a ‘natural subject’

    Pure and simple.

  286. avatar
    obsolete March 8, 2011 at 4:53 pm #

    Did MichaelN really use that same truncated section I’ve called him out for using a dozen time here and elsewhere? Why, Yes, he did!

    MichaelN –
    “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,

    This line means that it is a soldier of an invading army we are talking about. Because of that, his son is NOT a natural-born subject. Was Obama’s father part of an invading army? No? Then your example does not apply to Obama. No one born in the USA to an invading soldier would be considered a natural-born subject, yet that is the example you are using and claiming it somehow relates to Obama.

    Again, here is the full sentence:
    “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”

    Here is what you post, conveniently cutting off the part that identifies the subject as an invading soldier:
    “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”

    See what you did there? The sentence is about an invading soldier. You hide that part. The reason it matters is because:
    A- Everyone agrees that invading soldiers offspring are not natural-born.
    B- Obama’s dad was not part of an invading army, so the sentence doesn’t apply to him. Only if you chop off the first part, could you maybe fool someone into believing that it could be applied to Obama’s father.

    You have been told this repeatedly, and you are either:
    A- An idiot for not understanding how chopping off the first part of the sentence affects its meaning.
    or
    B- A Liar

    Since you have had it explained to you at least two dozen times on the Fogbow, I’m going with “B”

    Everytime I see you post that lie, I’m going to counter it with the truth.

  287. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 5:28 pm #

    Gee Michael,

    It looks like the Doc reprimanded you and didn’t say a word to me – do you know why that is? Do you think it has anything to with your incessant lying and fallacious reasoning? Or is it because while my comments to you lack a certain decorum, I have made a reasonable case to support every charge I’ve made against you? Why don’t you ponder that for a bit before you come back for your next round of posting the same debunked bull$hit… (oops, too late – I see you’ve dropped another steamer…)

    Doc,

    I really do apologize to you for my lack of decorum in my exchanges with Michael. While I may not have violated your rules, I feel that I have transgressed against the civility that you exemplify here (which, along with the standard of scholarship you’ve set are a big part of the reason I’m a regular here). While I normally try to uphold the standards you maintain, for some reason Michael offends me and I feel it’s necessary to be uncivil to make my point (plus, it clearly annoys him and given his despicable behavior here that’s definitely a worthwhile effect). In any case, thanks for pointing out that Michael’s bad faith is a much more serious offense than my bad manners… 😉

  288. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 5:30 pm #

    MichaelN:

    [More of Michael’s lies]

    Pure and simple.

  289. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 8, 2011 at 5:31 pm #

    Slartibartfast: While I normally try to uphold the standards you maintain, for some reason Michael offends me and I feel it’s necessary to be uncivil to make my point (plus, it clearly annoys him and given his despicable behavior here that’s definitely a worthwhile effect). In any case, thanks for pointing out that Michael’s bad faith is a much more serious offense than my bad manners

    Someone who refuses to listen to reason can prove very frustrating.

  290. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 5:34 pm #

    Doc,

    I notice that we’re at 289 comments (290 now…) and I haven’t noticed any stability issues – whatever you did, good job!

  291. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 8, 2011 at 5:35 pm #

    obsolete: for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject

    I’m starting to think that MichaelN believes that fathers literally give birth to their offspring as evidenced by his repeated citing of Coke’s use of the word “under” to imply a father’s relationship.

  292. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 8, 2011 at 5:37 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I notice that we’re at 289 comments (290 now…) and I haven’t noticed any stability issues – whatever you did, good job!

    There can still be issues on large pages when the blog gets busy. This is a hobby and I use cheap hosting.

  293. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 5:38 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Someone who refuses to listen to reason can prove very frustrating.

    You can’t have a discussion with someone who wont agree on facts – this is one of the things that make the birthers really annoying to me (along with their incessant attempts at wrapping sedition in the flag…).

  294. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 8, 2011 at 5:39 pm #

    MichaelN: This is referring to an alien with local ligeance, who is a subject, because the ligeance is natural, the alien subject is a natural subject’

    Subjects and aliens are opposites, like night and day, cats and dogs, reasonable folks and lunatics.

  295. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 8, 2011 at 5:42 pm #

    gorefan: The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence

    In this context, the word “domicile” doesn’t seem to carry the same technical meaning it does today.

  296. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 5:43 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I’m starting to think that MichaelN believes that fathers literally give birth to their offspring as evidenced by his repeated citing of Coke’s use of the word “under” to imply a father’s relationship.

    I think it’s just a device to cower behind because the entire birther argument becomes irrelevant if you admit that the mother is a consideration (note: this really has noting to do with Calvin’s case and gives the lie to Michael’s protestations that he is not a birther – if he wasn’t, he would freely admit that in modern times the citizenship of the mother is also a factor…).

  297. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 5:47 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: In this context, the word “domicile” doesn’t seem to carry the same technical meaning it does today.

    What exactly does the word ‘domiciled’ mean today? The birther argument that Barack Obama Sr. was not domiciled in Hawai’i is one of the few that I don’t know how to debunk (although I suspect that some indicators that a person might be interested in staying in a country permanently might be things like marrying a native and having a child…).

  298. avatar
    Greg March 8, 2011 at 5:47 pm #

    MichaelN: whereas if natural ligeance of the subjects of England should be local

    Do you see the word IF there?

    And so may his subjects of Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Man, &c. be commanded to make their swords good against either rebel or enemy, as occasion shall be offered: [BEGIN MICHAEL QUOTE]whereas if natural ligeance of the subjects of England should be local,[END MICHAEL QUOTE] that is, confined within the realm of England or Scotland, &c. then were not they bound to goe out of the continent of the realm of England or Scotland, &c. And the opinion of Thirninge in 7 Hen. 4. tit. Protect’ 100. is thus to be understood, that an English subject is not compellable to go out of the realm without wages

    That is not saying that aliens are subjects, it is saying that IF SUBJECTS have only local allegiance, THEN they cannot be required to go out of the realm without wages.

    Coke then looks at the evidence and decides that the subjects’ allegiance is NOT just local:

    Whereupon it was concluded, That the ligeance of a natural-born subject was not local, and confined only to England.

    Your out-of-context quoting, Michael, could not be more obvious!

  299. avatar
    gorefan March 8, 2011 at 5:51 pm #

    MichaelN: This is referring to an alien with local ligeance

    No, there is no reference to aliens. It is a reference to the ability of the King to send his subjects to fight an invader even if that takes them outside the realm. Because their allegiance is natural and not local, they can be commanded to go out of the realm to fight and still be under the King’s command.

  300. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 5:52 pm #

    Greg: Your out-of-context quoting, Michael, could not be more obvious!

    Hey Michael, you got caught being dishonest again! You know that wouldn’t happen if you put in the appropriate context to start with… oh yeah… and you didn’t lie about it.

  301. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 8, 2011 at 5:53 pm #

    The Magic M: Besides, Michael, as it has been quoted already, even Vattel says “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country”. So you’re done now?

    But, but, but, you cut off the end of…

    Oh I get it!

    [Giggle]

  302. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 5:55 pm #

    gorefan: No, there is no reference to aliens.It is a reference to the ability of the King to send his subjects to fight an invader even if that takes them outside the realm.Because their allegiance is natural and not local, they can be commanded to go out of the realm to fight and still be under the King’s command.

    Hey Michael,

    Isn’t it amazing how much clearer and more reasonable things become when one rejects your theories? Why do you think that is?

  303. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 5:57 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The Magic M: Besides, Michael, as it has been quoted already, even Vattel says “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country”. So you’re done now?

    But, but, but, you cut off the end of…

    Oh I get it!

    [Giggle]

    Thanks Doc, I missed that! And kudos Magic M!

  304. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 8, 2011 at 6:04 pm #

    MichaelN: So I take it you concede that in Calvin’s case, according to Lord Coke the subject status of the father does matter in determining who or who cannot be a NBS?

    If course the father’s status has limited application. Many courts cite the ancient common law exception for the children of ambassadors and invading armies.

    The discussion we are having is analogous to a discussion about whether an individual were an earthman or an alien. I provided absolute proof that the individual is an alien from Alpha Centauri, but you insisted that he was an earthman anyway, saying something about local allegiance. One cannot be both a subject and an alien anymore than one can be an earthman and an alien from Jupiter.

    And please don’t dump quotes from Coke’s case that you’ve already dumped (out of context or otherwise).

  305. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 8, 2011 at 6:07 pm #

    MichaelN: Would you be kind enough to have the idiot who gushes all these disgusting, insulting rants, grow some basic manners?

    Yes. MichaelN, please stop calling folks “idiots”.

  306. avatar
    MichaelN March 8, 2011 at 6:24 pm #

    gorefan: No, there is no reference to aliens.It is a reference to the ability of the King to send his subjects to fight an invader even if that takes them outside the realm.Because their allegiance is natural and not local, they can be commanded to go out of the realm to fight and still be under the King’s command.

    It’s only the alien who has the limited quality of local ligeance.

    It is the mention of local ligeance that makes it mean it is the alien subject.

    And in this following statement by Coke, this alien is referred to as a ‘subject’.

    “whereas if natural ligeance of the subjects of England should be local”

  307. avatar
    MichaelN March 8, 2011 at 6:31 pm #

    Greg: Do you see the word IF there?

    That is not saying that aliens are subjects, it is saying that IF SUBJECTS have only local allegiance, THEN they cannot be required to go out of the realm without wages.

    Coke then looks at the evidence and decides that the subjects’ allegiance is NOT just local:

    Your out-of-context quoting, Michael, could not be more obvious!

    It’s not out of context at all, you wish it was.

    It’s only an alien who can have local ligeance, and these aliens are called subjects, because their ligeance is natural, (by the Law of Nature) they are natural subjects.

    The non-alien subjects can be sent anywhere, but the alien subjects with only local ligeance can’t.

  308. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 8, 2011 at 6:32 pm #

    MichaelN: It’s only the alien who has the limited quality of local ligeance.

    It is the mention of local ligeance that makes it mean it is the alien subject.

    And in this following statement by Coke, this alien is referred to as a subject’.

    “whereas if natural ligeance of the subjects of England should be local”

    Coke was not talking about aliens in this instance. Once again you’re trying to use out of context quotes to claim that because a ford is a car all cars must be fords

  309. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 8, 2011 at 6:33 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You said that Justice Gray “cherry picked” Calvin’s case, but it appears that you are the one doing the cherry picking

    If one wants to engage in academic critique, then you might look at whether or not Gray properly construed Calvin’s case — but that’s not how the law works. Calvin’s case isn’t even binding in US law in any forum, because it is not a US case — whereas Gray was on the US Supreme Court. And reasoning in a newer Supreme Court case will always supplant the reasoning of a prior holding, where there is any perceived conflict.

    The birthers at best can only explore the law as they wish it might be…. but it isn’t. If there is any point of departure between Calvin’s case and Wong Kim Ark, then you have to discard the Calvin’s rationale in favor of Wong Kim Ark, no matter what.

    It can be frustrating in contexts where court opinions seem poorly reasoned or where we don’t like the results — such as the Citizens United case … but once the Supreme Court rules on something, that becomes the law going forward.

  310. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 8, 2011 at 6:36 pm #

    MichaelN: It’s not out of context at all, you wish it was.

    It’s only an alien who can have local ligeance, and these aliens are called subjects, because their ligeance is natural, (by the Law of Nature) they are natural subjects.

    The non-alien subjects can be sent anywhere, but the alien subjects with only local ligeance can’t.

    It is out of context. Nowhere in that full paragraph of the full quote are aliens even mentioned. You lied about what it said. No as mentioned by others more than aliens have local allegiance. An alien coming to the united states automatically has local legiance and must obey the laws of our country, they are also afforded the protections of our laws without being a citizen.

  311. avatar
    Scientist March 8, 2011 at 6:37 pm #

    Slartibartfast: What exactly does the word domiciled’ mean today? The birther argument that Barack Obama Sr. was not domiciled in Hawai’i is one of the few that I don’t know how to debunk (although I suspect that some indicators that a person might be interested in staying in a country permanently might be things like marrying a native and having a child…).

    It’s a spectrum. Citizens and permanent residents are domiciled in the US (unless they expatriate). However, the actual state where they reside is often open to dispute (i.e, Derek Jeter’s tax dispute as to whether he is a New York or Florida resident). Clearly tourists who come for a brief stay are not domiciled in the US. However, even there, Canadian snowbirds who spend 6 months in Florida or Arizona and 6 months in Canada can be considered domiciled in both places, depending on the time of year. Generally, state laws would consider foreign students who come for a 4 year course of study domiciled where they attend school (though someone who comes for a 2 month summer course probably isn’t). Renting an apartment on a yearly lease, as opposed to taking a motel room for a night, would certainly be a strong indiicator of domicile, as would marrying a resident, as you note.

    In any event, it is irrelevant for the purposes of this board, since even in the case of a tourist who comes for a few days and is definitely not domiciled here, their child is a natural born US citizen if born here. Some may not like it, but that is, barring a constitutional amendment, the law.

  312. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 6:38 pm #

    MichaelN:

    “whereas natural ligeance of the subjects be local”

    So what you’re arguing here, Michael, is that subjects have only local ligeance – i.e. a King cannot send his subjects abroad to, for instance, fight in wars because they don’t have the natural ligeance of aliens. But Barack Obama Sr. had this ligeance, so President Obama is the first legitimate POTUS since Martin Van Buren. Wow – you really earned your Soros check there! 😉

  313. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 6:41 pm #

    MichaelN: It’s out of context [I] wish it was[n’t].

    [A]n alien who can have local ligeance, [but] these aliens are [not] called subjects, because their ligeance is [not] natural, (by the Law of Nature) they are [not] natural subjects.

    The non-alien subjects can be sent anywhere, but the alien [non-]subjects with only local ligeance can’t.

    I did a little editing for you, Michael…

  314. avatar
    misha March 8, 2011 at 6:43 pm #

    MichaelN: Would you be kind enough to have the idiot who gushes all these disgusting, insulting rants, grow some basic manners?

    Just like Glenn Beck.

  315. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 6:43 pm #

    Michael, look at my last two posts – why are you contradicting yourself?

  316. avatar
    misha March 8, 2011 at 6:49 pm #

    Slartibartfast: At least Misha doesn’t lie and propagandize excessively, like you do. Why does he bug you so?

    I bug MichaelN because he is helping Glenn Beck cover up a heinous crime.

    Note to MichaelN: If you are not in league with Glenn Beck and his rape and murder in 1990, prove it to us.

  317. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 6:53 pm #

    Thanks for the info, Scientist.

    Scientist: In any event, it is irrelevant for the purposes of this board, since even in the case of a tourist who comes for a few days and is definitely not domiciled here, their child is a natural born US citizen if born here. Some may not like it, but that is, barring a constitutional amendment, the law.

    The birther argument zeroes in on the use of the term by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark, I believe (as per their usual reasoning, they take a description of Mr. Wong’s parents as domiciled in the US and construe it to mean that the entire holding is invalidated if one was not domiciled). I think we need a legal language in which it is impossible to speak imprecisely (like mathematics…).

  318. avatar
    Greg March 8, 2011 at 6:59 pm #

    MichaelN: And in this following statement by Coke, this alien is referred to as a subject’.

    “whereas if natural ligeance of the subjects of England should be local”

    That you repeat this obvious and basic error demonstrates you are unable to read English.

    He’s not referring to an alien in that passage, Michael. He’s constructing a hypothetical. If subjects owed only local allegiance, we couldn’t force them to serve abroad. We can force them to serve abroad, therefore their allegiance isn’t only local!

    Simple syllogistic logic, something that should be pretty obvious for someone who keeps referring us to the definition of fallacies!

  319. avatar
    gorefan March 8, 2011 at 7:04 pm #

    MichaelN: It’s only the alien who has the limited quality of local ligeance.

    No, he is saying that if natural allegiance subjects only had local allegiance, then the King could not command them to go outside the realm. Natural allegaince subjects are those born in the realm. They have natural allegiance so they must obey the King, if they only had local allegiance like aliens then they would not have to obey. Note, the King cannot command aliens to go and fight for him, that’s because they only have local allegiance.

  320. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 7:04 pm #

    misha: I bug MichaelN because he is helping Glenn Beck cover up a heinous crime.

    I agree that if MichaelN wasn’t complicit in this crime he wouldn’t have spent trillions of times what President Obama has spent to seal his records. The fact that he is clearly trying to hide something is obvious proof of his guilt. When I think of that poor girl that he raped and murdered (I’m sure Glenn Beck was there, too) and all of the other girls that we don’t know about (but may clearly infer from the evidence), it’s clear that MichaelN must be prosecuted for these heinous crimes until he is found guilty and punished to the fullest extent of the law. If anything, you’re not taking the matter seriously enough… 🙁

    Note to MichaelN: If you are not in league with Glenn Beck and his rape and murder in 1990, prove it to us.

    [Additional note to MichaelN]: I know that you were actually the mastermind and that this is but one of the dozens or even hundreds of women you have raped and murdered – your failure to even deny this accusation proves it beyond any doubt.

  321. avatar
    Scientist March 8, 2011 at 7:09 pm #

    Slartibartfast: The birther argument zeroes in on the use of the term by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark, I believe (as per their usual reasoning, they take a description of Mr. Wong’s parents as domiciled in the US and construe it to mean that the entire holding is invalidated if one was not domiciled).

    While there is no way to know whether Gray’s decision in that case would have been different if Wong’s parents had been Chinese tourists visiting Disneyland (OK, Disneyland didn’t yet exist, but so what), susequent cases made clear whether or not the parents were domiciled in the US was irrelevant. Birthers can argue those cases were wrongly decided, but decided they were.

    Anyway, as I have pointed out before, the Wong decision didn’t break new ground. It was always the case that if a pregnant European woman and her husband fetched up on the docks in Boston and gave birth an hour later, that child was a natural born US citizen. The complications were introduced at later dates by the Dred Scott decision for blacks and by the Chinese exclusion laws. Had the facts of the Wong case been the same. except the parents were Irish citizens named O’Leary or German citizens named Mueller, there never would have BEEN a case, because no one would have ever attempted to claim the child was other than a US citizen. And had the President’s father been Barragh O’Bama of County Clare, there would be no birthers either.

  322. avatar
    Greg March 8, 2011 at 7:16 pm #

    Well, they did try to claim that Julia Lynch wasn’t a citizen – despite being the child of English in New York.

    There was money on the line – if she wasn’t a citizen, then the plaintiffs would have inherited the huge tracts of land.

    The judge laughed them out of court, finding it was universally accepted that the child of an alien, born here, was a citizen. No one ever asked about parents when qualifying a voter. Clearly, in this judge’s opinion, if Julia had been a man, she could run for President.

  323. avatar
    Scientist March 8, 2011 at 7:22 pm #

    Greg: Well, they did try to claim that Julia Lynch wasn’t a citizen – despite being the child of English in New York.
    There was money on the line – if she wasn’t a citizen, then the plaintiffs would have inherited the huge tracts of land.

    Plaintiffs in lawsuits claim all kinds of ridiculous things. No official body would have ever considered her other than a full citizen (or as full a citizen as a woman could be in those days). Had Wong been Wenger, the US governmennt would never have argued he wasn’t a citizen.

  324. avatar
    Greg March 8, 2011 at 7:29 pm #

    Scientist: Plaintiffs in lawsuits claim all kinds of ridiculous things.No official body would have ever considered her other than a full citizen (or as full a citizen as a woman could be in those days).Had Wong been Wenger, the US governmennt would never have argued he wasn’t a citizen.

    Totally agree. When they were debating the 14th Amendment, it was gypsies and Chinese that got the anti-14’ers dander up and the Indians who presented the only theoretical challenge. The Dutch, who were discussed, were an afterthought – clearly citizens.

  325. avatar
    MichaelN March 8, 2011 at 7:37 pm #

    Sanguinis matters

    “If a man hath a Ward by reason of a Seigniory, and is Outlawed, he forfeiteth the Wardship to the King: But if a man hath the Wardship of his own Son or Daughter, which is his heir apparent, and is Outlawed, he doth not forfeit this Wardship; for nature hath annexed it to the person of the Father, as it appeareth in 33 Hen. 6. 55. Et bonus Rex nihil a bono patre differt, et patria dicitur a patre, quia habet communem patrem, qui est pater patriae.132

    [132. ][Ed.: A good king is not different from a good father, and patria (country) is so called from pater (father), because it has a common father who is pater patriae (father of the country).]”

  326. avatar
    Scientist March 8, 2011 at 7:41 pm #

    MichaelN : Yes, inheritance law recognizes family descent where the person dies intestate. What does that have to do with the subject of this web site? Why don’t you take this to FindLaw-they have discussion boards on estate and family law?

  327. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 7:42 pm #

    Scientist: While there is no way to know whether Gray’s decision in that case would have been different if Wong’s parents had been Chinese tourists visiting Disneyland (OK, Disneyland didn’t yet exist, but so what), susequent cases made clear whether or not the parents were domiciled in the US was irrelevant.Birthers can argue those cases were wrongly decided, but decided they were.

    Anyway, as I have pointed out before, the Wong decision didn’t break new ground.It was always the case that if a pregnant European woman and herhusband fetched up on the docks in Boston and gave birth an hour later, that child was a natural born US citizen.The complications were introduced at later dates by the Dred Scott decision for blacks and by the Chinese exclusion laws. Had the facts of the Wong case been the same. except the parents were Irish citizens named O’Leary or German citizens named Mueller, there never would have BEEN a case, because no one would have ever attempted to claim the child was other than a US citizen.And had the President’s father been Barragh O’Bama of County Clare, there would be no birthers either.

    All of which is true, but remember that birthers are the ones who quote from the majority in Dred Scott as if it supports their case – having as many arguments as possible to refute as many of their memes as you know of is a good idea…

  328. avatar
    Greg March 8, 2011 at 7:47 pm #

    MichaelN: Sanguinis matters

    Ligeance matters.

    Why did England have naturalization and denization, described by Calvin’s Case, if the alien became a subject automatically?

    How did the naturalization/denization process differ in England where, in Michael’s world subjectship was automatic and the United States, where citizenship was not, in Michael’s world, automatic?

  329. avatar
    Greg March 8, 2011 at 7:50 pm #

    MichaelN: Sanguinis matters

    Ligeance matters, and, guess what, everyone born in Scotland BEFORE James became King of England REMAINS AN ALIEN!

    And as to the fourth, it is less than a dream of a shadow, or a shadow of a dream: for it hath been often said, natural legitimation respecteth actual obedience to the sovereign at the time of the birth; for as THE ANTENATI REMAIN ALIENS AS TO THE CROWN OF ENGLAND, because they were born when there were several Kings of the several kingdoms, and the uniting of the kingdoms by descent subsequent CANNOT MAKE HIM A SUBJECT to that Crown to which he was alien at the time of his birth: so albeit the kingdoms (which Almighty God of his infinite goodness and mercy divert) should by descent be divided, and governed by several Kings; yet it was resolved, that all those that were born under one natural obedience while the realms were united under one sovereign, should remain natural born subjects, and no aliens; for that naturalization due and vested by birthright, cannot by any separation of the Crowns afterward be taken away: nor he that was by judgment of law a natural subject at the time of his birth, become an alien by such a matter ex post facto.

  330. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 7:56 pm #

    MichaelN:

    [Yet more out-of-context, off-topic bull$hit from Michael]

    Are you up for the biggest douche on the planet or something? Or do you think the people here are particularly vulnerable to fallacious logic, twisted meanings, and outright lies? Or did you come here to entertain us with your idiocy because you were worried that we might get bored… Hmm… I implied you were an idiot there [d’oh! I did it again…] do you think that Doc will scold me for that? I wonder why that is… do you think that the difference is that I agree with Doc and that we’re both Obots colluding against you? Or do you think that the reason is that my use of the term idiocy (and repeated implication that you were an idiot… damn. I keep doing that…) is an accurate description of your arguments here while your use of the word ‘idiots’ was an ad hominem attack?

  331. avatar
    G March 8, 2011 at 7:58 pm #

    Slartibartfast: You can’t have a discussion with someone who wont agree on facts – this is one of the things that make the birthers really annoying to me (along with their incessant attempts at wrapping sedition in the flag…).

    Agreed on both accounts!

  332. avatar
    Scientist March 8, 2011 at 7:59 pm #

    Slartibartfast: having as many arguments as possible to refute as many of their memes as you know of is a good idea…

    Slart, IMO the only argument needed is that this is a democracy and whoever the people choose is automatically a natural born citizen. People are dying in several countries tonight for the principle that the people get to choose their leaders. Surely Americans don’t want the choice stolen from them by 9 guys in black robes (or by fools in white robes, either).

  333. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 8:06 pm #

    Scientist: Slart, IMO the only argument needed is that this is a democracy and whoever the people choose is automatically a natural born citizen.People are dying in several countries tonight for the principle that the people get to choose their leaders.Surely Americans don’t want the choice stolen from them by 9 guys in black robes (or by fools in white robes, either).

    Well, geeze, if you’re going to be all rational about it like that… (Your comment highlights why birthers wrapping themselves in the flag is so odious).

  334. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 8:15 pm #

    G: Agreed on both accounts!

    The fact that Michael doesn’t wrap himself in the flag got me thinking – he seems on the fringe of the birthers… He doesn’t seem to have any birther friends coming to his support nor does he have any of the ‘birther elite’ (I realize the term is an oxymoron, but you know what I mean) touting the same theories that he does (also his odd, non-sequitor pot-shot regarding the image of the COLB). Maybe it’s just because he’s a furrin birther, but it seems odd to me…

  335. avatar
    G March 8, 2011 at 8:49 pm #

    Slartibartfast: The fact that Michael doesn’t wrap himself in the flag got me thinking – he seems on the fringe of the birthers… He doesn’t seem to have any birther friends coming to his support nor does he have any of the birther elite’ (I realize the term is an oxymoron, but you know what I mean) touting the same theories that he does (also his odd, non-sequitor pot-shot regarding the image of the COLB). Maybe it’s just because he’s a furrin birther, but it seems odd to me…

    Similar to Sven (but at least Sven’s fiction was entertaining) and “Jedi Pauly” (a truly revolting turd with the greatest lack of social skills of the bunch). A bunch of lone losers unsuccessfully trying to shop their “novel” ideas in Birtheristan and unable to even find friends amongst that gullible unhinged crowd.

  336. avatar
    MichaelN March 8, 2011 at 9:14 pm #

    Greg: Ligeance matters.

    Why did England have naturalization and denization, described by Calvin’s Case, if the alien became a subject automatically?

    How did the naturalization/denization process differ in England where, in Michael’s world subjectship was automatic and the United States, where citizenship was not, in Michael’s world, automatic?

    I don’t know why they had so many different entities, demarcations, etc, I suppose that’s the nature the English feudal system.

    The alien born subject (local ligeance) could purchase but not inherit.

    The alien born denizen were of differing types and had several different conditional limitations

    All the aliens had several and various conditions and limitations all the aliens except the enemy were subjects.

    “The second is ligeant’ acquisita, or denization: and this in the books and records of the law appeareth to be threefold; 1. absolute, as the common denizations be, to them and their |[6 a] heires, without any limitation or restraint: 2. limited, as when the King doth grant letters of denization to an alien, and to the heirs males of his body, as it appeareth in 9 Edw. 4. fol. 7. in Baggot’s case; or to an alien for term of his life, as was granted to John Reynel, 11 Hen. 6. 3. It may be granted upon condition, for cujus est dare, ejus est disponere,50 whereof I have seen divers precedents. And this denization of an alien may be effected three manner of wayes: by Parliament, as it was in 3 Hen. 6. 55. in Dower: by letters patents, as the usual manner is: and by conquest, as if the King and his subjects should conquer another Kingdome or dominion, as well Antenati as Postnati, as well they which fought in the field, as they which remained at home for defence of their countrey, or employed elsewhere, are all denizens of the kingdom or dominion conquered.”

  337. avatar
    gorefan March 8, 2011 at 9:16 pm #

    MichaelN: Sanguinis matters

    According to Lord Coke an alien cannot inherit land and according to you an alien becomes a subject as soon as he sets foot in England, so therefore he can inherit land.

    Who should we believe? You or Lord Coke. I think I’ll go with the recognized expert on English Law (which is not you).

    Even you got to admit that is the safe and sane bet.

  338. avatar
    misha March 8, 2011 at 9:22 pm #

    MichaelN: All the aliens had several and various conditions and limitations all the aliens except the enemy were subjects.

    I have a more important question for MichaelN: at what age in human years should I give my dog a Bark Mitzvah?

  339. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 9:35 pm #

    MichaelN: I don’t know why they had so many different entities, demarcations, etc, I suppose that’s the nature the English feudal system.

    So you admit that you don’t understand the topic we’re talking about, but you still think your opinion outweighs 400 years of established law – what a moron.

    The alien born subject (local ligeance) could purchase but not inherit.

    An assertion that comes directly from your a$$ – not in any way a credible source.

    The alien born denizen were of differing types and had several different conditional limitations

    Because a liar like you said so, I suppose…

    All the aliens had several and various conditions and limitations all the aliens except the enemy were subjects.

    Completely untrue and you know it – this is why I call you a liar (and an incompetent one, at that…)

    [Another quote that doesn’t mean what Michael thinks it means…]

  340. avatar
    MichaelN March 8, 2011 at 10:23 pm #

    gorefan: According to Lord Coke an alien cannot inherit land and according to you an alien becomes a subject as soon as he sets foot in England, so therefore he can inherit land.

    Who should we believe?You or Lord Coke.I think I’ll go with the recognized expert on English Law (which is not you).

    Even you got to admit that is the safe and sane bet.

    Not all subjects can inherit land, because some subjects lose their inheritance but not their subject status, say for example, when their father commits treason or felony.

  341. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 10:43 pm #

    MichaelN
    [MichaelN continuing to opine on subjects he has admitted he knows nothing about.]

    Why should anyone listen to a person who admits that they don’t know what they’re talking about while refusing to acknowledge that their analysis has been shown to be nothing but gross errors and deliberate mistakes? I don’t know if even you are that stupid, Michael…

  342. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 8, 2011 at 10:44 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Or do you think the people here are particularly vulnerable to fallacious logic, twisted meanings, and outright lies?

    No, but we’re suckers for trolls.

  343. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 10:49 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: No, but we’re suckers for trolls.

    Got that right…

  344. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 8, 2011 at 10:50 pm #

    Greg: THE ANTENATI REMAIN ALIENS AS TO THE CROWN OF ENGLAND

    Case closed.

  345. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 11:07 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Greg: THE ANTENATI REMAIN ALIENS AS TO THE CROWN OF ENGLAND

    Case closed.

    Can get much clearer that that, can you Michael? But of course you’re too gutless to acknowledge the obvious when it’s staring you in the face…

  346. avatar
    MichaelN March 8, 2011 at 11:20 pm #

    Greg: THE ANTENATI REMAIN ALIENS AS TO THE CROWN OF ENGLAND

    Doesn’t matter a hoot, Robert Calvin was a NBS, because he was born under the ligeance of a subject otherwise if his dad wasn’t a subject, he would not be a NBS.

    All the aliens remain alien born that can’t be changed, but still the friendly one’s are subjects to the sovereign king when in the realm, by the Law of Nature, but they are still alien born, that’s what alien means, born in another realm.

    Fact remains that the aliens with local ligeance are subjects.

  347. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 11:53 pm #

    What a complete and utter moron you are Michael!

    MichaelN:
    Greg: THE ANTENATI REMAIN ALIENS AS TO THE CROWN OF ENGLAND

    Doesn’t matter a hoot, Robert Calvin was a NBS, because he was born under the ligeance of a subject otherwise if his dad wasn’t a subject, he would not be a NBS.

    Once again, you’re a$$-backwards. His father was ANTENATI – therefore he COULD NOT be a subject – ergo it does not require your parent to be a subject to be ‘born under the ligeance of a subject’ (because we know that Calvin was born under the ligenace of a subject). Only a sniveling little coward would refuse to acknowledge what everyone here – including yourself – is already aware of: that Calvin was a subject with an alien father and so was President Obama.

    All the aliens remain alien born that can’t be changed, but still the friendly one’s are subjects to the sovereign king when in the realm, by the Law of Nature, but they are still alien born, that’s what alien means, born in another realm.

    Fact remains that the aliens with local ligeance are subjects.

  348. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 12:01 am #

    MichaelN: All the aliens remain alien born that can’t be changed, but still the friendly one’s are subjects to the sovereign king when in the realm, by the Law of Nature, but they are still alien born, that’s what alien means, born in another realm.

    Which tells us 2 things:

    1. Calvin’s father was an alien (he wasn’t born in the realm).

    2. Those born in the realm are subjects (i.e. people not born in another realm are not aliens).

    What kind of imbecile are you to not understand this?

  349. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 12:08 am #

    MichaelN: Fact remains that the aliens with local ligeance are subjects.

    No. There are exactly three disjoint classes of people:

    1. Aliens

    2. Subjects

    3. The Sovereign

    No other classes exist and none of these classes overlap. Each person in the country falls into exactly one of these categories. If you disagree, then please exhibit a person that either falls into 2 of these categories (from the perspective of the England) or none of them. If you can’t do that, then the only honorable course of action is to admit your mistake (of course you’re too much of a coward to do that…).

  350. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 12:12 am #

    Come on Michael, I’m waiting for my alien-subject hybrid or my citizen of no man’s land…

    Don’t tell me after all this time that you can’t give an example of what you’ve been arguing exists for days – only a true moron would be that stupid…

  351. avatar
    MichaelN March 9, 2011 at 12:15 am #

    Greg: THE ANTENATI REMAIN ALIENS AS TO THE CROWN OF ENGLAND

    They may well remain alien to the ‘crown’ but they may be subjects of the sovereign king.

    Distinctly different things.

    Read-up some more and you will see that what I am saying is correct.

  352. avatar
    misha March 9, 2011 at 12:22 am #

    MichaelN: Read-up some more and you will see that what I am saying is correct.

    Did Lord Coke invent Coca Cola, the way the Earl of Sandwich invented a meal?

  353. avatar
    MichaelN March 9, 2011 at 1:01 am #

    @ Greg

    Following-up on my last post to you, read this ..

    Coke – Calvin’s case:

    “And it was resolved, that it was due to the natural person of the King (which is ever accompanied with the politique capacity, and the politique capacity as it were appropriated to the natural capacity) and it is NOT DUE TO the politique capacity only, that is, to HIS CROWN OR KINGDOM distinct from his natural capacity, and that for divers reasons”

  354. avatar
    misha March 9, 2011 at 1:18 am #

    MichaelN: Coke – Calvin’s case

    What is Lord Coke’s relation to cocaine?

  355. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 1:19 am #

    MichaelN:
    Greg: THE ANTENATI REMAIN ALIENS AS TO THE CROWN OF ENGLAND

    Doesn’t matter a hoot, Robert Calvin was a NBS, because he was born under the ligeance of a subject otherwise if his dad wasn’t a subject, he would not be a NBS.

    All the aliens remain alien born that can’t be changed, but still the friendly one’s are subjects to the sovereign king when in the realm, by the Law of Nature, but they are still alien born, that’s what alien means, born in another realm.

    Fact remains that the aliens with local ligeance are subjects.

    Congratulations Michael – with this comment you’ve actually proven that your entire argument is incorrect! (And that’s coming from someone with a PhD in mathematics, so I know what proof is…) Here is a formal write-up of the proof {justifications in braces}:

    Assumptions:

    0. The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance, of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. {Blackstone’s ‘Commentaries on the Laws of England’, vol. 1, chapter X}

    1. Antenati are aliens {Greg’s quote – from Calvin’s case, I presume}

    2. Calvin was a NBS {the holding in Calvin’s case}

    3. Calvin’s father was antenati {established fact in Calvin’s case}

    4. NBSs are ‘born under the ligeance of a subject’ (whatever that means) {quote from Calvin’s case which you’ve repeated approximately 16,954 times in this thread}

    Proof:

    0 => ‘The people’ consist of two DISTINCT sets: ‘subjects’ and ‘aliens’

    1 + 3 => 6. Calvin’s father was an alien

    2 + 4 => 5. Calvin was ‘born under the ligeance of a subject’

    5 + 6 => 7. It is possible for the child of an alien to be ‘born under the ligeance of a subject’

    8. Assume that alien/human hybrids… er… alien/subject hybrids exist.

    0 + 8 => CONTRADICTION => 9. {8} is false

    Conclusion:

    6 + 9 => Calvin’s father was not a subject

    QED

    Hey Michael, you know what that sound was – your entire argument crashing and burning… It is now officially D-E-D dead.

    Just so we’re clear, I have reduced you to choose from among the following options:

    1. Ignore me – implicitly admitting that you have no rational defense of your arguments. This is the coward’s choice, the immature child’s – it’s the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and saying “LA LA LA LA I AM NOT LISTENING” over and over again. If the lack of integrity you’ve displayed in the past is any guide, this is the course you’ll choose (until you finally resort to 5)

    2. Question my assumptions – since my assumptions come from the facts and the holdings of the case in question and the canonical reference on English common law, I believe my assumptions are beyond attack.

    3. Refute my logic – since I know my logic to be correct, good luck with that. Even if you understood logic you would be unable to refute things that are facially true.

    4. Admit your interpretation was wrong – the only honorable thing that you can do, but the odds are extremely low… you’ve never acted honorably so far.

    5. Run away – When you do this, everyone will know that it is a tacit admission of defeat.

    Do what you want, Michael, but any claim you had to a rational argument just vanished…

    Have a nice day! 😛 (Doc – we need a ‘flipping the bird’ emoticon…)

  356. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 1:21 am #

    misha: What is Lord Coke’s relation to cocaine?

    Judging from the quality of Michael’s arguments, his relation to cocaine is an unhealthy one…

  357. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 1:25 am #

    MichaelN:
    @ Greg

    Following-up on my last post to you, read this ..

    Coke – Calvin’s case:

    “And it was resolved, that it was due to the natural person of the King (which is ever accompanied with the politique capacity, and the politique capacity as it were appropriated to the natural capacity) and it is NOT DUE TO the politique capacity only, that is, to HIS CROWN OR KINGDOM distinct from his natural capacity, and that for divers reasons”

    Sorry dude, this doesn’t in any way invalidate my proof, therefore it cannot save your argument (which is the battered and bloody pulp on the ground in front of you…).

    L-L-L-Loser! (Doc – we need a ‘Loser’ emoticon, too…)

  358. avatar
    MichaelN March 9, 2011 at 1:27 am #

    According to Coke a ‘natural born subject’ is not necessarily a ‘natural subject’.

    Coke speaks of them as two separate entities.

    Coke – Calvin’s case:

    “That all those that were born under one natural obedience, whiles the Realms were united under one Sovereign, should remain natural born Subjects, and no aliens; for that naturalization due and vested by birthright, cannot by any separation of the Crowns afterward be taken away: nor he that was by judgment of Law a natural Subject at the time of his birth, become an alien by such a matter ex post facto.”

  359. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 1:30 am #

    Michael,

    I just wanted to point out that in my proof above (7) is a corollary – an additional conclusion that the main conclusion does not depend on. I just wanted to make sure you didn’t waste your time on irrelevancies – although it seems clear that you are choosing to take the coward’s option like the pathetic worm you are…

    Loser

  360. avatar
    misha March 9, 2011 at 1:32 am #

    MichaelN: Coke speaks of them as two separate entities.

    That’s right: snorting and smoking cocaine. Lord Coke can’t fool me.

  361. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 1:34 am #

    MichaelN:
    According to Coke a natural born subject’ is not necessarily a natural subject’.

    Coke speaks of them as two separate entities.

    Coke – Calvin’s case:

    “That all those that were born under one natural obedience, whiles the Realms were united under one Sovereign, should remain natural born Subjects, and no aliens; for that naturalization due and vested by birthright, cannot by any separation of the Crowns afterward be taken away: nor he that was by judgment of Law a natural Subject at the time of his birth, become an alien by such a matter ex post facto.”

    Yes, there are natural born subjects and natural subjects (not born – i.e. naturalized – as in ‘to make natural’). Neither of those classes include aliens. How stupid are you?

  362. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 1:37 am #

    Misha,

    I think the coward is about ready to crack and admit his role in raping and murdering a girl in 1990 with Glenn Beck… or run away crying with his tail between his legs like the loser he is.

  363. avatar
    misha March 9, 2011 at 1:40 am #

    Slartibartfast: How stupid are you?

    That’s from all the cocaine. He is a disciple of Lord Coke.

  364. avatar
    MichaelN March 9, 2011 at 1:42 am #

    Interesting article.

    “Imagine for a moment Congress debating during the constitutional convention, or even years following the adoption of the Constitution, a national criterion for establishing citizenship by birth of all persons as practiced under English common law. Firstly, that would have been rejected by a number of States as placing men of color on an equal footing with the Anglo-Saxon race. This in return forcing perhaps an attempt to compromise using the words “free white men,” with that in return being rejected by some northern States as repugnant of the Declaration’s “all men are created equal.”

    Moreover, there undoubtedly would been terrible disputes over the fact the nation was attempting to adopt common law as general law, something more than a few considered derogatory.

    James Madison succinctly illustrates such dilemma to George Washington:

    “What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they would. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & anti-republican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law.”

    http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/natural-born-native-born-subject-to-the-jurisdiction-thereof-etc/#respond

  365. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 1:55 am #

    Yep – it looks like Michael is taking the coward’s way out… what a loser!

    Michael,

    I thought that this was a discussion about Calvin’s case… What’s the matter? Did you get hurt when I annihilated your argument?

    I looked at the link you posted – is that the best you can do? A blog by another loser who uses the same fallacious logical arguments that you do? Here’s a passage:

    The State of Virginia outright rejected the common law doctrine in 1777 when it adopted the following doctrine written by Thomas Jefferson:

    [A]ll infants, whenever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise, their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth until they relinquish that character, in manner as hereinafter expressed; and all others not being citizens of any, of the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

    As anyone with a modicum of intelligence could see, this ADDS people to the class of citizens (as opposed to limiting it) and says nothing whatsoever about natural born citizenship. It’s a dishonest argument written by one loser and linked by another loser in an attempt to distract people from the fact that he just got his a$$ kicked.

    How do you like them apples, loser?

  366. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 2:00 am #

    misha: That’s from all the cocaine. He is a disciple of Lord Coke.

    I don’t think someone can become that stupid without a combination of environmental and genetic factors – possibly his parents were related a little too closely (it would explain a lot…).

  367. avatar
    MichaelN March 9, 2011 at 2:03 am #

    Slartibartfast

    MichaelN:
    According to Coke a natural born subject’ is not necessarily a natural subject’.

    Coke speaks of them as two separate entities.

    Coke – Calvin’s case:

    “That all those that were born under one natural obedience, whiles the Realms were united under one Sovereign, should remain natural born Subjects, and no aliens; for that naturalization due and vested by birthright, cannot by any separation of the Crowns afterward be taken away: nor he that was BY JUDGEMENT OF LAW a NATURAL SUBJECT AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH, become an alien by such a matter ex post facto.”
    ——————————————————————————————–

    Slartibartfast
    Yes, there are natural born subjects and natural subjects (not born – i.e. naturalized – as in to make natural’). Neither of those classes include aliens. How stupid are you?
    ———————————————————————————————-

    MichaelN.

    Yeah Einstein, you are just so clever.

    How come it says ‘AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH’ ? ………….so a person gets naturalized as in ‘to be made natural’ by judgement of Law?

    I have capitalized (above) the part you need to explain.

    So actually we have (notwithstanding Einstien’s well thought out flash of brilliance) what appears to be two entities that are both ‘natural subjects’.

    A ‘natural born subject’ by natural ligeance and a ‘natural subject’ by judgement of Law.

    So how do explain this Einstein?

  368. avatar
    MichaelN March 9, 2011 at 2:05 am #

    Both at the ‘time of their birth’

  369. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 2:11 am #

    Michael,

    I’ll explain that to you as soon as you prove that you are not a coward and address my proof. Your latest post in no way invalidates my proof so, absent a defense, your argument is lost and you latest point is moot.

    Sorry, loser.

    (By the way, the point you are asserting doesn’t falsify the point I made – that there are ‘natural born citizens’ and ‘naturalized citizens’ – it just means that the passage you quoted doesn’t SUPPORT that point…)

  370. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 2:13 am #

    So Michael,

    Are you going to explain why anyone should waste their time on your argument now that it has been proven to be false? Or are you just going to continue being a sore loser?

  371. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 2:14 am #

    Come on loser, we’re waiting…

  372. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 2:42 am #

    Okay loser, since we know that you are too much of a coward to address anyone’s rebuttals of your arguments (and you are probably especially fearful of my proof since you know you are unable to assail it), I’ll relent and explain to you why you’re full of $hit if you think the passage you quoted helps your argument. This is my opinion, and I will defer to Greg (or any of the posters here more knowledgeable about the law than I – which I think includes everyone except you and the other birthers) if he says differently, but this is my take:

    MichaelN:
    “That all those that were born under one natural obedience, whiles the Realms were united under one Sovereign, should remain natural born Subjects, and no aliens; for that naturalization due and vested by birthright, cannot by any separation of the Crowns afterward be taken away: nor he that was BY JUDGEMENT OF LAW a NATURAL SUBJECT AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH, become an alien by such a matter ex post facto.”
    ——————————————————————————————–

    So we have two classes: ‘natural born subjects’ and ‘natural subjects’ (by the way, we already know that neither of these classes include any aliens…). ‘Naturalized subjects’ exist and may or may not be ‘natural subjects’ but since naturalized subjects aren’t at issue here, we’ll ignore them. Since the word ‘born’ is an adjective in the phrase ‘natural born subject’, we can assume that the ‘natural born subjects’ are a (presumably proper) subset of the ‘natural subjects’. Who then are members of one set but not the other? Well, we can rule out every subject born in the country (since we know that they are NBSs) and we know that NSs are born that way from the passage. The most reasonable conclusion, in my opinion, is that ‘natural subjects’ are those subjects who are born, outside of the realm, to subjects and who, by applicable laws, are born subjects of the crown – unless the terms ‘natural born subject’ and ‘natural subject’ are just synonyms, of course…

    So, loser, there’s an example of how someone honestly addresses an argument – if you don’t learn how to do this, you will never be more than a loser…

  373. avatar
    MichaelN March 9, 2011 at 2:43 am #

    Misha & Slartibartfast.

    Take note, I do not accept or condone your manner, behavior & attempts at vilifying & defaming me to the extent you have stooped to.

    My user name is my real name, with my surname initial, and this user name is well known in other arenas where I believe I am being defamed by you to an extent that my good standing with others might be sullied in their eyes.

    My reputation is not tainted and my ability to earn a living and engage in positions of trust in the community is dependent on my good name.

    I am here discussing the subject matter and will not tolerate your deliberate defamatory comments to continue without pursuing available remedy.

    Be warned, grow some manners.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-internet-defamation-case_x.htm

    Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

  374. avatar
    MichaelN March 9, 2011 at 2:46 am #

    I have screen shots of all you have said.

  375. avatar
    MichaelN March 9, 2011 at 2:55 am #

    Back to topic.

    Nowhere in Calvin’s case does it say that an antenati is not a subject of the sovereign king.

    But that is beside the point.

    There are numerous mentions of an alien with local ligeance being referred to as a ‘subject’ and I have posted them here verbatim.

    The fact is, according to Lord Coke, that an alien, visiting England in amity, was considered a subject of the sovereign king, and as such his children are natural born subjects of that same king.

    Furthermore if the alien were to be visiting as an enemy, then his child cannot be a ‘natural born subject’ because the child’s subject status is dependent on the subject status of the child’s father.

    Ergo: the subject status of the child’s father is one essential quality of two qualities required for the child being or not being a natural born subject.

  376. avatar
    MichaelN March 9, 2011 at 3:17 am #

    The alien with natural local ligeance is a subject of the king, because the ligeance of the natural born subjects is not local.

    “whereas if natural ligeance of the SUBJECTS of England SHOULD BE LOCAL, that is, confined within the realm of England or Scotland, &c. then were not they bound to goe out of the continent of the realm of England or Scotland, &c”

    The ligeance of a NBS is not the same as the ligeance of an alien with natural local ligeance.

    “That the ligeance of a natural-born subject was not local, and confined only to England.”

  377. avatar
    obsolete March 9, 2011 at 3:27 am #

    Classic.
    MichaelN’s argument gets (repeatedly) demolished, and he threatens a lawsuit. For the record, that would be a permanent ban at the Fogbow, but they already banned MichaelN for repeatedly cutting-n-pasting truncated and altered quotes, and his efforts to win arguments by repetition.
    Since repetition won’t work, now he tries to win arguments by legal threat.
    I’m gobsmacked.

    And since I sense him getting ready to post the truncated version again, I’ll help him out by posting the part he avoids:

    “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,

    Go ahead MichaelN, finish posting the quote dishonestly truncated as you always do.

  378. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 4:02 am #

    Sorry, Michael, but everything I’ve said about you has been either demonstrably true based on your behavior or my opinions (which I believe are reasonable and legitimate interpretations of your behavior). I don’t care if your name is Michael N. – I’ll not make any attempt to find out what the N stands for and if I do find out I would never attempt to use your name to try and contact any of your friends, colleagues, or employers or harm you in any manner – having been threatened by birthers recently myself (they used my name to try to intimidate me with threats of lies about my integrity to potential employers). My insults to you have been mainly the following (excepting the comments regarding your alleged complicity in crimes with Glenn Beck – comments which were clearly hyperbole):

    I have called you unintelligent
    I have called you dishonest
    I have called you ignorant
    I have called you a coward
    I have called you a birther

    (and many variants thereof…)

    (I have also called you a loser – an opinion which accurately represents how I feel about you)

    I have demonstrated logically that at least one of the first three epithets are accurate given your behavior here and have complied significant evidence that all three are, in fact, true. The fourth, in my opinion, is evinced by your failure to respond in good faith to the multitude of posts with good faith rebuttals of your arguments. Finally, since you seem to believe that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, you are a ‘birther’ by the definition of that term which I use. I have offered you repeated opportunities to detach this issue from your argument all of which have been ignored (more evidence of cowardice, by the way) so I cannot, in good faith, deny that you are a birther.

    I have not made any remarks about you, publicly or privately, on any medium other than this website. This site – on which I am a regular (and, I hope, respected) commenter and member of the community and have been for some time – on which you decided to repeatedly post illogical, unreasonable, and fallacious arguments (presumably of your own free will). Furthermore, you then met all attempts to engage you in honest debate with bad faith. If that reflects poorly on your good name (and I think it does, but I have never attempted to convince anyone else of that outside of this online discussion) then maybe you should have thought of that before you behaved in such a dishonest and shameful way. I post under an identity which is attached to my real name so I certainly desire to avoid having the reputation of ‘Slartibartfast’ tainted in any way. In fact, if you recall, I have twice apologized to Doc C for my lack of decorum in my interactions with you. Not because I feel that anything I said to you was inappropriate, but because I respect his desire for civility (although I obviously made an exception in your case). I will continue to characterize your behavior as I see fit – I have given reasoned analysis in support of all of my opinions and will gladly explain to you why I believe you deserved any of the appellations I gave you if asked.

    I read the link that accompanied your threat and I wasn’t impressed. I’m not a person that has lost their home and doesn’t care enough about a ridiculous judgement that will never be enforced to actually fight it in court. If you should carry through on your threat and bring legal action against me, rest assured that I will fight you to the fullest extent of the law (including countersuing you for harassment, if possible) and if the legal acumen you’ve demonstrated here is any indication, you will lose. Badly.

    Perhaps one of the lawyers on this site will give you some free advice about the advisability of bringing such a suit…

    For now, I will say goodnight. I’m not going to return to our discussion until Doc has seen and weighed in on your threat.

    Loser.

    Kevin Kesseler

  379. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 4:08 am #

    obsolete:
    Classic.
    MichaelN’s argument gets (repeatedly) demolished, and he threatens a lawsuit.For the record, that would be a permanent ban at the Fogbow, but they already banned MichaelN for repeatedly cutting-n-pasting truncated and altered quotes, and his efforts to win arguments by repetition.
    Since repetition won’t work, now he tries to win arguments by legal threat.
    I’m gobsmacked.

    And since I sense him getting ready to post the truncated version again, I’ll help him out by posting the part he avoids:

    “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,

    Go ahead MichaelN, finish posting the quote dishonestly truncated as you always do.

    As I told Michael, I’ll wait for Doc to weigh in on his comment before I say anything else (I suspect I know how he’ll react…), but you comment surprises me not at all. In my opinion his threats are just more evidence (as if any more was needed) that Michael is a coward and a bully.

  380. avatar
    MichaelN March 9, 2011 at 4:54 am #

    Look’s like Kev has grown some manners.

  381. avatar
    MichaelN March 9, 2011 at 5:03 am #

    Good, Kev’s had a think about things and realized the error of his ways.

    Now, let’s gate back on topic.

    How do would one ascertain that the alien with natural local ligeance is not a subject, in light of this statement from Coke in Calvin’s case.

    Given by all appearance ONLY those who have the limited igeance of ‘local’ are aliens, visiting in amity?

    ““whereas if natural ligeance of the SUBJECTS of England SHOULD BE LOCAL, that is, confined within the realm of England or Scotland, &c. then were not they bound to goe out of the continent of the realm of England or Scotland, &c”

  382. avatar
    MichaelN March 9, 2011 at 5:16 am #

    @ Kev.

    I expect you will retract & apologize for the false and defamatory accusation of me being involved in some sort of rape crime?

    That would be a decent thing to do now, would it not?

  383. avatar
    Lupin March 9, 2011 at 7:13 am #

    @ Michael N:

    I have to agree with the majority here:

    You have shown yourself to be unintelligent and illogical in your arguments.

    You have also shown yourself to be intellectually dishonest in the way you have framed said arguments, presenting partial quotes and avoiding answering specific objections.

    Finally, you have shown yourself to be delusional in your lunatic belief that centuries-old legal opinions which, today, are outdated and mostly irrelevant (other than historically) (and I’m saying “mostly” to be on the safe side, but I can’t think of a single instance) in France and in the United Kingdom might somehow be relevant to the issue of American elections.

    I have searched the internet in vain for any arguments made by you on similar issues prior to the Obama election. If you can prove to me by a link that you posted or wrote articles or opinions on this topic (or reasonably similar) prior to 2008, I will merely consider you all of the above.

    If, on the other hand, you suddenly discovered this “passion” when an African-American was elected to the Presidency, I will additionally brand you a racist and a bigot, like your fellow birthers.

    As for your scarecrow of a legal threats, it only makes you an odious individual.

  384. avatar
    Scientist March 9, 2011 at 7:44 am #

    MichaelN: Since you wish to stand on politeness, let me note that I have said nothing rude to you. Yet, you, the arbiter of courtesy, have behaved rudely in ignoring the points raised by Lupin and myself. Let’s pretend that everyone over the past 500 years save yourself has been wrong about Calvin’s case (I don’t believe that, but let’s pretend). So what? Old cases ruled all kinds of nonsense. We are not bound by them, especially when they are from a foreign country.

    Here is the inescapable fact: Throughout US history, both pre and post-revolution, anyone born in the territory was a citizen, regardless of their parents’ citizenship. The only exceptions were the children of diplomats and of Native Americans (who have tribal sovreignity). This was never disputed by any authority for the children of European parents. Only rascist court decisions (Dred Scott) and rascist laws (Chinese Exclusion Acts) and those were quashed by the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark and the repeal of those laws.

    Secondly, as regards Presidential elections, this, unlike Iran or Libya is a demoocracy, where the people, not self styled “guardians” choose their leaders. Old British cases and even old American cases do not trump the will of the people. Remember Lincoln-:” Government of the people, by the people and for the people”

    This is the inescapable reality. A polite person would acknowledge these arguments. What will YOU do? By your acts, we shall know you.

  385. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 9, 2011 at 7:47 am #

    Scientist:
    MichaelN :Yes, inheritance law recognizes family descent where the person dies intestate.What does that have to do with the subject of this web site? Why don’t you take this to FindLaw-they have discussion boards on estate and family law?

    Side remark here. When William the Conqueror conquered England, he made sure that all English land leaglly became his to have and to hold and that his barons merely owned as vassals. Even today, the legal situation is that the Queen owns all of England and Wales, and anyone who thinks they own real estate in those “countries” is in fact using it at the Queen’s pleasure. The Queen is the state and she owns everything in it (this legal claim was later used by Henry VIII and the Labour governments of the twentieth century to nationalize the abbeys and rail roads).

    Laws were promulgated by the monarch to ensure that the Barons and other royal appointees would use their power emanating from land or commission justly and hobourably.

    Which explains why the status of natural born citizen was so important. An alien coming to England was allowed to use land at the pleasure of the King or one of his Barons, but had to become a denizen to buy or own land. He could never inherit land, as that could lead to large tracts of land controlled by foreign barons, who had not sworn allegiance to the King of England (and Wales).

    Yet, to encourage denizens and aliens building up a business (usually not real property based) for the good of the whole country, it was felt to be only appropriate that the next generation should be able to inherit the business.

    This is why so much of the English legal arguments about natural born subjects are based on inheritance and property issues.

    MichealN’s quote is rather interesting, since it suggests that property could be inherited from brother to brother even if the father had been declared an outlaw (meaning he had ceased to be a subject). I’ve seen arguments saying that first-generation natural born subjects could not inherit brother to brother, since their was no subject lineage, as the father had not been a subject (which of course, again, completely destroys MichaelN’s argument about the Frenchman in amity becoming a subject). This may actually have led aliens to will all their possessions to their oldest male child born in England. At a time when child mortality was extremely high, girls married and got pregannt very young with even higher mortality rates than boys, putting everything into one basket and giving it to the eldest son looked the most secure thing to do.

    Since the KIng was England, and his laws were deemed concessions to the barons and to those owing obedience to the barons, the contention that aliens coming in amity had to obey the King, but not his laws, must fail.

    Today, of course, the Queen in her majesty even allows foreigners without temporary allegiance to own land in England at Wales. But at her pleasure.

  386. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 9, 2011 at 8:00 am #

    “since their was no subject lineage, as the father had not been a subject”

    Oops, for “their” read either “there”. It could also be “theirs” – a bit old-fashioned, of course.

  387. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 9, 2011 at 8:16 am #

    MichaelN: Nowhere in Calvin’s case does it say that an antenati is not a subject of the sovereign king.

    And now you are truncating an entire sentence.

    “But if enemies should come into any of the King’s dominions, and surprise any castle or fort, and [7-Coke-18 b] possess the same by hostility, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King, though he be born within his dominions, for that he was not born under the King’s ligeance or obedience. But the time of his (a) birth is of the essence of a subject born; for he cannot be a subject to the King of England, unless at the time of his birth he was under the ligeance and obedience of the King. And that is the reason that antenati in Scotland (for that at the time of their birth they were under the ligeance and obedience, of another King) are aliens born, in respect of the time of their birth. ”

    By the way, pro-lifers are not going to like this passage. Whatever he himself may think about it, Bobby Jindal is here declared NBC by Coke.

  388. avatar
    Welsh Dragon March 9, 2011 at 8:20 am #

    Slartibartfast: I looked at the link you posted – is that the best you can do? A blog by another loser who uses the same fallacious logical arguments that you do? Here’s a passage:
    The State of Virginia outright rejected the common law doctrine in 1777 when it adopted the following doctrine written by Thomas Jefferson:
    [A]ll infants, whenever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise, their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth until they relinquish that character, in manner as hereinafter expressed; and all others not being citizens of any, of the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens

    Oh you underestimate Mikey – it’s a blog by another loser, quoting a blog by another loser (PA Madison) selectively quoting and misquoting a bill drafted by Jefferson in 1779 (not 1777).

    @ Mikey here’s link to the bill can you spot the difference?

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.html

    (Oh BTW PA Madison got slated for his error/deceit and quietly removed it from his article)

  389. avatar
    Greg March 9, 2011 at 9:12 am #

    MichaelN: I don’t know why they had so many different entities, demarcations, etc, I suppose that’s the nature the English feudal system.

    Why don’t you keep reading until you understand what’s going on, Michael?

    If you don’t understand why England had their naturalization system, or even what that system was, how can you possibly pretend to know that the US changed from that system?

    MichaelN: Furthermore if the alien were to be visiting as an enemy, then his child cannot be a natural born subject’ because the child’s subject status is dependent on the subject status of the child’s father.

    Ergo: the subject status of the child’s father is one essential quality of two qualities required for the child being or not being a natural born subject.

    In the United States, we believe that anyone born here is a citizen, unless their father was: (1) an ambassador; or, (2) an invading army.

    Ergo, the same system from England applied in the United States.

    Your argument, Michael, is that Calvin’s Case means X and the United States adopted something other than X.

    You haven’t proven either contention, and you haven’t even tried to prove the second!

    MichaelN: Nowhere in Calvin’s case does it say that an antenati is not a subject of the sovereign king.

    No, but, as we’ve established, aliens have severe restrictions on property ownership that subjects don’t.

    You can’t be an alien (no inheritance or descent of property) and also a subject (inheritance AND descent of property).

    Imagine, Michael, that Calvin’s dad came into court and said, “I’ve owned this property for years and now Richard and Nicholas Smith are trying to oust me from it.” How could the court rule if he’s both an alien (because he’s antenati) and also a subject?

    Alien: Alien friends cannot acquire, or get, nor maintain any action real or personal, for any land or house, unless the house be for their necessary habitation.

    Subjects: Can acquire any property and maintain actions in court.

    So, Michael, which is it. Can Calvin’s dad go into court for his property, or not?

    MichaelN: According to Coke a natural born subject’ is not necessarily a natural subject’.

    Nope, this is just wrong. Every time Coke speaks of a natural subject, he is speaking of a natural born subject.

    But, please, keep repeating this “analysis.” Like your analysis above that this sentence fragment: “whereas if natural ligeance of the subjects of England should be local” referred to an alien, your analysis is self-defeating. It shows just how incompetent you are at the basic functions of legal analysis – namely reading and understanding!

    MichaelN: Be warned, grow some manners.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-internet-defamation-case_x.htm

    Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

    Your analysis of defamation is, if anything, worse than your analysis of Lord Coke:

    1. You are not posting under your real name, unless MichaelN is your full and legal name. There are tens of millions of Michaels with the last name that starts with N. Google also shows additional Michaels coming up with N as their middle initial for the search “michaeln.” Compare that with the case you cited – the online comments there said first and last name. Identifiable, in other words.

    2. The case you cited was uncontested. If you sue anyone here for defamation, I will volunteer my time to defend the case, in any jurisdiction in the world.

    3. I am glad that you are keeping screen shots. I will tell you what I told KBOA. You have threatened litigation. You now have an obligation to maintain material that might become relevant evidence in that litigation. If you destroy, delete, hide or obscure information that might be reasonably considered material information, you may suffer the consequences of spoliation of evidence, which can range from personal sanctions to case sanctions such as forfeiture.

    By contrast, your fictional lawsuit appears to be no more likely than KBOA’s.

    4. Since no one here has accused you, in seriousness, of having a loathsome sexual disease, I look forward to you proving, with particularity, that you have been injured in some pecuniary way.

    5. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation in the United States. I look forward to proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is true that you are dishonest, stupid, unintelligent, a coward and a birther.

    6. We are partaking of our First Amendment rights. We are discussing a political issue. Litigation against one of the members of this forum would be, therefore, facially a “SLAPP” suit – “strategic litigation against public participation.” Countersuit may be appropriate.

    7. You should be aware that under section 230(a) of the Communications Decency Act, Dr. C. is immune from liability for anything posted here that he did not post himself.

    In short, Michael, get a thicker skin and quit threatening lawsuits.

  390. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 9, 2011 at 9:26 am #

    MichaelN: Misha & Slartibartfast.Take note, I do not accept or condone your manner, behavior & attempts at vilifying & defaming me to the extent you have stooped to.My user name is my real name, with my surname initial, and this user name is well known in other arenas where I believe I am being defamed by you to an extent that my good standing with others might be sullied in their eyes.My reputation is not tainted and my ability to earn a living and engage in positions of trust in the community is dependent on my good name.I am here discussing the subject matter and will not tolerate your deliberate defamatory comments to continue without pursuing available remedy.Be warned, grow some manners.http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-internet-defamation-case_x.htmJury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

    Oh noes someone can’t handle the internets!!

  391. avatar
    Daniel March 9, 2011 at 11:25 am #

    MichaelN: Take note, I do not accept or condone your manner, behavior & attempts at vilifying & defaming me to the extent you have stooped to.

    A bit of advice, sir, if I may.

    If you don’t wish to be publicly ridiculed… don’t be ridiculous in public.

  392. avatar
    misha March 9, 2011 at 11:48 am #

    MichaelN: and will not tolerate your deliberate defamatory comments to continue without pursuing available remedy

    I have never accused you of a rape and murder in 1990. I was just speculating if you were an accessory after the fact, to Glenn Beck’s alleged heinous crime. There is suspicion that your car was in the same state at the same time that Glenn Beck may have raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

    There are also internet rumors that barnyard animals become skittish when Joseph Farah is near. Could you confirm or deny if this is true? There are also rumors that Orly Taitz was a streetwalker in Moldova. Do you know if this is true?

    Finally, do you beat your wife or girlfriend?

  393. avatar
    Bill B March 9, 2011 at 2:10 pm #

    MichaelN:

    I put your blatherings on “ignore” at The Fogbow because I found your constant reposts to be tiresome and a waste of my time having to plow through them, looking for something new and/or original.

    Now I see that you are so bereft of ideas that you resort to threatening bogus lawsuits because people here hurt your feelings. And you claim that your ability to earn a living is being harmed by that.

    Either you are a total moron, or you think the people here are. The fact that readers in the other venues in which you post ignore you (as you so plaintively complained about Pamela Barnett recently) demonstrates that nothing said here will change anyone’s view of you by one iota.

    Not to mention the fact that what they are saying is true.

    I’m amused by the way you Birthers, once backed into a corner by someone challenging your “facts,” immediately threatens legal action. As if that could shut us up.

    Grow a pair, MichaelN. Learn that politics is a bare-knuckle sport, and if you can’t take the hits, you shouldn’t be swinging.

  394. avatar
    bob March 9, 2011 at 2:33 pm #

    MichaelN:

    You do know that when sue someone for the defamation, the defendant is entitled to all kinds of information about you, and can use the courts to force you to attend depositions, produce documents, provides evidence of the damages caused, research exactly who you are and how your reputation has been damaged, etc.

    You do know that, right?

  395. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 2:51 pm #

    MichealN,

    Well, I’ve gotten a good night’s sleep and looked at what others have had to say in the meantime… Since Doc hasn’t weighed in (when and if he does weigh in I’ll respect his wishes – whatever they may be), I’ll address your latest comments (and the comments of some of the others that have given their opinions…). Let’s see what everyone had to say…

    MichaelN:
    Look’s like [Dr. Kesseler] has grown some manners.

    That would be ‘Dr. Kesseler’ to you – I hold a PhD in Mathematics from Duke University and if you are going to whine about manners and use my real name, then display good manners yourself and show appropriate respect and include my title (and avoiding diminutives would be appropriate as well – we’re not buddies…).

    I’ve always had manners, but your incessent dishonesty and bad faith made me suspend them in your case. Furthermore, since you threatened me with a lawsuit, I’m going to be careful so that when I call you things like an intellectually dishonest, ignorant, birther moron it’s clear that your behavior has warrated the charge.

    MichaelN:
    Good, [Dr. Kesseler has] had a think about things and realized the error of his ways.

    No, you threatened me and I take that very seriously – I don’t think that any of my comments were out of line and I certainly feel that they weren’t actionable, but I’m certainly going to be more aware of what I say to and about you (so it’s clear that when I call you a dishonest, hypocritical, ignorant, craven, moronic birther I have a evidentiary basis for my comments)

    Now, let’s gate back on topic.

    Sorry, but you’re going to find it hard to do that – just like you can’t unring a bell, it is impossible to unthreaten someone. Were you ignorant of that fact or too stupid to understand what it meant?

    [I deleted Michael’s words, but I assume it was more of the same dishonest cut-and-paste bull$hit…]

    MichaelN:
    @ [Dr. Kesseler]

    I expect you will retract & apologize for the false and defamatory accusation of me being involved in some sort of rape crime?

    As I said above, those allegations (that you aided and abetted Glenn Beck in rape and murder) were clearly hyperbole (if you don’t understand the word, that means that they were exaggerated statements not meant to be taken literally). What was the point of the rhetorical device? To show the logical fallacy in taking accusations as evidence of a crime. While Glenn Beck is a master of this decitful tactic (hence the meme), it is also an integral part of the birther arsenal. Since you’ve shown yourself to be a birther and more than willing to engage in dishonest tactics, I (and presumably Misha as well) believe that this hyperbole is warranted – for the record, while I don’t think you raped and murdered anyone (but I don’t know for sure – see how that works?), I do believe that you willfully and knowingly engage in dishonest practices and tactics, so my hyperbolic tactics were appropriate.

    That would be a decent thing to do now, would it not?

    That’s a laugh – I’ve been guilty of some bad manners, nothing more. I’ll apologize for them (and mend my behavior) as soon as you apologize for all of the decietful tactics that you’ve used in this discussion…

    Okay, that’s it for your blathering swill, let’s see what others had to say…

    Lupin:
    @ Michael N: I have to agree with the majority here: You have shown yourself to be unintelligent and illogical in your arguments. You have also shown yourself to be intellectually dishonest in the way you have framed said arguments, presenting partial quotes and avoiding answering specific objections.

    Finally, you have shown yourself to be delusional in your lunatic belief that centuries-old legal opinions which, today, are outdated and mostly irrelevant (other than historically) (and I’m saying “mostly” to be on the safe side, but I can’t think of a single instance) in France and in the United Kingdom might somehow be relevant to the issue of American elections.

    I have searched the internet in vain for any arguments made by you on similar issues prior to the Obama election.If you can prove to me by a link that you posted or wrote articles or opinions on this topic (or reasonably similar) prior to 2008, I will merely consider you all of the above.

    If, on the other hand, you suddenly discovered this “passion” when an African-American was elected to the Presidency, I will additionally brand you a racist and a bigot, like your fellow birthers.

    As for your scarecrow of a legal threats, it only makes you an odious individual.

    Well, he doesn’t seem very supportive of you – but he’s a Frenchman (at least he says he is…), after all (like that Tom Jefferson fellow and some of his shifty friends…) so maybe we should check out a couple more comments…

    Scientist:
    MichaelN:Since you wish to stand on politeness, let me note that I have said nothing rude to you.Yet, you, the arbiter of courtesy, have behaved rudely in ignoring the points raised by Lupin and myself.Let’s pretend that everyone over the past 500 years save yourself has been wrong about Calvin’s case (I don’t believe that, but let’s pretend).So what?Old cases ruled all kinds of nonsense.We are not bound by them, especially when they are from a foreign country.

    Here is the inescapable fact:Throughout US history, both pre and post-revolution, anyone born in the territory was a citizen, regardless of their parents’ citizenship.The only exceptions were the children of diplomats and of Native Americans (who have tribal sovreignity).This was never disputed by any authority for the children of European parents.Only rascist court decisions (Dred Scott) and rascist laws (Chinese Exclusion Acts) and those were quashed by the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark and the repeal of those laws.

    Secondly, as regards Presidential elections, this, unlike Iran or Libya is a demoocracy, where the people, not self styled “guardians” choose their leaders.Old British cases and even old American cases do not trump the will of the people.Remember Lincoln-:” Government of the people, by the people and for the people”

    This is the inescapable reality.A polite person would acknowledge these arguments.What will YOU do?By your acts, we shall know you.

    Hmm… a scientist (and I know that he is, in fact, a scientist since I know his name and have seen his list of publications – in respected journals like the Journal of the American Medical Association and the Journal of Biological Chemistry — pretty impressive, Scientist…), who has been polite throught this discussion, thinks that the empirical evidence of your bad faith and actions constitute rudness – and I (another scientist) agree with him. But maybe scientists have some kind of bias against you (we, in point of fact, do – we’re biased towards demonstrable truth…) so let’s check out the next commet, shall we…

    This comes from a poster who claims to be a lawyer – and has demonstrated the kind of legal acumen that tends to support his claim – what does he think of your threatened lawsuit?

    Greg: Your analysis of defamation is, if anything, worse than your analysis of Lord Coke:

    Well, that’s not a very auspicious beginning for you…

    1. You are not posting under your real name, unless MichaelN is your full and legal name. There are tens of millions of Michaels with the last name that starts with N. Google also shows additional Michaels coming up with N as their middle initial for the search “michaeln.” Compare that with the case you cited – the online comments there said first and last name. Identifiable, in other words.

    Oopsie! You kind of fell flat on your face right out of the blocks, there…

    2. The case you cited was uncontested. If you sue anyone here for defamation, I will volunteer my time to defend the case, in any jurisdiction in the world.

    Look at that – I already have a lawyer who’s willing to defend against any defamation suit you might bring! (and a good one, too, by all indications…) That was before I got out of bed this morning. Do you have a lawyer? Because I would like to deride you because my lawyer is better, but if you are going pro se (given your demonstrated knowledge of the law…) then I’m worried that would be damning him with faint praise. Oh well, I guess I’ll just enjoy the warm fuzzy feeling this comment gave me…

    3. I am glad that you are keeping screen shots. I will tell you what I told KBOA. You have threatened litigation. You now have an obligation to maintain material that might become relevant evidence in that litigation. If you destroy, delete, hide or obscure information that might be reasonably considered material information, you may suffer the consequences of spoliation of evidence, which can range from personal sanctions to case sanctions such as forfeiture.

    Ruh-roh! Personally, I’ll just trust the Doc to produce accurate transcripts of the disscussion, if neccesary… You know, something like a page on the internet where the entire exchange is available to view by anyone who wants to see it, uncensored and unedited. I’ll have to suggest that Doc create something like that, just in case…

    By contrast, your fictional lawsuit appears to be no more likely than KBOA’s. [You may not know who KBOA is, but, trust me, this is not a complement…]

    4. Since no one here has accused you, in seriousness, of having a loathsome sexual disease, I look forward to you proving, with particularity, that you have been injured in some pecuniary way.

    He means that you have to show that I cost you money. Good luck with that. I think you are loathsome, by the way, but have no knowlege of your sexual history or any diseases that you may have acquired…

    5. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation in the United States. I look forward to proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is true that you are dishonest, stupid, unintelligent, a coward and a birther. [Greg – stupid and unintelligent are synonymous and you forgot ‘ignorant’… ;-)]

    BOOM goes the dynamite… Although if this ever actually happens, I am going to have to seriously struggle to maintain my decorum in court – I doubt that I could watch Greg prove that you were a dishonest, stupid, ignorant, coward of a birther by a preponderance of the evidence without bursting out into laughter (and I don’t mean a quiet chuckle either, I’m talking about a great guffawing belly laugh with tears streaming down my face and trouble breathing…)

    6. We are partaking of our First Amendment rights. We are discussing a political issue. Litigation against one of the members of this forum would be, therefore, facially a “SLAPP” suit – “strategic litigation against public participation.” Countersuit may be appropriate.

    Oooh! That sounds kind of ominous, Michael… Well, at least you can console yourself with the fact that if Greg is working pro bono then it wont cost you as much if you’re ordered to pay his legal fees…

    7. You should be aware that under section 230(a) of the Communications Decency Act, Dr. C. is immune from liability for anything posted here that he did not post himself.

    A question for Greg: does this statute protect Ms. Rondeau at the Post and Email from liability for the seditous remarks in the comments of her website? I ask because her moderation means that she is explicitly approving everything posted there…

    In short, Michael, get a thicker skin and quit threatening lawsuits.

    You know, chump, I think you should take Greg’s advice…

    Wheee! That was fun! One more for the road…

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Oh noes someone can’t handle the internets!!

    I couldn’t have said it better myself…

    Well Michael, I’m not sure what effect you thought your threat would have, but I’m guessing that you got a lot more than you bargained for, so I’ll make you an offer – apologize for your threat and I wont mention it again (I’ll restrict myself to commenting on your dishonesty, hypocrisy, and the other falings you have displayed…), don’t… and I will feel free to use this as another example of shameful (in my opinion) behavior on your part. But in either case, don’t worry, because, as far as I am concerned, what happens at Doc’s stays at Doc’s – unless you are so unwise (along with ‘stupid’ and ‘ignorant’) as to take this matter to another venue (such as a courtroom…).

  396. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 9, 2011 at 3:14 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Well, I’ve gotten a good night’s sleep and looked at what others have had to say in the meantime… Since Doc hasn’t weighed in (when and if he does weigh in I’ll respect his wishes – whatever they may be),

    I wish that everybody (including me) would play nice, but that has proved an impractical goal. I understand that some people’s behavior is extremely vexing and I further understand that the online environment is one that lends itself to shooting off one’s mouth more than would happen in a face-to-face encounter.

    Email is asynchronous [same for blog commenting]. That means that I can send you email and you can read it at a later time. This is one of its advantages: we don’t have to both be there at the same time. It is also one of its disadvantages. Since you aren’t there I cannot see your immediate reaction.

    Thus, email “distances” us from those with whom we interact: feedback is not immediate, and it does not contain many non-verbal cues that we use to make communication smoother. This distancing is not bad, but it can have effects that hurt communication. There are two effects that work together to make misunderstanding more likely and flaming easier to do. Winter and Huff (1996) provide more detail on this analysis.

    First, we are distanced from those who receive our email because we do not see them directly, and because we do not see them directly react to our utterances. This lack of social cues in our communication means we do not get feedback about the effects of what we say.

    Second, when we sit in front of a terminal, we can easily become wrapped up in ourselves and in our own emotions. Psychologists call this “self-focused attention.” When this occurs, we can become carried away by our own interpretations and emotions.

    Put these two things together: lack of social cues and self-focused attention, and you have a fine recipe for misunderstanding and “flame wars”.

    ComputingCases.org

    I suggest that everyone consider what personal insults does to the quality of the discussion. They drag it down. The person who is consistently civil garners more respect than one who loses their temper. Each of us must decide how we want to appear in this forum.

    There are some comments that are so bad that I just delete them.

  397. avatar
    MichaelN March 9, 2011 at 3:17 pm #

    Paul Pienienzny

    “even if the father had been declared an outlaw (meaning he had ceased to be a subject).”

    Correction:

    “A man Outlawed is out of the benefit of the Municipal Law; for so saith Fitzh. Nat. Brev. 161. Utlagatus est quasi extra legem positus:139 and Bracton lib. 3. tract. 2. cap 11. saith, that caput geret lupinum;140 and yet is he not out either of his natural ligeance, or of the King’s natural protection;”

  398. avatar
    MichaelN March 9, 2011 at 3:31 pm #

    Greg said:

    You can’t be an alien (no inheritance or descent of property) and also a subject (inheritance AND descent of property).

    I just showed that according to Coke, an alien with local ligeance is referred to as a subject.

    I also showed that according to Coke, a subject can lose rights to inherit and still be a subject.

  399. avatar
    Scientist March 9, 2011 at 3:31 pm #

    Dear Mr Arbiter of Politeness, MichaelN: Theer you go again gassing on about your monomaniacal obsession rather than addressing the concerns that your fellow board posters have raised. Is that how your parents raised you? Is that what passes for manners where you come from?

  400. avatar
    Greg March 9, 2011 at 4:07 pm #

    Did you prove that the US rejected the law of Calvin’s Case? Because as far as I can tell, even if one pretended you were right about the meaning of the case Horace Gray found that WKA was a citizen because we HAD adopted the English common law as exemplified by CC.

  401. avatar
    Bill B March 9, 2011 at 4:40 pm #

    I must rescind this: “The fact that readers in the other venues in which you post ignore you (as you so plaintively complained about Pamela Barnett recently).”

    I confused MichealN with another foolish poster. (NOt hard to do, you all say the same crap).

    But the rest of what I wrote stands.

  402. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 4:50 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I wish that everybody (including me) would play nice, but that has proved an impractical goal. I understand that some people’s behavior is extremely vexing and I further understand that the online environment is one that lends itself to shooting off one’s mouth more than would happen in a face-to-face encounter.

    I suggest that everyone consider what personal insults does to the quality of the discussion. They drag it down. The person who is consistently civil garners more respect than one who loses their temper. Each of us must decide how we want to appear in this forum.

    There are some comments that are so bad that I just delete them.

    You’re absolutely right, of course. In the wake of his threat I still feel the need to ‘get into Michael’s face’ a little – I refuse to back down from bullies (it’s never a good idea…) and there isn’t a particularly nice way to call someone a hypocritical, dishonest, ignorant, idiotic bigot in any case. If Michael didn’t want to be called these names, he shouldn’t have have invited these epithets with his behavior. If he would like me to stop using them, then he will have to honestly address the behaviors that show the traits I’ve indicated and either convince me that I am incorrect in my judgement or apologize for his actions. I believe in ‘speak softly but carry a big stick’, but sometimes you need to show bullies that you really are carrying a big stick… In any case, he’ll do what he does and I’ll do what I does – thanks for your insights, as always.

  403. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 5:02 pm #

    Bill B:
    I confused MichealN with another foolish poster. (NOt hard to do, you all say the same crap).

    Since you seem to be knowledgable regarding birtherstan, I’ll ask you a question I asked up thread: Have you seen anyone else posting Michael’s particular brand of crap? (By which I mean the unprecedented interpretation of US law and Calvin’s case by which Calvin is a NBS but President Obama isn’t a NBC.)

  404. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 9, 2011 at 5:16 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Since you seem to be knowledgable regarding birtherstan, I’ll ask you a question I asked up thread: Have you seen anyone else posting Michael’s particular brand of crap? (By which I mean the unprecedented interpretation of US law and Calvin’s case by which Calvin is a NBS but President Obama isn’t a NBC.)

    I haven’t, but I see that MichaelN is posting it all over Mario Apuzzo’s blog, and Mr. Apuzzo doesn’t seem to be contradicting him as far as I can tell.

  405. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 9, 2011 at 5:21 pm #

    MichaelN: I just showed that according to Coke, an alien with local ligeance is referred to as a subject.

    You haven’t shown it to the satisfaction of anyone but yourself. That is not a sufficient ground for moving forward.

  406. avatar
    obsolete March 9, 2011 at 5:26 pm #

    If someone made that claim that Obama was sleeping with Apuzzo’s mother in an effort to get a Bill Clinton style impeachment, Apuzzo would gladly go along with it.
    Anything to hurt the scary black man.

  407. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 5:32 pm #

    Ah, Michael, I see you are, as ever, taking the coward’s path and ignoring both my proof that your interpretation is wrong as well as the threat you made and the various reactions to it – do you think that if you ignore those issues they don’t exist? Sorry, it doesn’t work like that. The only thing that any of us has that is definitely attached to their identity in this community is our history – and your history here is one that any reasonable person would be ashamed of.

    MichaelN:
    Greg said:

    You can’t be an alien (no inheritance or descent of property) and also a subject (inheritance AND descent of property).

    Let’s parse this statement a bit (Greg, please correct me if I misinterpret you), shall we… We have a logical statement (if A then not S) as well as rights which (in Greg’s opinion and that of his source) obtain in S but not in A. [In case you are too dim to figure it out, ‘A’ is a person is an alien and ‘S’ is a person is a subject]

    I just showed that according to Coke, an alien with local ligeance is referred to as a subject.

    Sorry, but as Greg has stated (and also provided references in support of) and I have proven (something you are too craven to address), a person cannot be both an alien and a subject. If you want to argue otherwise, give us an example of someone who is both an alien and a subject (or neither) – Calvin’s father doesn’t count here since we know he wasn’t a subject. I doubt you will find an example as I don’t believe one exists and, in any case, you are too dishonest to respond to anyone’s arguments…

    I also showed that according to Coke, a subject can lose rights to inherit and still be a subject.

    Which proves there is a special case that is not covered by the general rule and nothing else. Sorry, but, in poker terms, you’re trying to bluff with a busted flush against someone holding the nuts – it’s up to you to decide how much more you’ll lose, but you’re not going to WIN anything…

    I have a challenge for you Michael (in order for you to prove that you can reform your dishonest ways): can you make a single post where you actually address someone else’s arguments in good faith? Or are you nothing more than the dishonest coward we think you are… your actions will tell the tale.

  408. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 5:34 pm #

    obsolete:
    If someone made that claim that Obama was sleeping with Apuzzo’s mother in an effort to get a Bill Clinton style impeachment, Apuzzo would gladly go along with it.
    Anything to hurt the scary black man.

    You know, a lot of people make funny remarks on this blog, but DAMN! That’s the best crack at not-so-super Mario I can recall…

  409. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 5:37 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I haven’t, but I see that MichaelN is posting it all over Mario Apuzzo’s blog, and Mr. Apuzzo doesn’t seem to be contradicting him as far as I can tell.

    I think that this is MichaelN’s original theory – it would explain his emotional investment if he is truly unAmerican… *ahem* I mean: … not a US citizen.

  410. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 9, 2011 at 5:41 pm #

    MichaelN: I am here discussing the subject matter and will not tolerate your deliberate defamatory comments to continue without pursuing available remedy.

    The most obvious remedy, which I think would benefit all concerned, would be for you not to visit this web site any more.

  411. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 5:48 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The most obvious remedy, which I think would benefit all concerned, would be for you not to visit this web site any more.

    Come on Michael – you could tell all the other birthers how you stood up to the evil obots who were mean to you and kept repeating the same lies over and over until they drove you out… Frankly, I think your amusement value here has started to wane (and you’ve never had anything else going for you).

  412. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 5:52 pm #

    Question to all and sundry: Do you think Michael will:

    A) Leave in a huff

    B) Leave with a whimper

    C) Stay for a while longer and then slink away

    D) Stay forever because he likes us, he really likes us…

    or

    E) Other

    My money’s on (A)…

  413. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 9, 2011 at 5:57 pm #

    I would remind everyone that MichaelN is the fellow who thought that the Frenchman’s name in Calvin’s case was “Sherley” or “Shirley.”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/01/hawaii-department-of-health-obama-faq/#comment-52083

    http://www.nashvillescene.com/nashville/Profile?oid=1619460

  414. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 5:59 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I would remind everyone that MichaelN is the fellow who thought that the Frenchman’s name in Calvin’s case was “Sherley” or “Shirley.”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/01/hawaii-department-of-health-obama-faq/#comment-52083

    http://www.nashvillescene.com/nashville/Profile?oid=1619460

    OUCH! And stop calling me Shirley.

  415. avatar
    MichaelN March 9, 2011 at 6:08 pm #

    Greg:
    Did you prove that the US rejected the law of Calvin’s Case? Because as far as I can tell, even if one pretended you were right about the meaning of the case Horace Gray found that WKA was a citizen because we HAD adopted the English common law as exemplified by CC.

    The WKA ruling was that WKA was a citizen (no natural born) under 14th Amendment, not because US had adopted ECL.

  416. avatar
    Scientist March 9, 2011 at 6:13 pm #

    Slarty-I suggest we now do wiith MichaelN what we did with Sqeaky Fromm, simply refuse to respond. Notice that she disappeared pretty fast once she got the silent treatment. May I also point out that Squeaky was a model of coherence and logic by comparison to MichaelN.

    And if that means allowing a few falsehoods about Calvin’s case to stand, so what? It’s not like some wavering soul is going to be swayed to birthersim by some 500 year old case decided by British Lords. Let’s be honest, not 1 in 1,000 oridnary Americcans cares a whit about Lord Coke. I’m not even sure 1 in 10 lawyers does.

    Ignore MichaeN and it will go away.

  417. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 9, 2011 at 6:28 pm #

    MichaelN: The WKA ruling was that WKA was a citizen (no natural born) under 14th Amendment, not because US had adopted ECL.

    Incorrect. WKA they determined him a citizen at birth and upheld the lower court ruling that stated he was a natural born citizen. If you bothered to read the appellate briefs (which we know you haven’t) you would know that the lower court said he was natural born the government appealed to which it went to the supreme court and they upheld the decision of the lower court. If you read the dissent you would see they thought the court’s decision would make WKA eligible to be president. Apparently they know a lot more than you don’t.

  418. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 6:31 pm #

    Micheal,

    Apparently I should have added:

    (F) Move along. Nothing to see here.

    True to form – you’re a coward to the end. Adieu.

    Scientist:
    Slarty-I suggest we now do wiith MichaelN what we did with Sqeaky Fromm, simply refuse to respond.Notice that she disappeared pretty fast once she got the silent treatment.May I also point out that Squeaky was a model of coherence and logic by comparison to MichaelN.

    And if that means allowing a few falsehoods about Calvin’s case to stand, so what?It’s not like some wavering soul is going to be swayed to birthersim by some 500 year old case decided by British Lords.Let’s be honest, not 1 in 1,000 oridnary Americcans cares a whit about Lord Coke.I’m not even sure 1 in 10 lawyers does.

    Ignore MichaeN and it will go away.

    You’re absolutely right (which, empirically speaking, occurs frequently). Besides, thanks to Michael, I finally got around to checking you out on PubMed (I’m not in the field, but I’m guessing that the average impact factor of the journals you published in was pretty high – impressive) which led to some thoughts about modeling and immunology… which I will email you about in the next day or so – no need to bore the good folk here 😉 In any case, I think the odds of having a productive and enjoyable discussion are much higher with you than with Michael…

    So, on the count of three…

    ONE!

    TWO!!

    THREEIII

    Michael who?

  419. avatar
    obsolete March 9, 2011 at 6:59 pm #

    W

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I would remind everyone that MichaelN is the fellow who thought that the Frenchman’s name in Calvin’s case was “Sherley” or “Shirley.”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/01/hawaii-department-of-health-obama-faq/#comment-52083

    Follow the link on this log, and we can see MichaelN making the exact same arguments almost a year ago, using the same truncated and altered quotes, reaching the same wrong conclusions, and ignoring the truth when he is corrected.

    There is truly nothing new under the sun… (or some such sentiment)

    I wonder why an Australian has such a powerful emotional investment into Coke’s case. Will MichaelN ever have that “Eureka!” moment when he realizes that he in the wrong, not 400 years of British and American law?

  420. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 9, 2011 at 7:43 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    Micheal,

    Apparently I should have added:

    (F)Move along.Nothing to see here.

    True to form – you’re a coward to the end.Adieu.

    You’re absolutely right (which, empirically speaking, occurs frequently).Besides, thanks to Michael, I finally got around to checking you out on PubMed (I’m not in the field, but I’m guessing that the average impact factor of the journals you published in was pretty high – impressive) which led to some thoughts about modeling and immunology… which I will email you about in the next day or so – no need to bore the good folk here In any case, I think the odds of having a productive and enjoyable discussion are much higher with you than with Michael…

    So, on the count of three…

    ONE!

    TWO!!

    THREEIII

    Michael who?

    Thats not boring. I have a friend who is a cancer researcher. She’s been working on some interesting concepts with certain plants and treatment she’s been published a bit. She needs a better job though she has no free time

  421. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 9, 2011 at 7:47 pm #

    obsolete: I wonder why an Australian has such a powerful emotional investment into Coke’s case. Will MichaelN ever have that “Eureka!” moment when he realizes that he in the wrong, not 400 years of British and American law?

    He may be posting from Australia, but the Sovereign Citizen thing suggests his allegiance is to the Confederate States of America.

    I do not believe Michael will ever have a Eureka moment. He’s been told he is rorting with the same texts for a year now so there are only two possibilities: either he knows very well that he is wrong, or he’s suffering from a condition that cannot be cured on its own

    My bet is on the former.

  422. avatar
    Keith March 9, 2011 at 8:20 pm #

    obsolete: I wonder why an Australian has such a powerful emotional investment into Coke’s case. Will MichaelN ever have that “Eureka!” moment when he realizes that he in the wrong, not 400 years of British and American law?

    That is a revelation! I am embarrassed by his Aussieness. Where did this information come from?

    For the record, I am NOT “MichaelN”, though I live in Australia. I was born in Michigan, grew up in Arizona, and got imported to Oz by my Aussie wife.

    I do not know “MichaelN”, or anything about him. “MichaelN” is not my sockpuppet. I have no sockpuppets (on this site).

  423. avatar
    Keith March 9, 2011 at 8:29 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: I do not believe Michael will ever have a Eureka moment

    Sorry I missed this remark in my post above.

    All Australians had their Eureka moment in 1854. The Eureka Stockade

    Which is kind of appropriate because it is the time period that birthers would, in general, be happy to return to, even though I think they would find it rather unlike they imagine.

  424. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 8:58 pm #

    Keith: That is a revelation! I am embarrassed by his Aussieness. Where did this information come from?

    For the record, I am NOT “MichaelN”, though I live in Australia. I was born in Michigan, grew up in Arizona, and got imported to Oz by my Aussie wife.

    I do not know “MichaelN”, or anything about him. “MichaelN” is not my sockpuppet. I have no sockpuppets (on this site).

    As a fellow natural born Michiganian only lately returned to the shores of her fair lakes, I’m sorry to report the news from home is not good – King Snyder has asserted his right to seize any hamlet or berg he desires in the iron grip of his tyranny. The fears are that Fort Detroit will be the first to fall under his iron yolk – controlling all its finances and banishing all elected officials from its administration.

    No kidding.

  425. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 9, 2011 at 9:25 pm #

    obsolete: Follow the link on this log, and we can see MichaelN making the exact same arguments almost a year ago, using the same truncated and altered quotes, reaching the same wrong conclusions, and ignoring the truth when he is corrected.

    Except, that he has learned that the Frenchman was hypothetical and not some frog named “Sherley”. It’s a step.

    I will admit that I got something out of this tedious discussion, and it is that I finally understand how to parse that quote from Calvin’s case cited in Wong.

  426. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 9, 2011 at 9:48 pm #

    MichaelN:
    Paul Pienienzny

    “even if the father had been declared an outlaw (meaning he had ceased to be a subject).”

    Correction:

    “A man Outlawed is out of the benefit of the Municipal Law; for so saith Fitzh. Nat. Brev. 161. Utlagatus est quasi extra legem positus:139 and Bracton lib. 3. tract. 2. cap 11. saith, that caput geret lupinum;140 and yet is he not out either of his natural ligeance, or of the King’s natural protection;”

    Sure. “A right cannot die.” Dormit aliquando jus, moritur nunquam.

    Since an outlaw was by definition not protected by the King or the law system, “the King’s natural protection” was virtual in his case. The outlaw was still liable for any action after fleeing from justice. For a very long time, only the King personally could intervene to take away his outlaw status (for once, no need to write his or her, women could not be outlaws, sorry, Maid Marian). Coke was instrumental in changing the status of outlaws.

    The outlaw could inherit, because he did not become an alien born, but since anyone helping an outlaw was liable to be outlawed himself and the outlaw could not sue in court, he could never claim his inheritance.

    The criminal who was caught and convicted of high crimes could not inherit. His blood was said to be corrupted. Nor could the alien born, or the denizen. The person naturalized by act of Parliament could inherit. A powerful hint as to the meaning of “natural” in “natural subject/citizen”, don’t you think?

    All that from The Law Dictionary by Thomas Edlyne Tomlins, page 8, drawing extensively from Coke.

    There is a claim that Lord Coke forced the issue on outlaws into a more modern approach, claiming a precedent that was not. (The Penny Cyclop¦dia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, Volume XVII, under “outlaw”, 1811)

    The point still is that outlaws could be heirs, visitors in amity could not, and practically anyone born in the realm could.

    Nothing connected to Obama. Yet, the phrase “though in wedlock” could suggest that any persons born abroad could not inherit and a bastard born in England could actually take their place as heir. An argument against McCain.

    Move on, nothing to be seen here.

  427. avatar
    MichaelN March 9, 2011 at 9:51 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You haven’t shown it to the satisfaction of anyone but yourself. That is not a sufficient ground for moving forward.

    You show how the ‘subject’ referred to with local ligeance is not an alien, since it is only an alien who has the limitation of having a ‘local ligeance’.

    Until you do (if you can) it is a proven fact that it refers to an alien as a ‘subject’.

    Here’s Coke’s statement.

    ““whereas if natural ligeance of the SUBJECTS of England SHOULD BE LOCAL, that is, confined within the realm of England or Scotland, &c. then were not they bound to goe out of the continent of the realm of England or Scotland, &c”

  428. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 9, 2011 at 10:01 pm #

    MichaelN: You show how the subject’ referred to with local ligeance is not an alien, since it is only an alien who has the limitation of having a local ligeance’.

    Until you do (if you can) it is a proven fact that it refers to an alien as a subject’.

    Please read this explanation of your error:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

    An argument based on a logical fallacy is not a valid argument. There is nothing to discuss.

  429. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 9, 2011 at 10:15 pm #

    Perhaps some of you may be familiar with C. S. Lewis’s Science Fantasy novel Perelandra.

    The evil demon called the “Un-man” tried to wear down the protagonist, Ransom, physically and emotionally. Here’s a bit of the story:

    “Ransom,” it said.

    “Well?” said Ransom.

    “Nothing,” said the Un-man. He shot an inquisitive glance at it. Was the creature mad? Bit it looked, as before, dead rather than mad, sitting there with the head bowed and the mouth a little open, and some yellow dust from the moss settled in the creases of its cheeks, and the legs crossed tailor-wise, and the hands, with their long metallic-looking nails, pressed flat together on the ground before it. He dismissed the problem from his mind and returned to his own uncomfortable thoughts.

    “Ransom,” it said again.

    “What is it?” said Ransom sharply.

    “Nothing,” it answered.

    And again there was silence; and again, about a minute later, the horrible mouth said:
    “Ransom!” This time he made no reply. Another minute and it uttered his name again; and then, like a minute gun, “Ransom . . . Ransom . . . Ransom,” perhaps a hundred times.

    “What the Hell do you want? he roared at last.

    “Nothing,” said the voice.

    This goes on for a while until Ransom finally decides that he would rather hear “Ransom” for the rest of his life than “nothing.”

  430. avatar
    Kate520 March 9, 2011 at 11:12 pm #

    Jeebus, mikey, give it a rest or grow up or something. This is exactly the same crap you post everywhere, to the same result. There is no corner of the anti-birther universe where you will find anyone to argue your “facts”. No. One. Cares. What. You. Have. To. Say. You are tediously wrong.

    Hugs and kisses.

  431. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 11:20 pm #

    Kate520: You are tediously wrong.

    How incredibly apt.

  432. avatar
    Greg March 9, 2011 at 11:20 pm #

    MichaelN: Here’s Coke’s statement.

    ““whereas if natural ligeance of the SUBJECTS of England SHOULD BE LOCAL, that is, confined within the realm of England or Scotland, &c. then were not they bound to goe out of the continent of the realm of England or Scotland, &c

    It is a conditional statement saying:

    IF the SUBJECTS had only local ligeance, then we couldn’t send them abroad for free. We can send them abroad for free, so subjects don’t have local ligeance only!

    Here, let me demonstrate a CONDITIONAL statement:

    If Michael was smart, then he’d understand conditional statements. He cannot understand conditional statements, therefore he’s not smart!

    Let me see if you can figure out the IF/THEN statement involved here if I highlight different words than you did:

    whereas IF natural ligeance of the subjects of England should be local, that is, confined within the realm of England or Scotland, &c. THEN were not they bound to goe out of the continent of the realm of England or Scotland, &c

    IF

    THEN

    Conditional!

    A conditional statement, Michael.

    It doesn’t mention aliens at all in that statement.

    Anyone who has taken the LSAT, much less scored high enough to be admitted to any school that is an accredited law school can read the paragraph in question and figure out that you are incapable of reading or understanding what you’re talking about!

    But, keep it up, Michael – you are self-defeating in your analysis!

  433. avatar
    Greg March 9, 2011 at 11:32 pm #

    Every man is either Alienigena, an Alien born, or subditus,164 a subject born. Every Alien is either a friend that is in league, &c. or an enemy that is in open war. &c. Every Alien enemy is either pro tempore, temporary for a time, or perpetuus, perpetual, or specialiter permissus, permitted especially. Every subject is either natus, born, or datus, given or made: And of these briefly in their order. An alien friend, as at this time, a German, a Frenchman, a Spaniard, &c. (all the Kings and Princes in Christendom being now in league with our Sovereign, but a Scot being a Subject, cannot be said to be a friend, nor Scotland to be solum amici ) may by the Common Law have, require, and get within this Realm, by gift, trade, or other lawfull means, any treasure, or goods personal whatsoever, as well as any Englishman, and may maintain any action for the same: But Lands within this Realm, or houses (but for their necessary habitation onely) Alien friends cannot acquire, or get, nor maintain any action real or personal, for any land or house, unless the house be for their necessary habitation.

    Coke says: Subjects cannot be friends, therefore cannot be alien friends.

    Michael says: Alien friends are subjects.

    Add these two together and you get: Alien friends are subjects and cannot be alien friends.

    A = not A

    Reductio ad absurdum.

    QED.

  434. avatar
    Keith March 9, 2011 at 11:35 pm #

    Slartibartfast: As a fellow natural born Michiganian only lately returned to the shores of her fair lakes, I’m sorry to report the news from home is not good

    Hey, they tore down Tiger Stadium.

    What do you expect from a crowd of barbarians.

  435. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 11:42 pm #

    Keith: Hey, they tore down Tiger Stadium.

    What do you expect from a crowd of barbarians.

    Another sad day for Michigan, but King Snyder’s tyranny is far, far worse…

  436. avatar
    MichaelN March 9, 2011 at 11:59 pm #

    This should make it easier for you to grasp the fact that it is only the alien, visiting in amity who has the limited condition of local ligeance.

    Coke:

    “The third is ligeantia localis46 wrought by the law, and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is there, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other.”

    Now you might try to show the subject’ referred to with local ligeance is not an alien, since it is only an alien who has the limitation of having a local ligeance’.

    Until you do (if you can) it is a proven fact that it refers to an alien as a subject’ & you are dodging the point of the argument.

    Here’s Coke’s statement again, in light of the above quote from Coke.

    ““whereas if natural ligeance of the SUBJECTS of England SHOULD BE LOCAL, that is, confined within the realm of England or Scotland, &c. then were not they bound to goe out of the continent of the realm of England or Scotland, &c”

  437. avatar
    Greg March 10, 2011 at 12:25 am #

    MichaelN: Until you do (if you can) it is a proven fact that it refers to an alien as a subject’ & you are dodging the point of the argument.

    It does not say that. It does not refer to an alien as a subject.

    Let me break it down for you.

    1. Only aliens have local allegiance
    2. If subjects had only local allegiance, then we couldn’t send them abroad for free
    3. We can send subjects abroad for free, therefore, subjects don’t have only local allegiance.

    See, never said that aliens were subjects. I said that IF subjects had only local allegiance, THEN we couldn’t send them abroad.

    Do you understand If/then sentences, Michael? You seem intent on proving that you do not!

  438. avatar
    Greg March 10, 2011 at 12:28 am #

    Here’s more of the paragraph Michael is completely misunderstanding:

    And therefore we daily see, that when either Ireland or any other of his Majesty’s dominions be infested with invasion or insurrection, the king of England sendeth his subjects out of England, and his subjects out of Scotland also into Ireland, for the withstanding or suppressing of the same, to the end his rebels may feel the swords of either nation. And so may his subjects of Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Man, &c. be commanded to make their swords good against either rebel or enemy, as occasion shall be offered: whereas if natural ligeance of the subjects of England should be local, that is, confined within the realm of England or Scotland, &c. then were not they bound to goe out of the continent of the realm of England or Scotland, &c. And the opinion of Thirninge in 7 Hen. 4. tit. Protect’ 100. is thus to be understood, that an English subject is not compellable to go out of the realm without wages, according to the statutes of 1 Edw. 3. c. 7. 18 Edw. 3. c. 8. 18 Hen. 6. c. 19, &c. 7 Hen. 7. c. 1. 3 Hen. 8. c. 5, &c. In anno 25 Edw. 1. Bigot Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk, and Earl Marshal of England, and Bohun Earl of Hereford and High Constable of England, did exhibit a petition to the King in French (which I have seen anciently recorded) on |[8 a] the behalf of the Commons of England, concerning how and in what sort they were to be employed in his Majesty’s warrs out of the realm of England: and the Record saith, that, post multas et varias altercationes,68 it was resolved, they ought to go but in such manner and form as after was declared by the said Statutes, which seem to be but declarative of the common Law. And this dothplentifully and manifestly appear in our books, being truly and rightly understood.

    You think this is calling an alien a subject, Michael?

    Which part of England are you going to sever? Scotland, Jersey or the Isle of Man?

  439. avatar
    misha March 10, 2011 at 12:43 am #

    Greg: Which part of England are you going to sever? Scotland, Jersey or the Isle of Man?

    What about the Isle of Wight?

  440. avatar
    Lupin March 10, 2011 at 2:51 am #

    After the brouhaha above two thoughts still come to mind:

    1) the only two persons here to ever utter threats of legal retribution (TTBOMK) were Meretricious Mario Apuzzo and MichaelN. Speaks volume.

    2) I’m still waiting for a birther to show he’d written about these issues before Obama got elected. Before that they didn’t care. A black man get into the WH: they lose sleep over Vattel. Tell me of that isn’t racism?

  441. avatar
    obsolete March 10, 2011 at 3:49 am #

    I have it on good authority that Obama himself is following this thread, and MichaelN has him on the ropes- he is prepared to resign once MichaelN proves whatever point he is trying to prove (does anyone remember?). Keep it up MichaelN- you’re almost free of the scary black man in the White House!
    Sherley you can’t stop now!

  442. avatar
    Daniel March 10, 2011 at 12:11 pm #

    obsolete: Sherley you can’t stop now!

    Yes he can… and stop calling him Sherley.

  443. avatar
    misha March 10, 2011 at 5:01 pm #

    Daniel: Yes he can… and stop calling him Sherley.

    – Can you fly this plane, and land it?
    – Surely you can’t be serious.
    – I am serious… and don’t call me Shirley.

    – Would you like something to read?
    – Do you have anything light?
    – How about this leaflet, “Famous Jewish Sports Legends?”

  444. avatar
    misha March 10, 2011 at 5:30 pm #

    misha: How about this leaflet, “Famous Jewish Sports Legends?”

    True story: the Harlem Globetrotters was founded by a Jewish man, Abe Saperstein in 1926 in Chicago, Illinois.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_globetrotters

  445. avatar
    MichaelN March 11, 2011 at 7:47 pm #

    Greg: It does not say that. It does not refer to an alien as a subject.

    Let me break it down for you.

    1. Only aliens have local allegiance
    2. If subjects had only local allegiance, then we couldn’t send them abroad for free
    3. We can send subjects abroad for free, therefore, subjects don’t have only local allegiance.

    See, never said that aliens were subjects. I said that IF subjects had only local allegiance, THEN we couldn’t send them abroad.

    Do you understand If/then sentences, Michael? You seem intent on proving that you do not!

    Greg said:

    1. Only aliens have local allegiance
    ———————————————————-
    Response:
    Yes, I agree, and furthermore this ligeance is by the Law of Nature and is also called ‘natural ligeance’, whereas the alien with natural local ligeance is also called a ‘natural subject’.

    Greg said:
    2. If subjects had only local allegiance, then we couldn’t send them abroad for free
    ————————————————————-
    Response:
    If subjects had only local ligeance, then those subjects are alien born subjects.
    Other subjects are not limited by local ligeance.
    They can be sent if they choose, but are not bound to be sent, not binding on them.

    Greg said:
    3. We can send subjects abroad for free, therefore, subjects don’t have only local allegiance.
    —————————————————————

    Seems you got your wires crossed again Greg.

    “is thus to be understood, that an English subject is NOT compellable to go out of the realm WITHOUT wages,”

    Meaning they MUST get paid, wheter alien born or local born subjects.

    It’s just that the alien born subjects with local ligeance that confines them to ligeance in the realm are not bound to go off-shore.

  446. avatar
    Greg March 11, 2011 at 9:52 pm #

    It’s just that the alien born subjects with local ligeance that confines them to ligeance in the realm are not bound to go off-shore.

    Where do you see aliens mentioned anywhere in the discussion of fighting overseas?

    We can sum up: this part of the case doesn’t refer to aliens as subjects.

  447. avatar
    Keith March 12, 2011 at 8:10 am #

    Slartibartfast: As a fellow natural born Michiganian

    Gee, my family always said Michigander.

    Is this a Detroit/Rural thing?

  448. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 12, 2011 at 8:16 am #

    Keith: Gee, my family always said Michigander.

    Is this a Detroit/Rural thing?

    I grew up in East Lansing – ‘Michigander’ is the official term, but it just sounds too much like a duck for me to use…

  449. avatar
    Northland10 March 12, 2011 at 8:39 am #

    Slartibartfast: I grew up in East Lansing – ‘Michigander’ is the official term, but it just sounds too much like a duck for me to use…

    Well, for me, the duck/duck/goose thing (Michigander), is fine. Maybe it is a West Michigan thing.

    Given the different ways to refer to something in one state (and just in the lower Michigan), you wonder how birthers can be so “absolute” about what a specific wording means. On top of that, the even slice off pieces of the wording as we have seen our troll doing.

  450. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 12, 2011 at 9:00 am #

    Northland10: Well, for me, the duck/duck/goose thing (Michigander), is fine.Maybe it is a West Michigan thing.

    Given the different ways to refer to something in one state (and just in the lower Michigan),you wonder how birthers can be so “absolute” about what a specific wording means.On top of that, the even slice off pieces of the wording as we have seen our troll doing.

    Generally, when I need to refer to Michigan I just point at my hand… (and I think it’s just an ‘I’m pigheaded and stubborn’ thing…)

  451. avatar
    Keith March 12, 2011 at 6:15 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Generally, when I need to refer to Michigan I just point at my hand…(and I think it’s just an I’m pigheaded and stubborn’ thing…)

    Ha ha, been there, done that, got the t-shirt. 😎

    My dad is from Tawas, but I was born in Pontiac (so says my long form with all the handwritten amendments on it!) and we lived in Birmingham.

  452. avatar
    misha March 12, 2011 at 6:33 pm #

    Keith: I was born in Pontiac

    Joseph Farah and Leo Donofrio were born in the back of a Pontiac. Different cars, of course.

  453. avatar
    Majority Will March 12, 2011 at 8:47 pm #

    misha: Joseph Farah and Leo Donofrio were born in the back of a Pontiac. Different cars, of course.

    And mishegoss not Michiganders.

  454. avatar
    MichaelN March 12, 2011 at 8:51 pm #

    MichaelN said:

    It’s just that the alien born subjects with local ligeance that confines them to ligeance in the realm are not bound to go off-shore.
    ——————————————————————
    Greg said:
    Where do you see aliens mentioned anywhere in the discussion of fighting overseas?

    We can sum up: this part of the case doesn’t refer to aliens as subjects.
    ——————————————————————–

    Response:

    Greg, as you have agreed and concur, it is only alien born who have local ligeance.

    Coke refers to subjects whose ligeance is local.

    When Coke refers to people who are limited to local ligeance, he is referring to the alien born, as subjects.

    Can you give an example from Coke’s report that shows people who have the limitation of local ligeance that are not alien born, but are born subjects.?

    Here are relevant quotes of Coke on the matter:

    “The third is ligeantia localis46 wrought by the law, and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is there, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other.”

    “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”

    “Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of THE SUBJECT’S part.”

    “whereas if natural ligeance of the SUBJECTS of England SHOULD BE LOCAL, that is, confined within the realm of England or Scotland, &c. then were not they bound to goe out of the continent of the realm of England or Scotland, &c”

  455. avatar
    misha March 12, 2011 at 10:03 pm #

    Majority Will: And mishegoss not Michiganders.

    Beat me to it.

  456. avatar
    MichaelN March 12, 2011 at 10:07 pm #

    Lupin:
    After the brouhaha above two thoughts still come to mind:

    1) the only two persons here to ever utter threats of legal retribution (TTBOMK) were Meretricious Mario Apuzzo and MichaelN. Speaks volume.

    2) I’m still waiting for a birther to show he’d written about these issues before Obama got elected. Before that they didn’t care. A black man get into the WH: they lose sleep over Vattel. Tell me of that isn’t racism?

    It isn’t racism.

  457. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 12, 2011 at 10:11 pm #

    Lord Coke also said:

    “Every subject that is born out of the extent and reach of the Laws of England, cannot by judgment of those laws be a natural subject to the King, in respect of his kingdom of England: but the Plaintiff was born at Edinburgh, out of the extent and reach of the Laws of England; therefore the Plaintiff by the judgment of the lawes of England cannot be a natural subject to the King, as of his kingdom of England.”

    It just says “subject” not subject of England, or “his subject”, or “subject of the King” – obviously Lord Coke did not mean “natural born subject of England” every time he used the word subject – subject also meaning the item or person we are talking about.

    Note that MichaelN was told this elsewhere before.

    And that he keeps rorting with the stuff that has been debunked a hundred times. “strong enough to make” and “IF natural ligeance of the subjects of England should be local”.

  458. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny March 12, 2011 at 10:16 pm #

    MichaelN: It isn’t racism.

    And Pauline Hanson is not racist.

  459. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 12, 2011 at 10:26 pm #

    Scientist,

    Sorry, but I was bored and he hasn’t gone away…

    MichaelN,

    I’m curious – if you are concerned with your friends neighbors and colleagues finding out that you are a ignorant, bigoted, lying idiot, then why do you keep posting comments that display your lack of intelligence, lack of knowledge, bigotry, and dishonesty for all and sundry to see? Just sayin’…

    MichaelN:
    MichaelN said:

    It’s just that the alien born subjects with local ligeance that confines them to ligeance in the realm are not bound to go off-shore.

    ‘Alien born subjects’ would describe NATURALIZED subjects (and if you were more intelligent you would see that your attempt to exclude them from your definition destroys your entire argument before you started…), not, as any but a complete idiot would know, aliens visiting the country in amity. Alien born subjects ligeance clearly extends beyond the borders of the realm (just like that of any other subject).

    ——————————————————————
    Greg said: Where do you see aliens mentioned anywhere in the discussion of fighting overseas?

    We can sum up: this part of the case doesn’t refer to aliens as subjects.
    ——————————————————————–

    Exactly – your contrived term (‘alien born subjects’) and moronic definition actually leads to logical contradictions when its ramifications are examined.

    Response:

    Greg, as you have agreed and concur,it is only alien born who have local ligeance.

    More accurately, it is only aliens visiting in amity that have SOLELY local ligeance.

    Coke refers to subjects whose ligeance is local.

    No, he refers to aliens with (temporary) local ligeance as subject to the crown (i.e. in the sovereign’s jurisdiction, bound by their laws, and entitled to their protection).

    When Coke refers to people who are limited to local ligeance, he is referring to the alien born, as subjects.

    Coke never refers to the alien born as ‘subjects’ this is a complete and utter bald faced lie. Any person who would knowingly post such a lie is truly a scumbag (in my opinion) and any person who would opine on such a matter with such obvious and easily correctable ignorance isn’t much better – which is it?

    Can you give an example from Coke’s report that shows people who have the limitation of local ligeance that are not alien born, but are born subjects.?

    Once again you demonstrate your complete ignorance of logic. First off, everyone in the realm, with the exception of enemy aliens and foreign diplomats has local ligeance to the crown (subjects have MORE than local ligeance – which is why they remain subject to the crown even while abroad). So here is a more pertinent question: Where is your evidence that aliens visiting in amity ever enjoyed any right or privilege restricted to subjects? (if they were temporary subjects then they should have the rights of subjects temporarily – it is a sign of the pathetic weakness in your argument that it can be destroyed with a tautology, by the way…) And Michael, your evidence doesn’t count if it comes from your a$$.

    Here are relevant quotes of Coke on the matter:

    With my interpretation of their meaning based on a common sense understanding of Lord Coke’s words…

    “The third is ligeantia localis46 wrought by the law, and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is there, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other.”

    This says two things – that local ligeance and the King’s protection go together and that an alien in amity acquires both of these things so long as they are in England. Nothing about subjects here… (specifically, this passage DOES NOT imply that subjects DO NOT have local ligeance).

    “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”

    Only a total moron would fail to understand that ‘make a natural subject’ refers to a child being born in England (a natural born subject made by the local ligeance of the alien in amity).

    “Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of THE SUBJECT’S part.”

    We dealt with this above: (local protection) if and only if* (local ligeance) this is true for subjects as well as aliens in amity.

    *’if and only if’ means that the two things are either both true or both false. Given your ignorance (or misunderstanding) of logic, I assume that you didn’t know that…

    “whereas if natural ligeance of the SUBJECTS of England SHOULD BE LOCAL, that is, confined within the realm of England or Scotland, &c. then were not they bound to goe out of the continent of the realm of England or Scotland, &c”

    I’ll leave this as an exercise for the student – Michael, can you tell us why your implication here is full of $hit?

    Michael,

    Logically there are two mutually exclusive options: either you are right and every other person currently alive and in human history who is aware and at least minimally knowledgeable regarding Calvin’s case is wrong… -or- Everyone who’s ever written commentary about or cited Calvin’s case is right and you are the intellectually dishonest, mentally deficient, ignorant bigot that myself and some others here believe you to be. Either way, you’re incompetent.

  460. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 12, 2011 at 10:29 pm #

    MichaelN: It isn’t racism.

    It may not be – personally, I don’t care where your irrational bias against President Obama came from, bigotry is bad no matter what its origin and you are clearly bigoted against the president (an immoral affliction you share with all birthers).

  461. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 12, 2011 at 10:37 pm #

    Will and Misha,

    You can have your mishegoss, just don’t call me a ‘Michigander’ (I would insert a link to a video of Ray Jay Johnson if I wasn’t worried about lethal repercussions…) 😉

    (haven’t seen you around for a while, Will – welcome back.)

  462. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 12, 2011 at 10:38 pm #

    MichaelN: It isn’t racism.

    Is this really the best rebuttal you can muster? If you aren’t a racist, then why DO you hate President Obama?