Main Menu

Supreme Court justice weighs in on Cruz eligibility: sort of

Zivotofsky v. Kerry is a citizenship case over someone born in Jerusalem to US Citizen parents. His mother wants the place of birth listed on her son’s passport to be “Israel.” The United States does not recognize the sovereignty of Israel over the city of Jerusalem and refused the request. That’s the controversy.

Justice Clarence Thomas in a concurring opinion implied something interesting, something that I have said myself in other words:

… In order to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Congress must be able to identify the categories of persons who are eligible for naturalization, along with the rules for that process. Congress thus has always regulated the “acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents . . . in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 688 (1898) ; see also Miller v. Albright, 523 U. S. 420, 456 (1998) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (recognizing that “Congress has the power to set the requirements for acquisition of citizenship by persons not born within the territory of the United States”). It has determined that children born abroad to U. S. parents, subject to some exceptions, are natural-born citizens who do not need to go through the naturalization process. 8 U. S. C. §§ 1401(c), (d), (g).

My reading of Justice Thomas’ opinion suggests that in his mind natural born citizen means citizen at birth. I say that because the statute cited is headed: “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.”

Of course this is not the majority opinion and sets no precedent, but it does give us a hint as to how Justice Thomas would vote, should a Cruz eligibility case come before the court.

Read more:

,

142 Responses to Supreme Court justice weighs in on Cruz eligibility: sort of

  1. avatar
    john June 9, 2015 at 8:20 pm #

    Not necessarly Doc. Justice Thomas refers to the federal statute That lists persons who are citizens at birth. The statute does not mention Natural Born Citizens. Justice Thomas is saying that children of US parents born abroad are not just CITIZENS or CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES as the statute indicates but are Natural Born Citizens which have been born abroad, indicating a Natural Born Citizen is citizen born from citizen parents. In other words, Justice Thomas is giving children born to US parents a special kind of citizenship that being a Natural Born Citizen. They are not referred as just citizens. In this case these Natural Born Citizens (Not Just Citizens) have been born abroad but as the federal statute indicates do have go through a naturalization process because of the statute.

  2. avatar
    Dave B. June 9, 2015 at 8:24 pm #

    Was that supposed to make any sense?

    john:
    Not necessarly Doc.Justice Thomas refers to the federal statute That lists persons who are citizens at birth.The statute does not mention Natural Born Citizens.Justice Thomasis saying that children of US parents born abroad are not just CITIZENS or CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES as the statute indicates but are Natural Born Citizens which have been born abroad, indicating a Natural Born Citizen is citizen born from citizen parents.In other words, Justice Thomas is giving children born to US parents a special kind of citizenship that being a Natural Born Citizen.They are not referred as just citizens.In this case these Natural Born Citizens (Not Just Citizens) have been born abroad but as the federal statute indicates do have go through a naturalization process because of the statute.

    And what is the indicated “naturalization process”?

  3. avatar
    john June 9, 2015 at 8:32 pm #

    Perhaps the more accurate definition of NBC might be a citizen born to citizen parents. US works on the principle of Jus Soil and how citizenship is gained. In this case it gained through birth or naturalization. Jus Soil (Birth) is the operation principle in which citizenship is obtained where Natural Born Citizen is a TYPE (independant of the operation principle of birth or naturalization) of citizen. So Justice Thomas is saying that Children born to US Parents (Type – natural Born citizen) are citizens who don’t have to go through the naturalization process. According the federal law, They are considered citizens at birth (Operating principle)

  4. avatar
    Jim June 9, 2015 at 8:57 pm #

    john, show me the statute or law that defines citizen at birth and natural born citizen as being different. If you’re so confident of your answer, back it up with more than opinion…considering yours has been pretty well off the mark in…everything!

  5. avatar
    ballantine June 9, 2015 at 8:58 pm #

    john:
    Perhaps the more accurate definition of NBC might be a citizen born to citizen parents.US works on the principle of Jus Soil and how citizenship is gained.In this case it gained through birth or naturalization.Jus Soil (Birth) is the operation principle in which citizenship is obtained where Natural Born Citizen is a TYPE (independant of the operation principle of birth or naturalization) of citizen.So Justice Thomas is saying that Children born to US Parents (Type – natural Born citizen) are citizens who don’t have to go through the naturalization process.According the federal law, They are considered citizens at birth (Operating principle)

    Seriously, was that supposed to make any sense? Justice Thomas’ comment is pretty clear and is what pretty much every mainstream legal scholar has said the law is. Of course, I’m sure you would rather listen to amateurs on the internet.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 9, 2015 at 8:59 pm #

    john: Jus Soil (Birth) is the operation principle in which citizenship is obtained where Natural Born Citizen is a TYPE (independant of the operation principle of birth or naturalization) of citizen.

    So lets see if you’re paying attention does Jus Soli refer to place of birth or birthright through ancestors?

  7. avatar
    john June 9, 2015 at 9:15 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: So lets see if you’re paying attention does Jus Soli refer to place of birth or birthright through ancestors?

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: So lets see if you’re paying attention does Jus Soli refer to place of birth or birthright through ancestors?

    Jus Soli refers to birth meaning you acquire citizenship at birth. Natural Born Citizen is a type of Citizen one that born of citizen parents.

    john:
    Perhaps the more accurate definition of NBC might be a citizen born to citizen parents.US works on the principle of Jus Soil and how citizenship is gained.In this case it gained through birth or naturalization.Jus Soil (Birth) is the operation principle in which citizenship is obtained where Natural Born Citizen is a TYPE (independant of the operation principle of birth or naturalization) of citizen.So Justice Thomas is saying that Children born to US Parents (Type – natural Born citizen) are citizens who don’t have to go through the naturalization process.According the federal law, They are considered citizens at birth (Operating principle)

    you will note that Justice Thomas refers to exceptions in the law. According to the federal law that Thomas cites, there are exceptions. The parents have to be more than just citizens if they are outside the country, there different recidence requirements. This suggest that there are Natural Born Citizens who are born abroad who are not citizens at birth because of the recidency requirements of the parents. There are is no need to consider if Natural Born Citizens are citizens at birth if they are born in the country because of the concept of Just Soil, that citizenship comes from either birth of naturalization. So if one is born to alien parents on the soil, they are citizens at birth but not Natural Born Citizens are those are persons who have been born to citizen parents.

  8. avatar
    Punchmaster via Mobile June 9, 2015 at 9:27 pm #

    Oh shut up, john. The “small town pizza lawyer” from that Little Caesers commercial probably understands the law better than you, idiot.

  9. avatar
    ballantine June 9, 2015 at 9:30 pm #

    john:
    Jus Soli refers to birth meaning you acquire citizenship at birth.Natural Born Citizen is a type of Citizen one that born of citizen parents.

    Just making stuff up. No legal authority has every said anything remotely supporting that. Why can’t you just admit you are wrong? Is there something wrong with you people?

  10. avatar
    Crustacean June 9, 2015 at 9:38 pm #

    Did John Just Soil himself or what!

  11. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 9, 2015 at 10:02 pm #

    john: Jus Soli refers to birth meaning you acquire citizenship at birth. Natural Born Citizen is a type of Citizen one that born of citizen parents

    So you have no idea what the word you uses actually means. Jus Soli is latin for right of the soil. It refers to place of birth. The United States operates primarily off of Jus Soli meaning your citizenship is primarily based on place of birth. You failed this test.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 9, 2015 at 10:04 pm #

    john: So if one is born to alien parents on the soil, they are citizens at birth but not Natural Born Citizens are those are persons who have been born to citizen parents.

    A citizen at birth is a natural born citizen.

    The term natural born by itself simply means having a certain characteristic or status at birth.

    Thus natural born in natural born citizen modifies citizen meaning that one is a citizen at birth

  13. avatar
    Paul June 9, 2015 at 10:09 pm #

    I love the sound of teeth gnashing in the morning. Smells like….. Democracy

  14. avatar
    john June 9, 2015 at 10:24 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: A citizen at birth is a natural born citizen.

    The term natural born by itself simply means having a certain characteristicor status at birth.

    Thus natural born in natural born citizen modifies citizen meaning that one is a citizen at birth

    I guess there lies the question. Is a Citizen at Birth the same as a Natural Citizen. Article 3 Section 1 of the US Constitution explains that only “natural Born” citizens can be President not “Citizens at Birth” Citizens.

  15. avatar
    Dave B. June 9, 2015 at 10:27 pm #

    Even now? After all this time, and so much written about it– that’s what you’ve come up with? THAT’S IT?

    john: Jus Soli refers to birth meaning you acquire citizenship at birth. Natural Born Citizen is a type of Citizen one that born of citizen parents.

  16. avatar
    Jim June 9, 2015 at 10:37 pm #

    john: I guess there lies the question.Is a Citizen at Birth the same as a Natural Citizen.Article 3 Section 1 of the US Constitution explains that only “natural Born” citizens can be President not “Citizens at Birth” Citizens.

    Great, then you can show me more than your opinion on that. You know, laws, statute, court opinions, that show there is a difference. You will be ignored until you either provide the proof or admit your wrong. Ignoring this post will be you admitting defeat…for the 574,289th time.

  17. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 9, 2015 at 11:03 pm #

    Doc,

    You should use this for your quote of the day. It’s as good as David Farrar defining “prima facie”.

    john: Jus Soli refers to birth meaning you acquire citizenship at birth. Natural Born Citizen is a type of Citizen one that born of citizen parents.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 9, 2015 at 11:10 pm #

    john: I guess there lies the question. Is a Citizen at Birth the same as a Natural Citizen. Article 3 Section 1 of the US Constitution explains that only “natural Born” citizens can be President not “Citizens at Birth” Citizens.

    The very definition of the word in the english language is one who is born a citizen. I know the english language eludes you just as badly as the latin language above.

  19. avatar
    john June 9, 2015 at 11:58 pm #

    “It has determined that children born abroad to U. S. parents, subject to some exceptions, are natural-born citizens who do not need to go through the naturalization process. 8 U. S. C. §§ 1401(c), (d), (g).”

    As such, a natural born citizen can be born aboard and not be a Citizen At Birth if the the parents haven’t satisfied the residency requirements or other requirements.

    So if 2 US Citizen Parents go abroad and later give birth to a child. That Child is a Natural Born Citizen but is not a Citizen at Birth if the parents have failed the residency requirements. As such, That Natural Born Citizen would have to go through the naturalization process to become a Citizen of United States.

  20. avatar
    Pete June 10, 2015 at 12:42 am #

    John, it goes without saying, but you’re a complete quack who hasn’t the foggiest clue what he’s talking about (although he imagines himself a great scholar), who believes whatever he believes not because it’s true, or rational, but because he likes the idea.

    Which of course is pretty much the definition of a birfer.

    As such, a natural born citizen can be born aboard and not be a Citizen At Birth if the the parents haven’t satisfied the residency requirements or other requirements.

    So if 2 US Citizen Parents go abroad and later give birth to a child. That Child is a Natural Born Citizen but is not a Citizen at Birth if the parents have failed the residency requirements. As such, That Natural Born Citizen would have to go through the naturalization process to become a Citizen of United States.

    Are you on LSD? I mean, seriously.

  21. avatar
    Joey June 10, 2015 at 1:24 am #

    Since the ratification of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment there are only two types of U.S. citizens: born citizens and naturalized citizens. If you are a citizen at all, you are either one or the other. Born citizens can be president, naturalized citizens cannot be president.

    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1884: Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94

    “The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.

    This section [of the 14th Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
    ——————-
    There is no third category of citizen called “natural born citizen” that is separate from Citizen of the United States At Birth.

  22. avatar
    Keith June 10, 2015 at 3:49 am #

    john: In other words, Justice Thomas is giving children born to US parents a special kind of citizenship that being a Natural Born Citizen.

    That is almost accurate but for two small problems with your conclusion:

    First, the statment applies ONLY to children born OUTSIDE the United States. For children born INSIDE the United States you must look to the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark for guidance.

    Second, the statute cited by Justice Thomas is quite detailed about the circumstances that must be satisfied in order that child be considered a citizen at birth. To paraphrase some of those circumstances, at least ONE parent must be a United States Citizen. Two is good, but only one is REQUIRED.

  23. avatar
    Keith June 10, 2015 at 3:54 am #

    john: This suggest that there are Natural Born Citizens who are born abroad who are not citizens at birth because of the recidency requirements of the parents.

    No it doesn’t suggest any such thing. It suggests that there are children born overseas with one or both parents being U.S. citizens who are NOT themselves citizens of any kind unless they become naturalized later in life (and they are then, of course, not natural born citizens).

    If child does not become a citizen naturally, due to the circumstances of birth at the instance of birth, then that child is not a natural born citizen. Period.

  24. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) June 10, 2015 at 4:13 am #

    john: That Natural Born Citizen would have to go through the naturalization process to become a Citizen of United States.

    That’s even dumber than your previous “jus soli = citizen at birth” (the latter making me really curious about your definition of “jus sanguinis”…).
    So you really believe there are natural born CITIZENS of the United States who are not CITIZENS of the United States.
    That’s like claiming there are some three-legged CATS who are not CATS.

    You fail even the most basic level of logic and sanity. You should go see a doctor before you forget how to tie your shoe laces. Dementia is a terrible thing.

  25. avatar
    scott e June 10, 2015 at 8:07 am #

    it’s that pesky grandfather clause isn’t it. i wonder why the supremes didn’t hear a case long ago. they must have known it was coming.

  26. avatar
    KenyanBornObama June 10, 2015 at 8:31 am #

    Jim:
    john, show me the statute or law that defines citizen at birth and natural born citizen as being different.If you’re so confident of your answer, back it up with more than opinion…considering yours has been pretty well off the mark in…everything!

    I’ll show you…
    A natural-born citizen is a citizen according to Natural Law as Jacob Howard (Author of the Civil Rights Act and co-author of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause) explains on record…

    “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2890)

    “BY VIRTUE OF NATURAL LAW”

    When we look to Natural Law for the meaning it states:

    “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, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

    It couldn’t get any more clear than that.

    And to back that up, we have John Bingham (Author of the 14th Amendment minus the citizenship clause) recorded on the House floor stating:

    “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Congressional Globe, House of Representatives 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639)

    The ONLY other citizen there is is a naturalized citizen. So if you have not been naturalized (individually) and both parents were not citizens (natural born OR naturalized), then you are NOT a US citizen. That mean Obama, Cruz, Rubio & Jindal!

  27. avatar
    Sam the Centipede June 10, 2015 at 8:40 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: A citizen at birth is a natural born citizen.

    The term natural born by itself simply means having a certain characteristicor status at birth.

    Thus natural born in natural born citizen modifies citizen meaning that one is a citizen at birth

    Absolutely correct!!

    “Natural born” is not a term of art or anything like that, it is plain (if antiquated) English meaning born that way.

    And “naturalization at birth” also makes a natural born citizen – the unborn child cannot have American nationality, but as it is born, it acquires nationality and that is naturalization. It doesn’t require any extra paperwork, oaths, etc. but it is nevertheless being born on American soil or with American parent(s) is a process of naturalization.

    John is probably the most ignorant and stupid of birthers. I wonder at how he can be so interested in such a topic but absorb so little good knowledge. He pontificates on the abstract criteria but doesn’t even have the foggiest idea what “jus soli” means nor does he have the sense to go away and find out.

  28. avatar
    KenyanBornObama June 10, 2015 at 8:57 am #

    Awww can’t post the facts Doc?

  29. avatar
    Curious George June 10, 2015 at 9:02 am #

    Sam the Centipede:

    “John is probably the most ignorant and stupid of birthers. I wonder at how he can be so interested in such a topic but absorb so little good knowledge. He pontificates on the abstract criteria but doesn’t even have the foggiest idea what “jus soli” means nor does he have the sense to go away and find out.”

    John, simply put, promotes an agenda far from the truth. (A characteristic of hardcore Birthers.)

  30. avatar
    Benji Franklin June 10, 2015 at 12:27 pm #

    john: Jus Soli refers to birth meaning you acquire citizenship at birth.

    And Doc? Here John reveals precisely how COMPLETELY BANKRUPT in terms of intellectual integrity in investigating and debating an issue, Birthers are willing to be, remaining WILLFULLY IGNORANT about the basic substance of an argument they are engaged in FOR YEARS, while parroting oft-debunked lies and rumors as though they are facts. AFTER ALL THIS TIME HE DOES NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT JUS SOLI MEANS!

    In what other forum that could be called serious, and about what other serious topic, would most of us here tolerate participating in such a never-ending blizzard of such unadulterated discursive crap? I know that I would not waste my time so-doing, except for being on guard for topics which like the ones engaged by Birthers, have as a menacing subtext, the exaggerated vilification of the President as a recruiting tool for encouraging a lone-wolf Presidential assassin.

    Charles Babbage was an English polymath who is credited with inventing in the 1800’s the first crude programmable computer, a mechanical version far predating the solid state electronics based computers of today. He very famously lampooned the insufficiency of critical thinking when he said:

    “On two occasions I have been asked, ‘Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?’ I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.”

    Likewise, if Birthers like you John, put the crank legal theories, the manufactured ‘facts’, and the hate-laden gibberish of Birtherism into an “examination” of Natural Born Citizenship, how could the Constitutionally correct answers ever come out?
    Your gibberish in particular here lately has become against all odds, decidedly worse – even approaching undecipherability.

    Still, the most jarring factor in the ranting postings and pleadings and published writings of Birthers, long and short, is how seemingly willing you all are to be seen tortuously reweaving reality into a narrative which YOU THINK will reflect badly on Obama, but one which instead compellingly suggests to anyone with intellectual integrity, that you are all lying lunatics.

    It’s not a name you’re being called by people who dislike you, John. It’s what you are. A lying lunatic.

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 10, 2015 at 1:50 pm #

    Sorry, I was at Bible study, and just now saw your comment in moderation.

    KenyanBornObama: Awww can’t post the facts Doc?

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 10, 2015 at 1:53 pm #

    No, only citizens at birth are natural born citizens. Someone who fails to meet all the requirements is not a citizen at birth.

    That said, Congress could make a residency requirement for the foreign-born child under which he would lose citizenship, but still have been a citizen at birth.

    john: As such, a natural born citizen can be born aboard and not be a Citizen At Birth if the the parents haven’t satisfied the residency requirements or other requirements.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 10, 2015 at 2:02 pm #

    The problem here is that you leap from Howard’s understanding of natural law (which you don’t demonstrate) to the views of a Swiss philosopher on natural law, as of natural were somewhere codified and agreed to by everyone. Natural law is no more or less than what an individual or a group thinks is natural.

    What Howard said is that citizenship under natural law is the same as under national law, and Vattel is not national law. Since Vattel is not national law, Howard could not have meant Vattel’s version of natural law.

    Here is were our national law, as cited by Mr. Justice Swayne from US v,. Rhodes, as cited by the US Supreme Court:

    All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

    National law is an objective entity that we can examine and through its language and the precedent of the courts we know what it is. Natural law is a vague concept which every person can chose for himself. Vattel, for example, says that the sovereign should pick a state religion and that no other form of public worship should be allowed. Is that natural to you?

    KenyanBornObama: “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2890)

    “BY VIRTUE OF NATURAL LAW”

    When we look to Natural Law for the meaning it states

  34. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 10, 2015 at 2:03 pm #

    KenyanBornObama: “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2890)

    And tracy goes off the rails when she reads this and then comes to an opposite conclusion than what’s there.

    Nowhere did he mention parents needing citizenship. He simply says that every person born within the limits of the US and subject to the jurisdiction. That’s all one needs to be born a citizen.

  35. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 10, 2015 at 2:03 pm #

    scott e:
    it’s that pesky grandfather clause isn’t it. i wonder why the supremes didn’t hear a case long ago. they must have known it was coming.

    Simply because this has been long settled.

  36. avatar
    Dave B. June 10, 2015 at 2:05 pm #

    Would somebody please quit shaking the nut tree?

    KenyanBornObama:
    Awww can’t post the facts Doc?

  37. avatar
    gorefan June 10, 2015 at 2:10 pm #

    KenyanBornObama: It couldn’t get any more clear than that.

    No, this is clearer,

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

    and

    “Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.” William Rawle

    And unlike Bingham and Howard, William Rawle actually knew Madison, Washington, Jefferson, etc.

  38. avatar
    Arthur B. June 10, 2015 at 2:12 pm #

    KenyanBornObama: It couldn’t get any more clear than that.

    You’ve got to be kidding!

    Jacob Howard doesn’t call upon us to consult an external definition of natural law. Instead, he explains that the intent of the amendment is to codify a particular natural-law principle, one that he states explicitly — namely that it applies to “every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

    Section 212 of Vattel describes an understanding of citizenship differing from that of English common law. For purposes of American citizenship it is irrelevant, as many U.S. court rulings have pointed out.

  39. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) June 10, 2015 at 2:16 pm #

    Benji Franklin: AFTER ALL THIS TIME HE DOES NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT JUS SOLI MEANS!

    Like every crank, john is getting worse as time goes on, not better. That’s why I compared it to dementia.

  40. avatar
    Reality Check June 10, 2015 at 2:38 pm #

    It is absurd to suggest that any of those you mentioned are not citizens. It only makes you look like an idiot.

    The question of whether children of aliens born here were natural born citizens was a topic of debate the century before last. The question was complicated by deep racism and slavery that darkened the soul of the US for decades. Fortunately, it was settled at the end of the Nineteenth century.

    The Birthers of 2015 are making the same arguments that the racist George C. Collins did on behalf of the government against Wong Kim Ark in 1898. He lost and so did you.

    Might I add Womp! Womp! Womp!

    KenyanBornObama: The ONLY other citizen there is is a naturalized citizen. So if you have not been naturalized (individually) and both parents were not citizens (natural born OR naturalized), then you are NOT a US citizen. That mean[sic] Obama, Cruz, Rubio & Jindal!

  41. avatar
    ballantine June 10, 2015 at 3:03 pm #

    KenyanBornObama:

    “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”(Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2890)

    “BY VIRTUE OF NATURAL LAW”

    Uh, Howard actually told us what he thought natural law meant.

    “A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws…..They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Senator Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

    Ouch. How about:

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

    So, for Howard, jus soli is not only the rule of natural law, as Blackstone and Coke believed, but also the universal rule. Do you feel stupid yet?

    And to back that up, we have John Bingham (Author of the 14th Amendment minus the citizenship clause) recorded on the House floor stating:

    “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Congressional Globe, House of Representatives 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639)

    You problem is that you think cherry-picking quotes that help your is authoritative. Unfortunately, courts understand such amateur tactics. First of all, why is Bingham’s opinion important, as he had nothing to do with the citizenship clause and his comments are all over the map. For example:

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

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

    Ouch, again. And since Bingham had nothing to do with the citizenship clause, why do you not quote other member of such Congress on the subject since their opinion is worth the same weight as Bingham:

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

    “Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86.” House Judiciary Chairmen Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1117 (1866).

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

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

    “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

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

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

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

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

    “One of those principles is that the candidate voted for must be thirty-five years of age; another is that he must have been a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, or he must be a native-born citizen.” Sen. Davis, 2/2/1865 reported in The presidential counts; pg. 203 (1877).

    “What is the qualification for the office of President? He must be a native-born citizen of the United States and thirty-five years of age. Nothing more!” Rep. Boutwell, 1/11/69 cited in Great Debates in American History, pg. 113 (1913)

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

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

    Gee, I can’t understand why no court listens to your arguments.

  42. avatar
    Reality Check June 10, 2015 at 4:27 pm #

    Glad you are still around ballantine. You are the best.

    ballantine: Gee, I can’t understand why no court listens to your arguments.

  43. avatar
    KenyanBornObama June 10, 2015 at 5:45 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: And tracy goes off the rails when she reads this and then comes to an opposite conclusion than what’s there.

    Nowhere did he mention parents needing citizenship.He simply says that every person born within the limits of the US and subject to the jurisdiction.That’s all one needs to be born a citizen.

    “And subject to the jurisdiction thereof” HELLOOOO, you obviously don’t know the meaning of the phrase…

    Let me help you out…Lyman Trumbull, the Senator who wrote the Civil RIghts Act and who also co-authored the 14th Amendment citizenship clause tells us EXACTLY what the phrase means…

    “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. ‘ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. ‘What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2893).

    Therefore Obama, Cruz, Rubio & Jindal are all ineligible!

  44. avatar
    Jim June 10, 2015 at 7:01 pm #

    About time for Doc to start an OCT Anti-birther Hall of Fame. I nominate Ballantine as one of the founding members…I’ve learned and enjoyed so much from his posts over the years.

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 10, 2015 at 8:56 pm #

    Assuming for a moment that you interpret Trumbull correctly, and that those voting on the Amendment had the same idea, and those in the state legislatures shared the same idea, it wouldn’t matter.

    The 14 Amendment did not repeal the words “natural born citizen” in the Constitution, which is built on the English Common law; therefore, Cruz, Obama, Jindal and Rubio are all still eligible under the original Constitution and statutes.

    KenyanBornObama: Let me help you out…Lyman Trumbull, the Senator who wrote the Civil RIghts Act and

  46. avatar
    KenyanBornObama June 10, 2015 at 9:26 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    The 14 Amendment did not repeal the words “natural born citizen” in the Constitution, which is built on the English Common law; therefore, Cruz, Obama, Jindal and Rubio are all still eligible under the original Constitution and statutes.

    hahaha that is FUNNY! We had a revolution BECAUSE of English Common Law and we declared our independence from them and assumed Natural Law, AS THE DECLARATION CLEARLY STATES:

    “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…”

    So why on Earth would we adopt the laws that we revolted against and put them in our Constitution? Sorry Doc, but you KNOW that’s not what they did. If they were referring to English Common Law when defining a citizen when writing the Constitution, they would have said so SOMEWHERE, they didn’t. Instead, you have correspondence from Ben Franklin himself stating that they used Vattell’s law of Nations, while writing the founding documents.

    Remember Franklin’s letter? This one that is in the Congressional Records:
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lldc&fileName=002/lldc002.db&recNum=63&itemLink=D?hlaw:12:./temp/~ammem_g5sU::%230020065&linkText=1

    That states:
    “I am very much obliged by the kind present you have made of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when circumstances of rising state make it necessary to frequently consult the Law of Nations…it has been continually in the hands or the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are very much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”

    Nice try though

  47. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 10, 2015 at 10:48 pm #

    KenyanBornObama: “And subject to the jurisdiction thereof” HELLOOOO, you obviously don’t know the meaning of the phrase…

    Let me help you out…Lyman Trumbull, the Senator who wrote the Civil RIghts Act and who also co-authored the 14th Amendment citizenship clause tells us EXACTLY what the phrase means…

    “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. ‘ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. ‘What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2893).

    Therefore Obama, Cruz, Rubio & Jindal are all ineligible!

    I know the meaning you don’t seem to. You do know anyone within our borders is subject to our jurisdiction, even those jamaican black “friends” of yours who serve you when you go visit. Obama didn’t owe allegiance to anyone else. A baby can only owe allegiance to the place they are born a citizen of. Obama was born a citizen of America first and foremost.

  48. avatar
    KenyanBornObama June 10, 2015 at 11:32 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: I know the meaning you don’t seem to.You do know anyone within our borders is subject to our jurisdiction, even those jamaican black “friends” of yours who serve you when you go visit.Obama didn’t owe allegiance to anyone else.A baby can only owe allegiance to the place they are born a citizen of.Obama was born a citizen of America first and foremost.

    Wrong, when you are born a British Subject, you are SUBJECT TO THE CROWN aka the King of England and that is where your allegiance lies AT BIRTH! He was “subject” to their jurisdiction, not ours AT BIRTH! You can’t have allegiance to two countries, that is like an oxy-moron. Try looking up the word allegiance!

  49. avatar
    KenyanBornObama June 10, 2015 at 11:36 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: I know the meaning you don’t seem to.You do know anyone within our borders is subject to our jurisdiction, even those jamaican black “friends” of yours who serve you when you go visit.Obama didn’t owe allegiance to anyone else.A baby can only owe allegiance to the place they are born a citizen of.Obama was born a citizen of America first and foremost.

    And no, anyone born within our borders is not subject to the COMPLETE jurisdiction as is explained in the Congressional Record:

    “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. ‘ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. ‘What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pg 2893).

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 10, 2015 at 11:49 pm #

    You clearly know very little about American History.

    First, the colonies did not separate from England because of the Common Law. We did not revolt against the common law; we treasured the common law and considered it our birthright. One of the reasons that we separated is because England withheld the Common Law from us. Our country fought to get our rights under the Common Law. This is basic American history.

    The Declaration of Independence has to appeal to more universal principles than the Common Law, because English Common Law did not give colonies the right to secede; however, the Declaration itself is a list of grievances from the withholding of the common law. James R. Stoner of Louisiana State University said:

    As a political statement, the Declaration was the culmination of a series issued by the several Continental Congresses, the voluntary associations of representatives of thirteen British colonies in North America that spoke for the colonists as a whole. These documents catalogued grievances against British colonial policy, appealing for the most part to liberties and privileges claimed under the English constitution and the common law. Declarations and petitions of this sort were themselves part of the English constitutional tradition, from Magna Charta in 1215 through the 1689 Bill of Rights. The middle section of the Declaration of Independence follows this pattern, detailing complaints against the king and Parliament alleging constitutional violations, unconstitutional statutes, and acts of oppression and war.

    I can prove this by the writing of one of the most respected American jurists, Justice Story, who wrote:

    “§ 78 … In the charters, under which all these colonies were settled, with a single exception, there is, an express declaration, that all subjects and their children inhabiting therein shall be deemed natural-born subjects, and shall enjoy all the privileges and immunities thereof; and that the laws of England, so far as they are applicable, shall be in force there; and no laws shall be made, which are repugnant to, but as near as may be conveniently, shall conform to the laws of England. Now this declaration, even if the crown previously possessed a right to establish what laws it pleased over the territory, as a conquest from the natives, being a fundamental rule of the original settlement of the colonies, and before the emigrations thither, was conclusive, and could not afterwards be abrogated by the crown. It was an irrevocable annexation of the colonies to the mother country, as dependencies governed by the same laws, and entitled to the same rights.

    Ҥ 79. And so has been the uniform doctrine in America ever since the settlement of the colonies. The universal principle (and the practice has conformed to it) has been, that the common law is our birthright and inheritance, and that our ancestors brought hither with them upon their emigration all of it, which was applicable to their situation. The whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law.

    “§ 80. We thus see in a very clear light the mode, in which the common law was first introduced into the colonies; as well as the true reason of the exceptions to it to be found in our colonial usages and laws. It was not introduced, as of original and universal obligation in its utmost latitude; but the limitations contained in the bosom of the common law itself, and indeed constituting a part of the law of nations, were affirmatively settled and recognized in the respective charters of settlement. Thus limited and defined, it has become the guardian of our political and civil rights; it has protected our infant liberties; it has watched over our maturer growth; it has expanded with our wants; it has nurtured that spirit of independence, which checked the first approaches of arbitrary power; it has enabled us to triumph in the midst of difficulties and dangers threatening our political existence; and by the goodness of God, we are now enjoying, under its bold and manly principles, the blessings of a free, independent, and united government.”

    Chapter XVI. Justice Joseph Story on Common Law and Constitutional Origins of the United States Constitution

    Further proof is the enactments of the Continental Congress (1774):

    “Resolved, N.C.D. 2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects, within the realm of England.

    “Resolved, N.C.D. 5. That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law.

    “Resolved, N.C.D. 6. That they are entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their colonization; and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several local and other circumstances.”

    And it is further proved by the fact that all of the American States adopted the Common Law by statute, by constitution or by judicial precedent. An example is the Constitution of Delaware, 1776 that says:

    “ART. 25. The common law of England, as-well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this State, shall remain in force, unless they shall be altered by a future law of the legislature; such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this constitution, and the declaration of rights, &c., agreed to by this convention.”

    And as further proof I offer the letter of James Madison to George Washington in 1787:

    “What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The Common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the Constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed.”

    During the debate on the Constitution, Mr. Wilson thought “felonies” sufficiently defined by Common Law. (Madison’s notes) Mr. Tucker noted that the common law had been “adopted by the respective acts forming the constitutions of the several States”. Also from the Constitutional Convention:

    “Mr. Govr. Morris wished to know what was meant by the words “In all the cases before mentioned it (jurisdiction) shall be appellate with such exceptions &c,” whether it extended to matters of fact as well as law–and to cases of Common law as well as Civil law.

    “Mr. Wilson. The Committee he believed meant facts as well as law & Common as well as Civil law. The jurisdiction of the federal Court of Appeals had he said been so construed”

    It is clear from these proofs, that the common law was not rejected, but rather a basic assumption of the legal structure of the new nation.

    The idea that the writers of the Constitution, many of whom were lawyers trained in the common law, would suddenly throw all that off, and adopt some “natural law” that is nowhere codified, and not discuss it among themselves, and not tell anybody else is not credible.

    I leave you with this opinion from Chief Justice Taft in the case Ex parte Grossman:

    “The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.”

    KenyanBornObama: hahaha that is FUNNY! We had a revolution BECAUSE of English Common Law and we declared our independence from them and assumed Natural Law, AS THE DECLARATION CLEARLY STATES:

    “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…”

  51. avatar
    Rickey June 11, 2015 at 1:57 am #

    KenyanBornObama: Wrong, when you are born a British Subject, you are SUBJECT TO THE CROWN aka the King of England and that is where your allegiance lies AT BIRTH! He was “subject” to their jurisdiction, not ours AT BIRTH! You can’t have allegiance to two countries, that is like an oxy-moron. Try looking up the word allegiance!

    Obama owed no allegiance to Great Britain at any point in his life. He could not be conscripted into the British military, he could not be required to pay British taxes, and he could not be required to comply with British laws unless he was actually on British soil.

    On the other hand, he could have been conscripted into the United States military; he was required to pay U.S. taxes when he got his first job; and he was required to comply with United States law during his entire lifetime.

  52. avatar
    Kupuna June 11, 2015 at 2:05 am #

    God bless you Doc for putting up with the Birthers who reply to you. I visited Birther Report & it is just as sickening as ever. But they are just showing the world how they are total losers. After Obama leaves office they will still be tilting at windmills with their conspiracy theories. The rest of us normal folks will continue to enjoy our lives.

    You had commented somewhere here recently how detailed medical records of a birth might be expunged after decades of storage, but hospitals often keep a brief “logbook” of the births there. I’ve shared before that I used to be a Kapiolani nurse in Labor & Delivery. There was that logbook where we wrote just one line about the delivery we just attended. I can only guess that the book for Obama’s
    birth is safely held in a safe or some-such at KMCWC. I have followed Birthers because they piss me off. Really wonderful work has been/is going on/will be done at Kapiolani Medical Center. My former co-workers really shouldn’t have to be distracted by Birthers. They are troopers though & just deal with it.

    The folks at Fogbow sent a generous donation to KMCWC after Dr Fuddy’s death. Mahalo, again. You guys are just the best!

  53. avatar
    Kate June 11, 2015 at 3:56 am #

    KenyanBornObama posted:

    That states:
    “I am very much obliged by the kind present you have made of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when circumstances of rising state make it necessary to frequently consult the Law of Nations…it has been continually in the hands or the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are very much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”

    Nice try though

    Since you are of the mindset that our founding fathers not only referred to his writings but actually based the Constitution on them, what other writings of Vattel did they follow from within the same book? If he was as important as you claim, he must have had a great impact. I’ve never received an answer to this question from anyone who believes that Vattel dictated our laws on citizenship although you appear to consider yourself far more informed on the subject, you’ll be able to grant us the benefit of your knowledge. Right?

  54. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) June 11, 2015 at 4:23 am #

    KenyanBornObama: Wrong, when you are born a British Subject, you are SUBJECT TO THE CROWN aka the King of England and that is where your allegiance lies AT BIRTH!

    So riddle me this, birther:
    Since England is the sole arbiter of British citizenship, what prevents England from declaring anyone born in the US its citizens, thereby making them dual citizens at birth with no “sole allegiance” to the US (your interpretation), thereby making everyone born in the US ineligible for the Presidency (according to you)?

  55. avatar
    Lupin June 11, 2015 at 4:49 am #

    KenyanBornObama: Instead, you have correspondence from Ben Franklin himself stating that they used Vattell’s law of Nations, while writing the founding documents.

    I feel this is my call to step in.

    As has been established a thousand times, there isn’t really anything in Vattel that helps your cause, so whether or not his book was read and pondered over by your founding fathers is ultimately irrelevant.

    Let me remind you that for Vattel, any citizen who has not been naturalized is de facto a natural citizen.

  56. avatar
    dr. kenneth noisewater June 11, 2015 at 5:57 am #

    KenyanBornObama: Wrong, when you are born a British Subject, you are SUBJECT TO THE CROWN aka the King of England and that is where your allegiance lies AT BIRTH! He was “subject” to their jurisdiction, not ours AT BIRTH! You can’t have allegiance to two countries, that is like an oxy-moron. Try looking up the word allegiance!

    He was never subject to the English crown, he was was never required to pay British taxes, never required to serve in their military, they had absolutely no power to move him to britain. His singular allegiance was to America. I know what allegiance means you might want to look it up. Madison had dual french and American citizenship as an adult. Spiro Agnew had dual Greek and American citizenship at birth and became vice president. Things just aren’t the way your delusional mind makes them out to be. Which is why you keep losing in court.

  57. avatar
    roadburner June 11, 2015 at 6:37 am #

    KenyanBornObama: Wrong, when you are born a British Subject, you are SUBJECT TO THE CROWN aka the King of England and that is where your allegiance lies AT BIRTH! He was “subject” to their jurisdiction, not ours AT BIRTH! You can’t have allegiance to two countries, that is like an oxy-moron. Try looking up the word allegiance!

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

    James Madison

    The Founders’ Constitution
    Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6

    read it and weep

  58. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) June 11, 2015 at 6:41 am #

    Lupin: Let me remind you that for Vattel, any citizen who has not been naturalized is de factor a natural citizen.

    Which is why birthers have concocted the “naturalized at birth” myth (to make up a reason why Obama is a naturalized citizen).

    dr. kenneth noisewater: Madison had dual french and American citizenship as an adult.

    Birthers believe in the sacred sperm of allegiance which makes the dual citizenship status at birth somehow different from the one acquired later.

    dr. kenneth noisewater: Spiro Agnew had dual Greek and American citizenship at birth and became vice president.

    So there’s the next guy (after Chester Arthur) the birthers will gladly throw under the bus to keep their fantasy alive.

    If there were a legal theory that makes all previous Presidents ineligible usurpers, birthers would also embrace it, as long as Obama is covered by it, too.

  59. avatar
    Arthur B. June 11, 2015 at 11:09 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): So riddle me this, birther:
    Since England is the sole arbiter of British citizenship, what prevents England from declaring anyone born in the US its citizens

    I like that particular tease — and I sometimes augment it by hypothesizing that it’s not Britain, but rather a country that does not permit its citizenship to be renounced.

    “Some countries may not allow or do not recognize renunciation of citizenship or establish administrative procedures that are essentially impossible to complete.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renunciation_of_citizenship

  60. avatar
    Notorial Dissent June 11, 2015 at 3:54 pm #

    And just to make a further liar of our now current resident idiot, most if not all of the original colonies when they formulated their National constitutions explicitly stated they adopted the common law of England as their legal basis except where it deviated from their own then current laws. So much for that lame excuse. The rest of his arguments are just so much make it up as you go along.

  61. avatar
    scott e June 11, 2015 at 5:38 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Simply because this has been long settled.

    we’ll see i suppose. if it doesn’t happen this cycle i’d say anything goes for the future. it’s interesting.
    but there is no settled without precedent, in this arena.

  62. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 11, 2015 at 6:53 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    You clearly know very little about American History.

    Before the US Constitution, The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, The Declaration of Independence was the Articles of Association, 1774.

    We, his majesty’s most loyal subjects, the delegates of the several colonies of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, the three lower counties of Newcastle, Kent and Sussex on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, and South-Carolina, deputed to represent them in a continental Congress, held in the city of Philadelphia, on the 5th day of September, 1774, avowing our allegiance to his majesty, our affection and regard for our fellow-subjects in Great-Britain and elsewhere, affected with the deepest anxiety, and most alarming apprehensions, at those grievances and distresses, with which his Majesty’s American subjects are oppressed; and having taken under our most serious deliberation, the state of the whole continent, find, that the present unhappy situation of our affairs is occasioned by a ruinous system of colony administration, adopted by the British ministry about the year 1763, evidently calculated for enslaving these colonies, and, with them, the British Empire. In prosecution of which system, various acts of parliament have been passed, for raising a revenue in America, for depriving the American subjects, in many instances, of the constitutional trial by jury, exposing their lives to danger, by directing a new and illegal trial beyond the seas, for crimes alleged to have been committed in America: And in prosecution of the same system, several late, cruel, and oppressive acts have been passed, respecting the town of Boston and the Massachusetts-Bay, and also an act for extending the province of Quebec, so as to border on the western frontiers of these colonies, establishing an arbitrary government therein, and discouraging the settlement of British subjects in that wide extended country; thus, by the influence of civil principles and ancient prejudices, to dispose the inhabitants to act with hostility against the free Protestant colonies, whenever a wicked ministry shall chuse so to direct them.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/contcong_10-20-74.asp

    It doesn’t sound like the Colonists wanted to implement English common law.

  63. avatar
    Dave B. June 11, 2015 at 7:06 pm #

    Okay, another nut falls, shedding non sequiturs as it plummets.

    SvenMagnussen:
    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Before the US Constitution, The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, The Declaration of Independence was the Articles of Association, 1774.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/contcong_10-20-74.asp

    It doesn’t sound like the Colonists wanted to implement English common law.

  64. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 11, 2015 at 7:22 pm #

    I’m sorry. What in all of that suggests that the Colonists didn’t want to implement the English common law? The Declaration was a litany the King’s abuses in violation of the common law. And if they did not want to implement it, why did they implement it?

    I am not following your line of thought. Perhaps you could explain your conclusions, instead of dumping text and saying “look, see? I’m right.”

    SvenMagnussen: It doesn’t sound like the Colonists wanted to implement English common law.

  65. avatar
    Slartibartfast June 11, 2015 at 7:27 pm #

    I don’t think that’s possible Doc. To be able to explain something one must have a rationale for it. The only rationale that Sven has ever demonstrated is the anti-Obama = good; pro-Obama = bad dialectic.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Perhaps you could explain your conclusions, instead of dumping text and saying “look, see? I’m right.”

  66. avatar
    bob June 11, 2015 at 7:36 pm #

    scott e: but there is no settled without precedent, in this arena.

    Birthers have been saying that since 2008. And haven’t won a case since.

    How’s that working out for you?

  67. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 11, 2015 at 8:03 pm #

    For those who are interested, see the American Health Information Management Association “Retention and Destruction of Health Information (Updated 2012)”

    http://library.ahima.org/xpedio/groups/public/documents/ahima/bok1_049250.hcsp?dDocName=bok1_049250

    It recommends that a “register of births” be kept permanently. While there are many records retention requirements in federal statute, births are not mentioned.

    Kupuna: You had commented somewhere here recently how detailed medical records of a birth might be expunged after decades of storage, but hospitals often keep a brief “logbook” of the births there.

  68. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 11, 2015 at 8:30 pm #

    scott e: we’ll see i suppose. if it doesn’t happen this cycle i’d say anything goes for the future. it’s interesting.
    but there is no settled without precedent, in this arena.

    Why would there have to be a new precedent when this was settled long before it even started.

  69. avatar
    Rickey June 11, 2015 at 9:04 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    It doesn’t sound like the Colonists wanted to implement English common law.

    Nonsense. The Declaration of Rights, which was adopted by the First Continental Congress in 1776, specifically states that the colonies were “entitled to the common law of England.” Perhaps you can explain why they said that if they did not want to implement the common law.

    Discussing law in the post-Revolution years, law professor Lawrence M. Friedman writes, “The common law had little to fear. It was as little threatened as the English language. The courts continued to operate, continued to do business; they used the only law that they knew. Few lawyers had any knowledge of French. French law books were rare and inaccessible; English authorities flooded the country…[The common law] was also the birthright of free men, a precious inheritance, perverted by the British under George III, but still a vital reality.” – A History of American Law, published in 1973 and still in print

  70. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 11, 2015 at 9:24 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    “… and having taken under our most serious deliberation, the state of the whole continent, find, that the present unhappy situation of our affairs is occasioned by a ruinous system of colony administration, adopted by the British ministry about the year 1763, evidently calculated for enslaving these colonies, and, with them, the British Empire. “

    Since you’re a expert on American history, I thought this part was self-explanatory. The government of Britain adopted the common law and codified it about 1763. The Colonist felt it was enslaving. By 1776, the Founders declared independence on behalf of all British subjects of the Colonies who chose to swear their allegiance to the state of their residence to become a citizen of that state. Eventually, the Articles of Confederation of Perpetual Union was ratified by all the states to declare the confederation of the United States of America as a perpetual union.

    I think a reasonable person would conclude the Colonists rejected the English common law to form their own charter for national governance.

    P.S. Hi, Dave B. Keep the hits coming.

  71. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 11, 2015 at 9:37 pm #

    I have read several books and articles in the mainstream academic press on the Declaration and the American revolution, and I have never found such a concept. Perhaps you could explain where you got it.

    SvenMagnussen: The Colonist[s] felt [the common law] was enslaving.

  72. avatar
    averagelawyer June 11, 2015 at 9:43 pm #

    I have lurked here a long time, the recent mention of the Franklin letter is a particular pet peeve, and the motivation to contribute.

    Benjamin Franklin’s letter to Charles G. F. Dumas thanking him for copies of de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” is dated December 9, 1775 — twelve years before the Constitutional Convention. When Franklin wrote that the book was useful to “our congress now sitting,” he was necessarily referring to the Second Continental Congress, which, in 1775, was beginning to work on what would become the Articles of Confederation; he was not, could not have been, writing about the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, which was still a decade in the future.

    I find it galling that the birthers routinely (including in court filings) present this letter as if it had been written during the Constitutional Convention, and routinely omit the date that would belie their claim.

  73. avatar
    Keith June 11, 2015 at 10:03 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The government of Britain adopted the common law and codified it about 1763. The Colonist felt it was enslaving.

    Wrong. It was the opposite. Britain denied the common law to the colonies around that time. It was this denial that the colonies were protesting, not your imagined imposition of it.

    Sheesh.

  74. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 11, 2015 at 10:04 pm #

    Thanks for your comment that adds to the store of facts on the blog. So I am thinking that the phrase “natural born citizen” doesn’t appear in the Articles of Confederation 😳

    averagelawyer: I have lurked here a long time, the recent mention of the Franklin letter is a particular pet peeve, and the motivation to contribute.

  75. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund June 12, 2015 at 12:22 am #

    SvenMagnussen: The government of Britain adopted the common law and codified it about 1763. The Colonist felt it was enslaving.

    They codified the common law?! Surely such a massive undertaking, making our current tax laws look like a mere pamphlet, would merit some mention. Not least of which would be notification that the common law no longer existed, as that is the effect codifying has on common law.

    What I suspect SvenMinimussen is actually talking about is the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which extended the common law to the territories ceded by the French after the Seven Years War and forbade colonists from settling in lands west of the Appalachian divide (ie, the Mississippi watershed).

    Which do you think the colonists would feel is enslaving:

    a) extending laws that they already have been operating under for two centuries to newly acquired territory, or

    b) denying them the opportunity to settle in the same newly acquired territory, including nullifying purchases and land grants already made

    Personally, if I had been fighting a war for seven years to acquire new territories, I would be kind of pissed to be told that I’m not allowed to actually settle the new territories. Especially if my deeds to land near that new territory were summarily stripped simply because they drew a new line of demarcation.

    Sven seems to think that the Founders were like the Australian couple who are threatening to get divorced if same-sex couples are allowed to get married. “How dare the government extend the same rights and privileges that I enjoy to my neighbors! If those people can have them, then I don’t want them!”

  76. avatar
    gorefan June 12, 2015 at 12:31 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: So I am thinking that the phrase “natural born citizen” doesn’t appear in the Articles of Confederation

    Not in the final form but it was in one of the first drafts from November, 1777.

    5. And for the more certain preservation of friendship and mutual intercourse between the people of the different States in this Union, the Citizens of every State, going to reside in another State, shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of the natural born free Citizens of the State to which they go to reside; and the people of each State Shall have free egress and regress for their persons and property to and from every other State, without hinderance, molestation or imposition of any kind. Provided, that if Merchandize of any sort be imported for purposes of traffick within any State, that the person So importing Shall be liable to the Same imposts and duties as the people of the State are by law liable to where Such importations are made, and none other. And provided also that the benefit of this Article Shall extend to the property of the United States, and of any particular State, in the Same manner as to the property of an Individual in any State.”

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=009/lljc009.db&recNum=135&itemLink=D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_XfYu::%230090136&linkText=1

  77. avatar
    gorefan June 12, 2015 at 12:37 am #

    SvenMagnussen: The government of Britain adopted the common law and codified it about 1763. The Colonist felt it was enslaving.

    Blahahaha

    Which of course is why they wrote in 1774 that they were entitled to their rights under the common law.

    “Resolved, N.C.D. 5. That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law.”

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/resolves.asp

  78. avatar
    Whatever4 June 12, 2015 at 1:14 am #

    SvenMagnussen:
    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Before the US Constitution, The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, The Declaration of Independence was the Articles of Association, 1774.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/contcong_10-20-74.asp

    It doesn’t sound like the Colonists wanted to implement English common law.

    The Articles of Association were the rules for a trade boycott of England, created by the First Continental Congress as the Continental Association on October 20, 1774. The boycott was to start Dec. 1, 1774. You’ve left off the enumerated rules for the boycott.

    But BEFORE the FCC passed the Articles of Association, they passed the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress. This document laid out what the FCC was supposed to do and why. It passed October 14, 1774, and it was WHY the Articles of Association were set up.

    Two important grievances were:

    Resolved, N.C.D. 5. That the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law.

    Resolved, N.C.D. 6. That they are entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their colonization; and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several local and other circumstances.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/resolves.asp

    So, Sven… The Colonists very much wanted to implement English common law.

  79. avatar
    Notorial Dissent June 12, 2015 at 1:37 am #

    All of which just goes to show that Svenski knows as much about history as he does about the law, which is to say nil.

  80. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 12, 2015 at 10:24 am #

    Gorefan:

    Not in the final form but it was in one of the first drafts from November, 1777.

    5. And for the more certain preservation of friendship and mutual intercourse between the people of the different States in this Union, the Citizens of every State, going to reside in another State, shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of the natural born free Citizens of the State …

    “The Albany Plan of Union was a proposal to create a unified government for the Thirteen Colonies, suggested by Benjamin Franklin, …”

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

    Franklin’s Albany Plan of Union of 1754 helped develop the early drafts of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

    MacGyver:

    What I suspect SvenMinimussen is actually talking about is the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which extended the common law to the territories ceded by the French after the Seven Years War and forbade colonists from settling in lands west of the Appalachian divide (ie, the Mississippi watershed).

    As you can see from the Albany Plan of Union of 1754, plans for declaration of independence and union began well before 1763. And nothing in the English common law provided for colonial independent governance. Franklin was influenced by The Law of Nations and Magna Carta.

  81. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 12, 2015 at 10:33 am #

    Whatever4</b<

    … and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according to the course of that law.

    That’s from Magna Carta.

  82. avatar
    Whatever4 June 12, 2015 at 10:42 am #

    SvenMagnussen:
    Whatever4</b<

    That’s from Magna Carta.

    And your point is…

  83. avatar
    Lupin June 12, 2015 at 12:09 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Franklin was influenced by The Law of Nations

    Good grief! How???? I certainly don’t see it.

    Like others in your tribe, you don’t quite get that Vattel’s book was not “making” law, it was in effect researching what the laws were at the time in France, Switzerland, Germany etc. attempting to describe the state of thing, not creating it.

    (His ground-breaking work was really in the area of international law, ie: defining relations between sovereign states.)

    If you want to find out what the Law actually was like back then, you must look not to Vattel, but to the actual legal codes & practices in force back then. Generally, this means either the laws of the French Monarchy, or the Napoleonic Code of 1804.

    It certainly is all very interesting, but it has little or no relevance to your deep-seated and irrational beliefs about Obama’s legitimacy.

  84. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 12, 2015 at 1:39 pm #

    I’ve spent too much time reading the anti-birthers and not enough time reading the birthers arguments.

    If not Vattel, then where did they arrive at this term. Many of those who ridicule us like to quote Blackstone as authoritative that the United States adopted English Common Law. They like to state that Blackstone’s natural born subject is equivalent of a natural born citizen. There is no doubt that the Founding Father’s were influenced from Blackstone’s Commentary. However, the Framers of the Constitution recognized that it was Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution at will. Blackstone was increasingly recognized by the Americans as a proponent of arbitrary power. In fact, the framers rejected the notion that the United States was under English Common Law, “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” George Mason one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

    George Mason at http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_16.txt

    “We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states. I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire.

    George Mason was a great man.

  85. avatar
    gorefan June 12, 2015 at 2:33 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: George Mason was a great man.

    Yes, he was. He also was opposed to the new Constitution and refused to sign it at the Federal Convention and to vote for ratification in the Virginia Convention. His principle objection was the lack of a bill of rights.

    He published a paper on why the Constitution should not be ratified. One objection was the following:

    “There is no declaration of rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitutions of the several States, the declarations of rights in the separate States are no security. Nor are the people secured even in the enjoyment of the benefit of the common law, which stands here upon no other foundation than its having been adopted by the respective acts forming the Constitutions of the several States.

    James Iredell responded to Mason’s Objections.

    “2. As to the common law, it is difficult to know what is meant by that part of the objection. So far as the people are now entitled to the benefit of the common law, they certainly will have a right to enjoy it under the new Constitution until altered by the general legislature, which even in this point has some cardinal limits assigned to it. What are most acts of Assembly but a deviation in some degree from the principles of the common law? The people are expressly secured (contrary to Mr. Mason’s wishes) against ex post facto laws; so that the tenure of any property at any time held under the principles of the common law, cannot be altered by any future act of the general legislature. The principles of the common law, as they now apply, must surely always hereafter apply, except in those particulars in which express authority is given by this constitution; in no other particulars can the Congress have authority to change it, and I believe it cannot be shown that any one power of this kind given is unnecessarily given, or that the power would answer its proper purpose if the legislature was restricted from any innovations on the principles of the common law, which would not in all cases suit the vast variety of incidents that might arise out it.”

    James Madison wrote to George Washington wondering what Mason meant:

    “I have been this day honoured with your favor of the 10th. instant, under the same cover with which is a copy of Col. Mason’s objections to the Work of the Convention. . . .

    [skip]

    “What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I. to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and Obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The “revisal of the laws” by a Committe[e] of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. 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 wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution. This objection surely was not brought forward in the Convention, or it wd. have been placed in such a light that a repetition of it out of doors would scarcely have been hazarded. Were it allowed the weight which Col. M. may suppose it deserves, it would remain to be decided whether it be candid to arraign the Convention for omissions which were never suggested to them–or prudent to vindicate the dissent by reasons which either were not previously thought of, or must have been wilfully concealed.”

    BTW your quote of Mason’s conveniently leaves off this statement:

    “The common law, sir, has prevented the power of the crown from destroying the
    immunities of the people. We are placed in a still better condition — in a more favorable situation than perhaps any people ever were before. We have it in our power …to hinder a dismemberment of the empire.”

  86. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 12, 2015 at 4:20 pm #

    Gorefan:

    You’re mixing apples and oranges, Gorefan. Mason clearly stated the common law of the states was distinct from English common law. Mason was concerned the proposed US Constitution usurped common law of the states and did not support ratification.

    Obviously, the Framers were influenced by the common law of the states, Vattel and Magna Carte to write the US Constitution.

  87. avatar
    Arthur B. June 12, 2015 at 4:54 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    You’re mixing apples and oranges…

    Obviously, the Framers were influenced by the common law of the states, Vattel and Magna Carte to write the US Constitution.

    In order to avoid an apples/oranges problem of your own, why don’t you demonstrate that the Framers were influenced by Vattel when it came to the definition of citizenship.

  88. avatar
    J.D. Sue June 12, 2015 at 5:09 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: the Framers were influenced by the common law of the states


    You and many birthers sure go through a lot of trouble trying to shoot down the common law while you have no real grasp of what the common law is, and you aren’t willing to put in the time and effort and thought it takes to learn about it. Seems to me, your only real complaint about the common law is that you don’t like its definition of “natural born”. That’s it. You’re willing to rewrite history and our whole legal system — all because you want to redefine “natural born” by any means necessary.

    As for the Framers, they were more than “influenced” by the English common law and the common law in the states; they lived by it and organized their affairs around it every day of their lives.

  89. avatar
    Rickey June 12, 2015 at 6:10 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    bviously, the Framers were influenced by the common law of the states, Vattel and Magna Carte to write the US Constitution.

    Perhaps you can explain why Vattel’s name does not come up in the more than 2,000 pages of the two-volume “Debate on the Constitution.” (Library of America,1993).

    As to the English common law, this is from a Pennsylvania Herald editorial published on October 17, 1787 in response to remarks made by James Wilson about trials in civil cases. “[Wilson’s] answer is extremely futile, because a reference might easily have been made to the common law of England, which obtains through every State.” (“Debate on the Constitution”, Vol. 1, pp. 71-72)

    Then there is James Madison to George Washington, October 18. 1787: “What can [Col. Mason] mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The Common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the Constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with the other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The Constitution of Virginia, drawn up by Col. Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I to be still the law of the land.” (“Debate on the Constitution,” Vol 1, p. 351).

  90. avatar
    ballantine June 12, 2015 at 6:14 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    George Mason was a great man.

    You need to read the entire debates as Mason and Patrick Henry were arguing that we should adopt the common law at a federal level as they had done in Virginia in 1776. They were saying without adopting the common law, we would have none. Neither said we had a different common law. Such debates also have Madison saying:

    “I will refer you to a book which is in every man’s hand–Blackstone’s Commentaries.” James Madison, Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention18–19 June 1788Elliot 3:499—515

    The English common law was adopted by all the states in or following 1776:

    “The common law of England, so far as it was applicable to our circumstances, was brought over by our ancestors, upon their emigration to this country. The Revolution did not involve in it any abolition of the common law. It has been adopted or declared in force by the constitutions of some of the states, and by statute in others; and where not explicitly adopted, it is yet considered as the law of the land, subject to modifications and express legislative repeal. The common law of England, applicable to our situation and government, is the law of this country, except where altered or rejected by statute, or varied by local usages, under the sanction of judicial decisions. James Kent, William Hardcastle Browne, Commentaries on American Law, pg. 212 (1894).

    There was some debate as to what provisions of the common law were not applicable to our circumstances, but the vast majority of sources said the differences were minor. For example:

    “It is true that one learned judge has spoken of the adoption of the common law in the colonies, as being only to a limited extent. And some have deemed it derogatory to us as a people, to assume that we inherited the common law of England. It is indifferent whether we say that we inherited the common law, or the principles of the common law. There is no doubt but that in all the thirteen colonies, it was the common origin of our jurisprudence. And any one who will take the trouble to compare the whole mass of statute law of general application, which, up to the era of the revolution, had been enacted in the colony of New-York, with the immense extent of the principles of the common law which were then in actual force and operation here, regulating the rights of persons and property ; will be satisfied that we, as colonists, had drawn almost exclusively from that source; and with us, at least, the common law had been adopted to no very limited or restricted extent.” Lynch v. Clarke (NY 1844).

    “The only principles of law, then, that can be regarded are those common to all the States. I know of none such which can affect this case but those that are derived from what is properly termed “the common law,” a law which I presume is the groundwork of the laws in every State in the Union, and which I consider, so far as it is applicable to the peculiar circumstances of the country, and where no special act of legislation controls it, to be in force in each State as it existed in England (unaltered by any statute) at the time of the first settlement of the country. The statutes of England that are in force in America differ perhaps in all the States, and therefore it is probable the common law in each is in some respects different. But it is certain that, in regard to any common law principle which can influence the question before us, no alteration has been made by any statute which could occasion the least material difference, or have any partial effect.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 435 (1793).

    No one said we relied on Vattel for common law as international law has nothing to do with our common law or municipal law as such just show ignorance of what such terms mean.

    Of course, even if our common law was not exactly the same as England, no one said there was any difference on the subject on the subject of nationality or alienage other than by statute. For example:

    “From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law, unless where they were prevented from becoming citizens by the constitution or statutes of the place of their birth….The word citizen expresses precisely the same relation to the State which subject does to the king. Indeed for a considerable period after the revolution, the word subject was used as synonymous with citizen. Thus in the declaration of rights in the constitution of Massachusetts, the word subject is several times introduced, where we should now use citizen. So in Mass. St. 1784, c. 72, s. 10, a punishment is enacted for kidnapping “any subject of this Commonwealth, or other person lawfully residing and inhabiting therein.” In this passage the word subject can have no other meaning than that ot citizen. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” American Jurist and Law Magizene, January, 1834

  91. avatar
    ballantine June 12, 2015 at 6:20 pm #

    While the common law was not adopted at the national level, many of its terms were incorporate into the Constitution. No one ever said anything by Vattel was incorporated into the Constitution. It’s pretty simple, we didn’t adopt the common law at the federal level but incorporated many of its provisions as many words in the Constitution had any meaning outside of the English common law:

    “It was not to be doubted that the Constitution and laws of the United States were made in reference to the existence of the common law, whatever doubts might be entertained as to the question, whether the common law of England, in its broadest sense, including equity and admiralty as well as legal doctrines, was the common law of the United States. In many cases, the language of the Constitution and laws would be inexplicable without reference to the common law; and the existence of the common law is not only supposed by the Constitution, but it is appealed to for the construction and interpretation of its powers.” James Kent, Commentaries on American Law (1826)

    “The Constitution of the United States, like those of all the original states (and in fact, of all the states now forming the Union, with the exception of Louisiana,) presupposed the existence and authority of the common law. The principles of that law were the basis of our institutions. In adopting the state and national constitutions; those fundamental laws which were to govern their political action and relations in the new circumstances arising from the assumption of sovereignty, both local and national; our ancestors rejected so much of the common law as was then inapplicable to their situation, and prescribed new rules for their regulation and government. But in so doing, they did not reject the body of the common law. They founded their respective state constitutions and the great national compact, upon its existing principles, so far as they were consistent and harmonious with the provisions of those constitutions. A brief reference to the Constitution of the United States will illustrate this idea. It gives the sole power of impeachment to the House of Representatives, and the sole power of trying an impeachment to the Senate. Impeachment is thus treated as a well known, defined and established proceeding. Yet it was only known to the common law, and could be understood only by reference to the principles of that law. The Congress was authorized to provide for the punishment of felonies committed on the high seas, and for punishing certain other crimes. The common law furnished the only definition of felonies. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, was to be by jury; and the Constitution speaks of treason, bribery, indictment, cases in equity, an uniform system of bankruptcy, attainder, and the writ of habeas corpus; all of which were unknown even by name, to any other system of jurisprudence than the common law. In like manner, the amendments to the Constitution make provisions in reference to the right of petition, search warrants, capital crimes, grand jury, trial by jury, bail, fines, and the rules of the common law. In these instances, no legislative definition or exposition, was apparently deemed necessary by the framers of the Constitution. They are spoken of as substantial things, already existing and established, and which will continue to exist. And the legislation of Congress immediately following its adoption, and in which they proceeded to carry out in detail the new system of government, left most of these things to stand upon the same footing that they previously were, the principles of the unwritten or common law. It has never been deemed necessary for Congress to legislate upon the rules of pleading or evidence, or of the construction of statutes or contracts, or upon any of the multifarious rules and principles of law and equity, which have been daily used and applied in civil cases, in the courts of the United States, from the year 1789 to the present day. So of the rules of evidence, and the proceedings in criminal cases. All these principles, rules and forms of proceeding, have been adopted from the common law, as a matter of course, without doubt or question. The few state trials which we have had under our general government, are full of illustrations of this fact.” Lynch v. Clarke (NY 1844)

    “There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” Smith v. Alabama, 124 US 478 (1881)

    “The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Convention of the Thirteen States, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.” Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 76, 108-09 (1925).

    “When, therefore, they emerged from the colonial condition into that of independence, the laws which governed them consisted, first, of the common law of England, so far as they had tacitly adopted it as suited to their condition; second, of the statutes of England, or of Great Britain, amendatory of the common law, which they had in like manner adopted; and, third, of the colonial statutes. The first and second constituted the American common law, and by this in great part are rights adjudged and wrongs redressed in the American States to this day.” Thomas McIntyre Cooley, Victor Hugo Lane, A treatise on the constitutional limitations which rest upon the legislative … pg. 53-54 (1903)

    “The universal principle (and the practice has conformed to it) has been, that the common law is our birthright and inheritance, and that our ancestors brought hither with them upon their emigration all of it, which was applicable to their situation. The whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law.” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, pg. 65 (1833).

    “JUSTICE SCALIA: I don’t use British law for everything. I use British law for those elements of the Constitution that were taken from Britain. The phrase “the right to be confronted with witnesses against him” — what did confrontation consist of in England? It had a meaning to the American colonists, all of whom were intimately familiar with my friend Blackstone. And what they understood when they ratified this Constitution was that they were affirming the rights of Englishmen. So to know what the Constitution meant at the time, you have to know what English law was at the time. And that isn’t so for every provision of the Constitution. The one you mentioned — what does sovereignty consist of? — that is probably one on which I would consult English law, because it was understood when the Constitution was framed that the states remained, at that time in 1789, separate sovereigns. Well, what were the prerogatives of a sovereign, as understood by the framers of the Constitution? The same as was understood by their English forebears. So that’s why I would use English law — not at all because I think we are still very much aligned legally, socially, philosophically with England. That’s not the reason.” Cass Sunstein, A Constitution of many minds: why the founding document doesn’t mean what it meant before, pg. 200-01 (2009)

    Understand yet?

  92. avatar
    ballantine June 12, 2015 at 6:38 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    Gorefan:

    Obviously, the Framers were influenced by the common law of the states, Vattel and Magna Carte to write the US Constitution.

    Making silly statements does not make them true. What provisions of Vattel or a common law different from England is in the Constitution. No evidence of any such thing. Who said our common law of nationality and alienage was different from England other than changed by statute. No one. Show me one quote. Many silly assertions is not an argument. Here is what real early legal authorities said about the common law of nationality and alienage:

    “And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ” Lynch vs. Clarke, pg. 250 (NY 1844)

    “that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.” Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805).

    “The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.” Kilham v. Ward (1806), 2 Mass. 236, 265.

    “The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ‘subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.” State v. Manuel 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838)

    “By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.” “This claim of the commonwealth to the allegiance of all persons born within its territories, may subject some persons who, adhering to their former sovereign and residing within his dominions, are recognized by him as his subjects, to great inconvenience, especially in time of war, when two opposing sovereigns may claim their allegiance.” Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813).

    “And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.” James Kent, Commentaries on American Law (1826)

    “The Constitution contains no definition of the character of a Citizen ; but the term is used in plain reference to the Common Law, which is regarded not only as the means or instrument of exercising the jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution, but in many instances must be resorted to as the interpreter of its meaning. At the time the Constitution was adopted, the Citizens of each State, collectively, constituted the Citizens of the United States ; and were either Native Citizens, or those born within the United States, or naturalized Citizens, or persons born elsewhere, but who, upon assuming the allegiance, had become entitled to the privileges, of native Citizens.” Wiiliam Duer, A course of lectures on the constitutional jurisprudence of the United States, pg. 231, (1845);

    “The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution, and, by that principle, the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned, such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States. The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute.” Horace Binney, American Law Register, 2 Amer.Law Reg.193, 203, 204, 206 (February 1854)

    “The same question is presented, therefore, in this respect, which arose in Lynch v. Clark (1 Sandf. Ch. R, 583), where it is, I think, very clearly shown that, in the absence of any statute) or any decisions of our own courts, State or National, on the subject, the question of citizenship can only be determined by reference to the English common law, which, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, was, to a greater or less extent, recognized as the law of all the States by which that Constitution was adopted. Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 NY 356, 360-61 (1863).

    “Mr. Binney demonstrates that, under the law then existing, the children of citizens of the United States born abroad, and whose parents were not citizens of the United States on or before the 14th of April, 1802, were aliens because the Act of 1802 only applied to such parents, and because, under the common law, which applied in this country, the children of citizens born abroad were not citizens, but were aliens.” Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927)

    “By the common law of England, which is in force in this country, and which may be assumed as also the law of all the European states, persons within the jurisdiction of the government, or limits of the territory, are either natives, or aliens. Natives are those born within the national jurisdiction; aliens are born without that jurisdiction. The exception to this almost universal rule, are the foreign-born children of ambassadors, who are assumed to carry with them the jurisdiction of the nation which they represent. As a general principle of the English and American law, all native-born, free persons, of whatever age, sex, and parentage, are citizens.” John Norton Pomeroy, Introduction to Municipal Law, pg. 419 (1865)

    “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)

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

    It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born. That had been frequently decided in the United States. It has been acted upon by the executive department of the Government in protecting the rights of native-born persons of this country as citizens of the United States. It has been held in the judicial tribunals of the country that persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

    “The rule of the common law is that citizenship turns upon the place of birth, and that one born within the jurisdiction, even though of alien parents, is a citizen by birth, or, as the Constitution expresses it, a natural-born citizen; and this rule has been very generally recognized and enforced by all the departments of the government.” Raleigh C. Minor, Address on the Citizenship of Individuals …, PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW (1910)

    Please tell us what quote you don’t understand.

  93. avatar
    averagelawyer June 12, 2015 at 10:17 pm #

    DR Conspiracy

    Right — NBC does not appear in the final Articles of Confederation. Each state retained sovereignty (see also gorefans post); nor did the Articles grant the national government the power of naturalization, citizenship was up to each state until the Constitution.

  94. avatar
    scott e June 13, 2015 at 8:44 am #

    bob: Birthers have been saying that since 2008.And haven’t won a case since.

    How’s that working out for you?

    fine, cause the epic is getting more interesting, not less. i remember when i said a couple of years ago that the supremes might review de vattel over the summer. wow did i get jumped on for mentioning that. as the premiere case, i think he would have received the blessing of the ussc. the other identity and documentation, not so much.

  95. avatar
    scott e June 13, 2015 at 8:47 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Why would there have to be a new precedent when this was settled long before it even started.

    because there is no precedent, that the supremes have been evading/avoiding the issue. they should define natural born, that’s all.

  96. avatar
    scott e June 13, 2015 at 8:56 am #

    Rickey: Obama owed no allegiance to Great Britain at any point in his life. He could not be conscripted into the British military, he could not be required to pay British taxes, and he could not be required to comply with British laws unless he was actually on British soil.

    On the other hand, he could have been conscripted into the United States military; he was required to pay U.S. taxes when he got his first job; and he was required to comply with United States law during his entire lifetime.

    owed no allegiance ? that’s funny, he hates colonialism, which our country has not engaged in. you will say yes we do. look at puerto rico guam and wake island….. we colonise the same a great birtain did.

  97. avatar
    gorefan June 13, 2015 at 9:42 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Mason clearly stated the common law of the states was distinct from English common law.

    And Madison said, “What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions.”

    What Common Law is he talking about – let’s check –

    Constitution of Delaware; 1776

    ART. 25. The common law of England, as-well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this State, shall remain in force, unless they shall be altered by a future law of the legislature; such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this constitution, and the declaration of rights, &c., agreed to by this convention.

    Constitution of New Jersey; July 2nd 1776

    XXII. That the common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law, as have been heretofore practiced in this Colony, shall still remain in force, until they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature; such parts only excepted, as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Charter; and that the inestimable right of trial by jury shall remain confirmed as a part of the law of this Colony, without repeal, forever.

    The Constitution of New York : April 20, 1777

    XXXV. And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of , as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.

    Constitution of Maryland – November 11, 1776

    III. That the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England, and the trial by Jury, according that law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their first emigration, and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances, and of such others as have been since made in England, or Great Britain, and have been introduced, used and practiced by the courts of law or equity; and also to acts of Assembly, in force on the first of June seventeen hundred and seventy-four, except such as may have since expired, or have been or may be altered by facts of Convention, or this Declaration of Rights-subject, nevertheless, to the revision of, and amendment or repeal by, the Legislature of this State:

    Madison also said this, “The constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I. to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and Obligations.”

    BTW, Hawaii statutes adopted the Common Law of England in the late 1800’s.

    “§1-1 Common law of the State; exceptions. The common law of England, as ascertained by English and American decisions, is declared to be the common law of the State of Hawaii in all cases, except as otherwise expressly provided by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or by the laws of the State, or fixed by Hawaiian judicial precedent, or established by Hawaiian usage; provided that no person shall be subject to criminal proceedings except as provided by the written laws of the United States or of the State. [L 1892, c 57, §5; am L 1903, c 32, §2; RL 1925, §1; RL 1935, §1; RL 1945, §1; RL 1955, §1-1; HRS §1-1]”

  98. avatar
    Keith June 13, 2015 at 9:53 am #

    ballantine: Making silly statements does not make them true. What provisions of Vattel or a common law different from England is in the Constitution.

    I’m not sure, but I’d guess that the definition of treason is one answer.

  99. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 13, 2015 at 10:16 am #

    J.D. Sue:

    Seems to me, your only real complaint about the common law is that you don’t like its definition of “natural born”. That’s it. You’re willing to rewrite history and our whole legal system — all because you want to redefine “natural born” by any means necessary.

    SCOTUS has clearly opined the Congress, the Courts and the President are not authorized to enlarge or abridge the rights of a US citizen with respect to citizenship status. Consequently, an amendment to the US Constitution would be required to define the term natural born citizen or provide authority for the Congress and the President to enlarge the citizenship status of US citizen. Since that hasn’t happened, the term natural born citizen remains undefined.

    I mentioned Vattel and Magna Carta as influences on Benjamin Franklin in development of Albany Plan as the beginning of the development of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. I’m not trying to define natural born citizen. It hasn’t been defined and won’t be defined until an amendment to the Constitution is ratified.

    Leaps of faith are a real problem for Obots. In his article, Doc presumes J. Thomas weighs in on eligibility after J. Thomas comments on the Executive Branch’s policy for citizen’s at birth. J. Thomas wasn’t agreeing with the policy, he was mentioning it on background. I’m surprised J. Thomas didn’t mention the well settled opinion that the US government is not authorized to enlarge the citizenship status of a US citizen.

    Apparently, you missed my earlier post about the universal set US citizen and the undefined superset natural born citizen. The courts have provided us with some examples of a US citizen who was a natural born citizen and who was not a natural born citizen. For example, a naturalized US citizen is not a natural born citizen. Another example submitted to the forum by Dave B. is a foreign born person with a father who is was a US citizen since birth is a natural born citizen “in the United States” pursuant to Perkins v. Elg. For that matter, any native born US citizen with dual nationality is a natural born citizen “in the United States.” Read Perkins v. Elg carefully. The court opined native born US citizens with dual nationality are natural born citizens “in the United States.”

    The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1940, the year after Perkins v. Elg, 1939, modified the law to require those who were previously considered US citizens at birth to apply for citizenship, pay fees and show proof before a certificate of citizenship would be issued. Foreign born US citizens at birth have been naturalized US citizens since 1940. That’s why they State Department says there are doubts about foreign born US citizens at birth as to being a natural born citizen. If those individuals were born before 1940, then they are natural born citizens. After 1940, they are naturalized US citizens at birth.

  100. avatar
    gorefan June 13, 2015 at 10:51 am #

    SvenMagnussen: That’s why they State Department says there are doubts about foreign born US citizens at birth as to being a natural born citizen. If those individuals were born before 1940, then they are natural born citizens. After 1940, they are naturalized US citizens at birth.

    Guess again. The 1940 act specifically defines naturalization as occurring after birth. And the State Department specifically says that they are not naturalized citizens.

    7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”

    (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

    Section 201(g) NA and section 301(g) INA (formerly section 301(a)(7) INA)
    both specify that naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a
    person after birth.” Clearly, then, Americans who acquired their citizenship by birth
    abroad to U.S. citizens are not considered naturalized citizens under either act

  101. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund June 13, 2015 at 11:05 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Read Perkins v. Elg carefully. The court opined native born US citizens with dual nationality are natural born citizens “in the United States.”

    Not sure why SvenMinimussen keeps on insisting that we read the Perkins v. Elg decision carefully and then misquotes it. The decision clearly states that they are affirming Elg is a “natural born citizen of the United States.” Then again, I’m not sure why he thinks the in/of issue is meaningful.

  102. avatar
    gorefan June 13, 2015 at 11:10 am #

    SvenMagnussen: the Framers were influenced by the common law of the states,

    BTW, just to complete your failure on the Common Law here is the Virginia statute that Madison was referring to in his letter to Washington:

    “And be it further ordained, That the common law of England, all statutes or acts of Parliament made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the first, and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, together with the several acts of the General Assembly of this colony now in force, so far as the same may consist with several ordinances, declarations, and resolutions of the General Convention, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered as in full force, until the same shall be altered by the legislative power of this colony.” May, 1776

  103. avatar
    J.D. Sue June 13, 2015 at 11:42 am #

    SvenMagnussen: I’m not trying to define natural born citizen. It hasn’t been defined and won’t be defined until an amendment to the Constitution is ratified.

    —-

    My point was that all your blah blah blah is about the fact you don’t want an American, born in the U.S. to an American mother, to be our President, and you’re willing to twist our history and law out of shape just to pursue that agenda. That’s it.

    You obviously have no other interest in the law, since you still have failed to grasp any sense of it or develop any respect for it. Moreover, in other threads you say you want the entire legal system reset to before January 2009, or suspended entirely. Yes, Sven, for some inexplicable reason I have read much of your drivel. Everything you’ve written is entirely agenda-based, with no good faith effort to understand our history and law. Like Ballantine said, “Making silly statements does not make them true.”

    The only good I see coming out of it is that people like Ballantine and others have taken the time to brief the subject for us, with outstanding citations, which I find so interesting. Thanks for that.

  104. avatar
    Rickey June 13, 2015 at 11:46 am #

    W. Kevin Vicklund: Not sure why SvenMinimussen keeps on insisting that we read the Perkinsv. Elg decision carefully and then misquotes it.The decision clearly states that they are affirming Elg is a “natural born citizen of the United States.”Then again, I’m not sure why he thinks the in/of issue is meaningful.

    Misquoting (and taking quotations out of context) is what Sven does.

  105. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 13, 2015 at 5:20 pm #

    And the State Department specifically says that they are not naturalized citizens.”

    With the State Department interpreting US Law, we don’t even need the federal courts.

  106. avatar
    Northland10 June 13, 2015 at 8:19 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: With the State Department interpreting US Law, we don’t even need the federal courts.

    Good Lord, you’re clueless. In order to implement and enforce a law, executive departments must interpret a law. It is only when their interpretation ends up in dispute will a court possibly step in (as part of a case or controversy) and interpret a law, if such interpretation allows them to provide actual relief to a specific injury.

    scott e: because there is no precedent, that the supremes have been evading/avoiding the issue. they should define natural born, that’s all.

    Note my mention of an actual case or controversy. Just because a small group of cranks don’t like the actual precedent, does not been there is a controversy that SCOTUS would need to define. Nobody has ruled, either in the 200+ cases or in the actions of the various state governments, that there is any disagreement about the definition of NBC, at least in terms of Obama or McCain. Thus, there is no controversy for SCOTUS to consider.

    In my opinion, the only person who may overcome standing is one who is actually prevented from running because of an interpretation of NBC.

  107. avatar
    gorefan June 13, 2015 at 8:20 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: With the State Department interpreting US Law, we don’t even need the federal courts.

    Then why did you cite them?

  108. avatar
    Northland10 June 13, 2015 at 8:26 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: With the State Department interpreting US Law, we don’t even need the federal courts.

    Shocking. It’s not like SOS Jefferson did anything like this.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffop2.asp

  109. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 14, 2015 at 12:09 am #

    scott e: because there is no precedent, that the supremes have been evading/avoiding the issue. they should define natural born, that’s all.

    Then you haven’t been paying attention since it was settled a century ago.

    They haven’t been evading the issue since there isn’t actually an issue.

  110. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 14, 2015 at 12:10 am #

    scott e: owed no allegiance ? that’s funny, he hates colonialism, which our country has not engaged in. you will say yes we do. look at puerto rico guam and wake island….. we colonise the same a great birtain did.

    Lol where do you get the idea about hating colonialism? But besides America hated colonialism so what’s your problem with that?

    What does what you said have to do with what you even quoted?

  111. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 14, 2015 at 12:13 am #

    Rickey: Misquoting (and taking quotations out of context) is what Sven does.

    Well that and failing to produce documents he claims to have seen

  112. avatar
    RanTalbott June 14, 2015 at 1:51 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Lol where do you get the idea about hating colonialism?

    Dinesh D’Souza. He wrote a book in which he applied conspiracy-loon “logic” to cherry-picked “facts” to paint a bizarre picture of the “real, secret” Obama. One of his major points was that Obama somehow inherited/learned/channeled a rabid anti-colonialism from his father. I’ve read that it featured prominently in the anti-Obama movie he made, too.

  113. avatar
    Keith June 14, 2015 at 3:35 am #

    SvenMagnussen: With the State Department interpreting US Law, we don’t even need the federal courts.

    You have a bad attitude Sven.

    The State Department is IMPLEMENTING the law that was created by CONGRESS.

    The Constitution gives Congress the task to make laws about naturalization and gives the President the task to implement those laws. Furthermore, the President has asked the Congress to create an organization under his management called the “State Department” to which he can delegate the authority to implement certain laws, including ‘naturalization’ law.

  114. avatar
    Keith June 14, 2015 at 4:43 am #

    scott e: owed no allegiance ? that’s funny, he hates colonialism, which our country has not engaged in. you will say yes we do. look at puerto rico guam and wake island….. we colonise the same a great birtain did.

    You lost me there (actually you had never found me, but I digress).

    Obama has never owed (permanent) allegiance to anyone other than the United States. When he has visited overseas countries, he was, of course, under their temporary jurisdiction and owed the minimum allegiance to their laws that any other tourist anywhere owed when they visit a foreign country.

    OK, Obama probably does hate colonialism, so what, most American’s do too? What does that have to do with owing or not owing allegiance to Britain or the US or Upper Mongolia?

    Near to the turn of the 19th century USA used to have quite a few colonies, mostly as a result of the Spanish-American War. Most of them were decolonized within a couple of decades – we just aren’t comfortable with being a Colonial power. The remainder just didn’t have the economic ability to be self governing and the USA did quite like the strategic position they held.

    None of them are governed in what would have been recognized as a colony in the 19th century. Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth, not a colony. IMO, PR and US Virgin Islands will come together to make the 51st State.

    In the Pacific, Wake Island is uninhabited by other than US Air Force personnel and never has been. It is not a colony and never has been. Wake was unclaimed and uninhabited when America’s involvement with the island began as a possible telegraph and coaling station for the Trans-Pacific cable in 1899. There are other so-called ‘Minor Outlying Islands’ that are administered by the US and really have no economic viability as soveriegn entities – and no population other than perhaps wildlife officers.

    Guam political status movement is moving forward in fits and starts, it would already be a Commonwealth if both sides (Guamian and American) hadn’t made silly mistakes. At the moment, Guam (along with the Northern Marianas and American Samoa) get one non-voting representative in Congress – which is more than the British Colonies in North America ever got.

  115. avatar
    OllieOxenFree June 14, 2015 at 1:55 pm #

    RanTalbott: Dinesh D’Souza. He wrote a book in which he applied conspiracy-loon “logic” to cherry-picked “facts” to paint a bizarre picture of the “real, secret” Obama. One of his major points was that Obama somehow inherited/learned/channeled a rabid anti-colonialism from his father. I’ve read that it featured prominently in the anti-Obama movie he made, too.

    I remember when D’Souza originally made this argument… and I was like, “huh?” I didn’t understand why they were making this argument against Obama as a negative. The very first thought in my mind was, “aren’t we historically anti-colonial as Americans?” I was scratching my head in confusion and figured this would not gain any traction.

    But it did, and fairly quickly too. I was not only hearing it on Fox and talk radio,but started seeing it appear in typical on-line arguments as well in posts from those who opposed his administration. So, just so I could understand, I began asking why being an anti-colonialist was a bad thing. I honestly wanted to know why the right was adopting this meme that anti-colonialism was wrong.

    Usually, the question was met with some nonsensical change of argument or just plain silence. However, one person responded, in a long and rambling post, about Obama’s utter contempt for the founding fathers, and that this was just one more, “piece of the puzzle,” to who Obama was because the founding fathers were quote, “colonists.” He praised D’Souza for making this connection and only true patriots would be able to recognize this while liberals, like myself, would be incapable of making this connection because we were just as anti-colonial as Obama is.

    …yeah, that argument was actually made. Needless to say, he was utterly destroyed within seconds of his post. To this day, I still do not understand what D’Souza’s particular argument was about, but that particular response still has me scratching my head.

  116. avatar
    Dave B. June 14, 2015 at 2:07 pm #

    Sometimes I think these guys are just looking for the edge, trying to see how far they can go before people stop swallowing the stuff they come up with. I can picture them sitting around, having a few laughs, coming up with one thing after another and betting on what the people they obviously have no respect for will fall for.

    OllieOxenFree: I remember when D’Souza originally made this argument… and I was like, “huh?” I didn’t understand why they were making this argument against Obama as a negative. The very first thought in my mind was, “aren’t we historically anti-colonial as Americans?” I was scratching my head in confusion and figured this would not gain any traction.

  117. avatar
    J.D. Sue June 14, 2015 at 3:00 pm #

    OllieOxenFree: To this day, I still do not understand what D’Souza’s particular argument was about, but that particular response still has me scratching my head.


    I had essentially the same thought process that you describe. All I could come up with as an answer is this:

    (1) D’Souza, who grew up in India, has a chip on his shoulder about his own countrymen’s rejection of British colonialism, and is projecting his own dislike of them onto Obama Sr. and Kenya’s rejection of the same British colonialism. Indeed, according to wikipedia, “D’Souza defends colonialism, arguing that the problem with Africa is not that it was colonized, but rather that it was not colonized long enough. He supports the European colonization of India and other countries, claiming that Christian colonization was a good thing for India because it was a way for Indians to escape the caste system, superstitions and poverty”; and

    (2) birthers will buy into anything, however ludicrous, if it comes from someone who says Obama is a bad guy.

    I don’t have a cite for this right now, but I did notice recently that Obama made a statement about Mahatma “Gandhi ji”, and D’Souza quoted Obama’s statement but left out the “ji” part from the quote. As I somewhat understand it, “ji” is a Hindu term of respect, and I thought it was curious/telling that D’Souza chose to just leave that out of the quote.

    Of course the great irony is that birthers, as well as Americans in general, are forever extolling America’s anti-British-colonial revolution.

  118. avatar
    Keith June 14, 2015 at 3:05 pm #

    Dave B.: Sometimes I think these guys are just looking for the edge, trying to see how far they can go before people stop swallowing the stuff they come up with.

    At first, I assumed they were high school kids sitting in their parent’s basement playing some sort of ‘one upsmanship’ game where they scored points for the most ludricous statements and still getting coherent responses. The way they would play tag team with the same cycle of stupid ideas, one after the other after the other. Doc, in a position to know, said the guys were not the same, so it just had to be a ‘gang’ of Merry Pranksters, or Discordianists, or someone.

    Most of those folks have fallen by the wayside, but there still seem to be a few of the more anally retentive around. At least they don’t run in packs anymore.

  119. avatar
    Dave B. June 14, 2015 at 3:53 pm #

    I mean the guys like D’Souza. And then there are the fake news sites like the American News, which is just now, today, recycling the Ron McRae lie, calling it a “new and controversial audio recording of Barack Obama’s grandmother Sarah.”

    Keith: At first, I assumed they were high school kids sitting in their parent’s basement playing some sort of ‘one upsmanship’ game where they scored points for the most ludricous statements and still getting coherent responses. The way they would play tag team with the same cycle of stupid ideas, one after the other after the other. Doc, in a position to know, said the guys were not the same, so it just had to be a ‘gang’ of Merry Pranksters, or Discordianists, or someone.

    Most of those folks have fallen by the wayside, but there still seem to be a few of the more anally retentive around. At least they don’t run in packs anymore.

  120. avatar
    Rickey June 14, 2015 at 7:35 pm #

    scott e: owed no allegiance ? that’s funny, he hates colonialism, which our country has not engaged in. you will say yes we do. look atpuerto rico guam and wake island…..we colonise the same a great birtain did.

    What does colonialism have to do with the issue of whether Obama ever owed allegiance to Great Britain?

    If you can, identify for me a specific time during his lifetime when Obama was subject to the jurisdiction of Great Britain – i.e., a time when he would have been obliged to obey an order from the U.K. government.

    No only was Obama never under the jurisdiction of Great Britain, in all likelihood Great Britain was never even aware of his existence until he became prominent in the United States.

  121. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 14, 2015 at 8:02 pm #

    Dave B.:
    I mean the guys like D’Souza.And then there are the fake news sites like the American News, which is just now, today, recycling the Ron McRae lie, calling it a “new and controversial audio recording of Barack Obama’s grandmother Sarah.”

    Lol no wonder the idiots on IVN brought it up

  122. avatar
    RanTalbott June 14, 2015 at 9:18 pm #

    OllieOxenFree: I didn’t understand why they were making this argument against Obama as a negative. The very first thought in my mind was, “aren’t we historically anti-colonial as Americans?”

    It’s long been a meme on the left (globally, not just in the U.S.) that we’re not. “Colonialist” was a common Communist propaganda term for demonizing us. Our tendency to support truly evil governments, as long as they claimed to be “anti-Communist”, was cited as “proof” (not entirely without justification, but that discussion is huge, and so far off-topic here you’d need an airplane ride to get to it).

    D’Souza claims that Obama bought into that, sees the U.S. as “evil”, and is trying to take us down a few pegs because of it.

    It “got traction” because it’s a widespread belief among various flavors of RWNJs (including, but not limited to, birfoons) that Obama is “destroying the country”.

  123. avatar
    Keith June 14, 2015 at 10:56 pm #

    RanTalbott: It’s long been a meme on the left (globally, not just in the U.S.) that we’re not. “Colonialist” was a common Communist propaganda term for demonizing us. Our tendency to support truly evil governments, as long as they claimed to be “anti-Communist”, was cited as “proof” (not entirely without justification, but that discussion is huge, and so far off-topic here you’d need an airplane ride to get to it).

    America gave up Political Colonialism in favor of Economic Colonialism in the first half of the 20th century.

    Just don’t look behind the curtain, there’s nothing to see.

  124. avatar
    Joey June 15, 2015 at 1:29 am #

    U.S. Territorial Possessions

    Africa
    Liberia (1821–1847) – Liberia was never officially colonized or claimed directly by the United States. It was founded by the ACS (American Colonization Society), a private American civilian organization.
    Asia
    Philippines (1898–1946)
    Japan
    Nanpo Islands (1945-1968)
    Maracus Island (1945-1968)
    Okinawa (1950-1972, under the name United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands)
    Amami Islands (1950-1953)
    Occupied zones
    Iraq (2003-2004)
    Coalition Provisional Authority
    Green Zone (2003-2008)
    Japan (1945-1952)
    Occupation of Japan
    South Korea
    South of 38th parallel north (1945-1948)
    Europe
    Occupied zones
    Austria (1945-1955)
    Allied-occupied Austria
    France
    Clipperton Island
    Germany (1945-1949)
    Occupation of the Rhineland (1918-1921)
    West Berlin (1945-1990)
    Allied Occupation Zones in Germany
    Iceland (1941-1946)
    Italy
    Trieste (1947-1954)
    North America
    Puerto Rico (1898–present)
    Cuba (1899-1902)
    Honduras
    Swan Islands (1863-1972)
    Panama
    Panama Canal Zone (1903-1979)
    Mexico
    Veracruz (1914-1914)
    Nicaragua
    Corn Islands (1914-1971)
    United States Virgin Islands (1916–present)
    Dominican Republic (1916-1924 1965-1966)
    Haiti (1915-1934)
    Occupied zones
    Denmark
    Greenland (1941-1945)
    Grenada (1983-1983)
    Oceania
    American Samoa (1899–present)
    Guam (1898–present)
    Kiribati
    Canton and Enderbury Islands (1938-1979)
    Line Islands (?-1979)
    Phoenix Islands (?-1979)
    Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (1947–1994)
    Marshall Islands (1944–1986) (1986–present as an associated state)
    Palau (1947–1994) (1994–present as an associated state)
    Federated States of Micronesia (1947–1986) (1986–present as an associated state)
    Northern Mariana Islands (1975–present)
    South America
    Colombia
    Quita Sueño Bank (1869-1981)
    Roncador Bank (1856-1981)
    Serrana Bank (?-1981)
    United Kingdom
    Falkland Islands (1831-1832)

  125. avatar
    Keith June 15, 2015 at 5:12 am #

    Joey:
    U.S. Territorial Possessions

    I understand the discussion is about COLONIES, not everywhere we have put military boots on the ground in a post war scenario or a peace keeping mission.

    Africa
    Liberia (1821–1847) – Liberia was never officially colonized or claimed directly by the United States. It was founded by the ACS (American Colonization Society), a private American civilian organization. NOT A COLONY

    Asia
    Philippines (1898–1946) WOULD HAVE BEEN DECOLONIZED EARLIER IF WAR HAD NOT INTERVENED

    Japan Nanpo Islands (1945-1968) POST WAR PROTECTORATE – NOT A COLONY
    Maracus Island (1945-1968) POST WAR PROTECTORATE – NOT A COLONY
    Okinawa (1950-1972, under the name United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands) POST WAR PROTECTORATE – NOT A COLONY
    Amami Islands (1950-1953) POST WAR PROTECTORATE – NOT A COLONY

    Occupied zones
    Iraq (2003-2004) MILITARY OPERATIONS THEATRE – NOT A COLONY

    Coalition Provisional Authority
    Green Zone (2003-2008) UN Sponsored Peace Keeping Mission – NOT A COLONY
    Japan (1945-1952) POST WAR RECONSTRUCTION – NOT A COLONY

    Occupation of Japan – duplicate entry

    South Korea
    South of 38th parallel north (1945-1948) WAR ZONE – NOT A COLONY

    Europe
    Occupied zones

    Austria (1945-1955) POST WAR RECONSTRUCTION – NOT A COLONY
    Allied-occupied France POST WAR RECONSTRUCTION – NOT A COLONY
    Clipperton Island
    Germany (1945-1949)POST WAR RECONSTRUCTION – NOT A COLONY
    Occupation of the Rhineland (1918-1921) POST WAR RECONSTRUCTION – NOT A COLONY
    West Berlin (1945-1990) POST WAR RECONSTRUCTION – NOT A COLONY
    Allied Occupation Zones in Germany
    Iceland (1941-1946) ACTIVE WAR ZONE – NOT A COLONY
    Italy Trieste (1947-1954) WAR ZONE – NOT A COLONY

    North America
    Puerto Rico (1898–present)
    Cuba (1899-1902)
    Honduras Swan Islands (1863-1972) GUANO ISLAND CLAIM – NOT A COLONY Claim was disputed by Honduras and USA. USA dropped claim.
    Panama Canal Zone (1903-1979) COMMERCIAL TREATY – NOT A COLONY
    Mexico Veracruz (1914-1914) WAR ZONE – NOT A COLONY
    Nicaragua Corn Islands (1914-1971) INTERNATIONAL TREATY/LEASE – NOT A COLONY US never really made an attempt to use the Islands for much of anything and Nicaragua voided the lease in 1971.
    United States Virgin Islands (1916–present)
    Dominican Republic (1916-1924 1965-1966) OCCUPIED BUT NEVER COLONY
    Haiti (1915-1934) OCCUPIED BUT NEVER COLONY

    Occupied zones
    Denmark Greenland (1941-1945) WAR ZONE – NOT A COLONY
    Grenada (1983-1983) WAR ZONE – NOT A COLONY

    Oceania
    American Samoa (1899–present)
    Guam (1898–present) SHOULD BE A COMMONWEALTH SIMILAR TO PR and NMI Bumbling by Guamians and UDA Bureaucrats alike has resulted in Guam missing out. Guam and NMI may eventually merge – political status discussion is ongoing.
    Kiribati WAR ZONE – NOT A COLONY
    Canton and Enderbury Islands (1938-1979)
    Anglo/American Condominium – NOT A COLONY. Canton has a population of 41 persons, Enderbury is unoccupied. Incorporated into Kiribati.
    Line Islands (?-1979)
    BRITISH – NOT EVEN USA Used to support Pan-Pacific Cable. Incorporated into Kiribati.
    Phoenix Islands (?-1979)
    BRITISH – NOT EVEN USA Used to support Pan-Pacific Cable. Incorporated into Kiribati.

    Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (1947–1994) POST WAR RECONSTRUCTION – NOT A COLONY Now 3 separate sovereign nations:
    Marshall Islands (1944–1986) (1986–present as an associated state)
    Palau (1947–1994) (1994–present as an associated state)
    Federated States of Micronesia (1947–1986) (1986–present as an associated state)

    Northern Mariana Islands (1944–present) POST WAR RECONSTRUCTION – NOT A COLONY Since 1978 NMI is a Commonwealth, the same status as Puerto Rico. Further discussion of future political status is ongoing.

    South America
    Colombia
    Quita Sueño Bank (1869-1981) GUANO ISLAND CLAIM – NOT A COLONY
    Roncador Bank (1856-1981) GUANO ISLAND CLAIM – NOT A COLONY
    Serrana Bank (?-1981) GUANO ISLAND CLAIM – NOT A COLONY
    United Kingdom Falkland Islands (1831-1832)

    You did not mention the “United States Minor Outlining Islands”: Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Palmyra Atoll, and Wake Island in the Pacific and Navassa Island in the Caribbean.

    And you could have named dozens of Guano Island claims that have since been handled by treaty but had USA ‘involvement’. The Guano Island Act required that an island be unoccupied and unclaimed by other authority when claimed by the US. Of course unoccupied sand banks could never be called a ‘colony’ and anyway many of those islands have since been claimed by others (e.g. Baja Nuevo Bank and Serranilla Bank) putting the USA claim into dispute and many claims have been abandoned by treaty.

  126. avatar
    Lupin June 15, 2015 at 11:39 am #

    Goodness, I hadn’t thought of Clipperton in years…

    (Google it up; it’s worth it. Quite a colorful history.)

    My uncle was one of the few (relatively speaking) people who set foot on that island, as he served on the cruiser JEANNE D’ARC, who was required to stop there once in a while to reaffirm French control, fly the tricolor flag, play a bar of the Marseillaise, etc.

    The Birthers would like it. No colored people there. 🙂

  127. avatar
    Joey June 15, 2015 at 2:46 pm #

    “I understand the discussion is about COLONIES, not everywhere we have put military boots on the ground in a post war scenario or a peace keeping mission.”

    If someone were to move into your house without your permssion, have you been “colonized?”
    Current, full-fledged, no doubt about it, permanently inhabited U.S. colonies: Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas.

  128. avatar
    Greenfinches June 15, 2015 at 4:44 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: The government of Britain adopted the common law and codified it about 1763

    what are you suggesting was codified?

    There are very few areas of English law codified even now… and this has nothing at all to do with Britain, O ignorant one, since the law relates to England, a separate ‘law district’.

  129. avatar
    ballantine June 15, 2015 at 5:54 pm #

    The common law of England was not codified in 1763. Keep making stuff up.

  130. avatar
    Keith June 16, 2015 at 3:33 am #

    Joey:
    If someone were to move into your house without your permssion, have you been “colonized?”

    Maybe. Maybe only occupied. You do recognize the difference between colonization and military occupation, don’t you?

    And some of the places you list, Lebanon, for instance, were by invitation.

    Current, full-fledged, no doubt about it, permanently inhabited U.S. colonies: Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas.

    I would not characterize those listed in this post as ‘colonies’ but I accept that the difference is perhaps a matter of splitting hairs.

    On the other hand, you listed dozens of places around the world where the US has had tenuous connections and implicated they were colonies. That is just so far from the truth as to be ludicrous.

    For example you listed post war Japan and Germany. In what universe did the US colonize those countries. Yes, they occupied former enemies countries militarily and managed a transition authority to ensure lawfulness and essential services were maintained while new Governments were formed. What they did not do was claim that Japan and Germany were now part of the USA and confiscate lands to divide up among the new American settlers.

    You mentioned a series of sand bars, atolls, and islets that the USA had a somewhat tenuous claim to at some time in the past. Lke the Clipperton Islands that Lupin provided an interesting anecdote about. The tale of the USA’s Clipperton Islands involvement does not read like an example of colonialism:

    (from wikipedia)
    Clipperton Island (French: Île de Clipperton or Île de la Passion, Spanish: Isla de la Pasión) is an uninhabited 9 km2 (3.5 sq mi) coral atoll in the eastern Pacific Ocean, 1,080 km (671 mi) south-west of Mexico, 2,424 km (1,506 mi) west of Nicaragua, 2,545 km (1,581 mi) west of Costa Rica and 2,260 km (1,404 mi) north-west of Galápagos Islands, Ecuador, at 10°18′N 109°13′W. It is an overseas possession of France under direct authority of the Minister of Overseas France.[1]

    It is low-lying and largely barren, save for scattered grasses and a few clumps of coconut palms. A small volcanic outcrop rising to 29 m (95 ft) on its south-east side is referred to as “Clipperton Rock”.[2] The atoll has been occupied at various times by guano miners, would-be settlers or military personnel, mostly from Mexico, which claimed it until international arbitration awarded it to France in 1931. It has had no permanent inhabitants since 1945. It is visited on occasion by fishermen, French Navy patrols, scientific researchers, film crews, and shipwreck survivors. It has been a popular site for transmissions by ham radio operators.


    Other claimants included the United States, whose American Guano Mining Company claimed it under the Guano Islands Act of 1856; Mexico also claimed it due to activities undertaken there as early as 1848–1849. On 17 November 1858 Emperor Napoleon III annexed it as part of the French colony of Tahiti. This did not settle the ownership question. On November 24, 1897, French naval authorities found three Americans working for the American Guano Company, who had raised the American flag. U.S. authorities denounced their act, assuring the French that they did not intend to assert American sovereignty.

    Doesn’t sound like a promising location for a ‘colony’. Whose house was being moved into, and what on earth for? Do you notice the date that the USA denounced the Company’s claim and assured the French that they would not assert American sovereignty? 1897 – at the height of the American Imperialism movement, just before the Spanish American war to take Spain’s colonies. 3 square miles of sand in the middle of absolutely nowhere is a colony? Gimme a break.

  131. avatar
    Lupin June 16, 2015 at 5:17 am #

    I have no idea why anyone would care about Clipperton, except because of uberpatriotic pride.

    Its guano is reportedly of inferior quality and quantities to be collected are not that large; since rats have taken a foothold on the island, they’re decimating the local fauna, although this appears to benefit the flora.

    Every time the french Government commission a study about what to do about Clipperton, the answer seems always to be: nothing.

    Captain Cousteau filmed some documentary footage there, I believe, and for some unfathomable reason radio hams like to go there to beam messages because it is so far away from any place else that you get good reception, Hurray.

    That said, if you want my honest opinion, the US has way too many military bases overseas:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases

    But as long as they’re invited (or leave when asked to) & pay their bills, who cares?

    Not that the French are any better (tho on a smaller scale):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases

  132. avatar
    Lupin June 16, 2015 at 5:34 am #

    Here is another anecdote about far away places.

    The French own the Crozet Islands, a small sub-antarctic archipelago located between South Africa and The Antarctic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crozet_Islands

    The islands are inhabited except that we keep a small research station on the largest island, staffed with 18 to 30 people (depending on the season) to do meteorological, biological, and geological research,

    The other, smaller islands are basically deserted.

    Many years ago, a friend of mine did an article on the French IGN — Institut Geographique National — a Government bureau whose mission it is to keep updated, accurate maps of all of France and all its overseas territories and possessions, including aerial satellite maps, all kinds of maps; well worth the visit if you’re into maps:

    http://www.ign.fr/

    This is what he found:

    The IGN have a map of the Crozet Islands (for hikers; I’m sure it’s not a best-seller!) but because the weather was very bad when the aerial survey of the smaller islands was effected, they couldn’t get good pictures of the ground there, so it remains the only part of France that has not been thoroughly mapped.

    I like to dream that there is a Lost City of Atlantis there with pet dinosaurs, because that’s about the only place left on Earth where they could be. 🙂

  133. avatar
    Rickey June 16, 2015 at 6:37 pm #

    Lupin:

    That said, if you want my honest opinion, the US has way too many military bases overseas

    Possibly, but it pales in comparison to what it used to be. To name a few, when I was in the U.S. Navy there were Navy bases in Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Iceland, Greece, Morocco, and Northern Ireland. Those are all gone now.

    Not that the French are any better (tho on a smaller scale):

    Speaking of the French, I recently finished reading “Valley of Death: The Tragedy at Dien Bien Phu That Led America into the Vietnam War” by Ted Morgan. It’s a fascinating book, and the United States learned next to nothing from the disastrous French experience.

  134. avatar
    Lupin June 17, 2015 at 2:50 am #

    Rickey: Speaking of the French, I recently finished reading “Valley of Death: The Tragedy at Dien Bien Phu That Led America into the Vietnam War” by Ted Morgan. It’s a fascinating book, and the United States learned next to nothing from the disastrous French experience.

    “Disastrous experience” is pretty much our specialty. 🙂

    As Jon Stewart recently said & demonstrated with clips etc the major problem your military & politicians seem to have is, “learning curves are for pussies.”

    Or as “David Lander” (Stephen Fry) put it in one of his sketches, “they never learn, do they?”

  135. avatar
    Joey June 17, 2015 at 2:55 pm #

    Keith: Maybe. Maybe only occupied. You do recognize the difference between colonization and military occupation, don’t you?

    And some of the places you list, Lebanon, for instance, were by invitation.

    I would not characterize those listed in this post as ‘colonies’ but I accept that the difference is perhaps a matter of splitting hairs.

    On the other hand, you listed dozens of places around the world where the US has had tenuous connections and implicated they were colonies. That is just so far from the truth as to be ludicrous.

    For example you listed post war Japan and Germany. In what universe did the US colonize those countries. Yes, they occupied former enemies countries militarily and managed a transition authority to ensure lawfulness and essential services were maintained while new Governments were formed. What they did not do was claim that Japan and Germany were now part of the USA and confiscate lands to divide up among the new American settlers.

    You mentioned a series of sand bars, atolls, and islets that the USA had a somewhat tenuous claim to at some time in the past. Lke the Clipperton Islands that Lupin provided an interesting anecdote about. The tale of the USA’s Clipperton Islands involvement does not read like an example of colonialism:

    Doesn’t sound like a promising location for a ‘colony’. Whose house was being moved into, and what on earth for? Do you notice the date that the USA denounced the Company’s claim and assured the French that they would not assert American sovereignty? 1897 – at the height of the American Imperialism movement, just before the Spanish American war to take Spain’s colonies. 3 square miles of sand in the middle of absolutely nowhere is a colony? Gimme a break.

    As the title of the list from Wikipedia stated, it was of “U.S. Territorial Possessions.” If that is different in your mind from colonies, I can accept that.
    You do seem to be a bit worked up and somewhat hostile about a list.
    I hope it doesn’t piss you off even further but I would add the territories acquired under the 19th century political philosophy of “Manifest Destiny” as examples of American imperialism and additionally the “colonization” of lands owned by the indigenous peoples of North America who were forcibly relocated to “reservations.”

  136. avatar
    Keith June 17, 2015 at 6:23 pm #

    Joey: As the title of the list from Wikipedia stated, it was of “U.S. Territorial Possessions.”

    Places like Japan and Germany are not and never have been “U.S. Territorial Possessions” in any way shape of form.

    Either you are lying that you got that list from Wikipedia or the Wikipedia article has been thoroughly fubared by some insane editor. It doesn’t come close to passing the smell test.

    You really really need to see about getting your B.S. detector repaired. Seriously.

    Such complete inability to differentiate between ‘reasonable’ and ‘not reasonable’ could be a life threatening condition. For you own sake and that of your loved ones, please see a specialist about it.

  137. avatar
    Keith June 17, 2015 at 7:26 pm #

    Joey: You do seem to be a bit worked up and somewhat hostile about a list.

    Only because I was actually taught history and how to think when I was in school. I really makes me mad when Americans LIE about American history. Foreigners could be mistaken or have different points of view (for example, Mexicans will naturally have a different view of the Mexican – American War than Americans will). But when Americans lie about their own history it really pisses me off.

    I hope it doesn’t piss you off even further but I would add the territories acquired under the 19th century political philosophy of “Manifest Destiny” as examples of American imperialism and additionally the “colonization” of lands owned by the indigenous peoples of North America who were forcibly relocated to “reservations.”

    Yes, America went through its own phase of Imperialism, in a mistaken belief that we had to keep up with the European powers in order to survive in the 20th century and take its place as a ‘World Power’. It was a point of view pushed by the 19th century equivalents of people like Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch, Ted Cruz, and George Bush. It never really sat well with Americans to be a colonial power, however, only lasted for a few decades before the few Colonies we picked up were de-colonized.

    And yes, the theft of the homelands of the native inhabitants was an altogether brutish and unfortunate process. I certainly acknowledge that I benefit from that process, as do all Americans who are not descended from the American Indians, but that doesn’t imply that I don’t find it unfortunate.

  138. avatar
    Joey June 17, 2015 at 10:10 pm #

    Keith: Places like Japan and Germany are not and never have been “U.S. Territorial Possessions” in any way shape of form.

    Either you are lying that you got that list from Wikipedia or the Wikipedia article has been thoroughly fubared by some insane editor. It doesn’t come close to passing the smell test.

    You really really need to see about getting your B.S. detector repaired. Seriously.

    Such complete inability to differentiate between ‘reasonable’ and ‘not reasonable’ could be a life threatening condition. For you own sake and that of your loved ones, please see a specialist about it.

    Here you go, enjoy! I simply “googled” “U.S. Colonies” and the first entry that came up was this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._colonial_possessions
    Don’t kill the messenger!
    I’m ignoring your attempts at ad hominem insults. I’m sure that you are just having a bad day.

  139. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG June 18, 2015 at 3:38 pm #

    “The thing about trusting Wikipedia by itself, is that sometimes information from the internet might not be completely correct or vetted properly.”, George Washington.

  140. avatar
    James M June 18, 2015 at 4:04 pm #

    Joey: Here you go, enjoy! I simply “googled” “U.S. Colonies” and the first entry that came up was this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._colonial_possessions

    Occupied Japan was still governed under autonomous rule under their postwar constitution.

  141. avatar
    Joey June 18, 2015 at 5:20 pm #

    James M: Occupied Japan was still governed under autonomous rule under their postwar constitution.

    A brief excerpt from “American Proconsul: How Douglas MacArthur Shaped Post -War Japan”
    The new constitution had to be ready in a week, in order to forestall any Soviet input. MacArthur’s Government Section chief, Brig. Gen. Courtney Whitney, summoned his public administration specialists—some of them lawyers—and announced that they now comprised a constitutional assembly; they would secretly draft the new Japanese constitution, and his three deputies would ensure the document appeared to be of Japanese origin. The resulting 92 articles reflected America’s New Deal policies, establishing social welfare and civil rights, even enfranchising women. When deliberations ended on February 10, Lt. Col. Charles Kades, head of the 25-member committee, said to one member, feisty 22-year-old Vienna-born linguist Beate Sirota, the only woman in the room, “My God, you have given Japanese women more rights than in the American Constitution!” She retorted, “That’s not very difficult to do, because women are not in the American Constitution.” Once Hirohito gave his “full approval” of the draft, MacArthur announced his concurrence, and on March 6 the Japanese government made public its new constitution.
    http://www.historynet.com/american-proconsul-how-douglas-macarthur-shaped-postwar-japan.htm

  142. avatar
    Keith June 19, 2015 at 12:38 am #

    Joey: Here you go, enjoy!I simply “googled” “U.S. Colonies” and the first entry that came up was this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._colonial_possessions
    Don’t kill the messenger!
    I’m ignoring your attempts at ad hominem insults. I’m sure that you are just having a bad day.

    On that page, “Japan” is a heading under which appears Nanpo Islands (Iwo Jima), Maracus Islands (Marcus Island), and Okinawa (Ryuku Islands).

    In every case, the American ‘connection’ is Post War Military Occupation. Only Okinawa has a sizable population (Iwo Jima has a few hundred inhabitants, Marcus is uninhabited).

    Military Occupation is NOT the same as colonization – period.

    Japan leased Marcus to the U.S for a communications tower. That is not a colony – it is a commercial contract. I notice you don’t list Guantanamo anywhere, by the way.

    A much better Wiki page is here: Territories of the United States. This page is not only easier to read that yours, it is more complete and catalogs the various locations properly.

    I’m not saying that the USA never had colonies. In the closing decades of the 19th century it had a strong interest in growing as a Colonial power because ‘all the big guys had colonies’. The reality of being a Colonial power struck home once we had achieved that and the American colonial empire was rather quickly dispersed. It was the first world power to divest its colonies voluntarily.

    Furthermore, that is not to pretend that the USA doesn’t maintain interests in overseas territories both as Military outposts like Okinawa (administration of which was returned to Japan in 1968) and Guantanamo, and economic and security administration like Micronesia, and Puerto Rico. Hawai’i was one such that grew into a State, who is to say that these others won’t follow?

    By my ‘definition’ Hawai’i was once a “true” American Colony. Maybe American Sa’moa is such a colony as well. Puerto Rico may as well be considered as such. As I said before, splitting hairs at this level is not worth it.

    My definition includes the idea that outside civilian settlers come in to push out the locals. If there are no locals to push out (uninhabited islands) it ain’t a colony. If there are no civilian settlers (military occupation) it ain’t a colony.

    The United Nations defines a colony as a place that is ‘non-self governing’. In its list (here) it includes the American administrated places American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The American Samoan’s dispute the UN listing arguing that even though Congress has not passed an Organic Act, they do indeed have a self-governing legislature. That’s it.