Tag Archives: United Kingdom

Calais v Marshfield

by Dr. Conspiracy on 30. Sep, 2009 in Citizenship

The a US Circuit Court in the case of US v. Rhodes defined natural born citizenship as birth within the allegiance of the United States [cited approvingly by the Supreme Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark]. Some have said that because President Obama, through his father, was born also a Citizen of the UK and Colonies, that he has a dual allegiance to Britain, and that this defect renders him not a natural born citizen of the United States.

It has always seemed to me profoundly unfair that some second country could impose an allegiance upon someone against their will, or that somehow a second country could dictate who could and who could not be President of the United States. Apparently, the court agreed with me in this decision from the case of Calais v. Marshfield (1844):

“Although the government of one country may grant to persons owing allegiance to that of another, the rights and privileges of citizenship, it is not intended to intimate that the government making such grant would thereby, and without their consent or change of domicil, become entitled to their allegiance in respect to any of their political duties or relations.” Calais v Marshfield 30 Maine Rep 520. [As cited in Field Int. Code.]

Read full story • Comments { 13 }

Field rejects the legal status of natural law

by Dr. Conspiracy on 30. Sep, 2009 in Research Notes

The influential lawyer and legal reformer David Dudley Field gave an address to the Social Science Association in 1866. The title of his talk was “An International Code.”

In that address, Field made the following interesting comments about writers on international law, and I think it applies directly to the writings of Emerich de Vattel:

Who made these rules, or this international law if you so call it, is explained by the definition which I have given. It was made by the nations themselves, either through express compact with each other or through general practice; that is to say: by treaty or by usage. Publicists, I know, looking beyond the rules so made or sanctioned, have sought in those moral precepts by which nations, not less than individuals, ought to be governed in their intercourse with each other for guides in other circumstances; and statesmen and diplomatists have often fortified their arguments by reference to such opinions, and it has thus frequently happened that those precepts have been gradually adopted into the usage of nations. These views of the publicists are, however, to be regarded rather as suggestions of what ought to be the conduct of nations in particular circumstances than as a statement of established rules. They are entitled to the same weight in the decision of national disputes as a treatise on natural law is entitled to in the decision of a case by the courts of America or England. [Emphasis added.]

Read full story • Comments Off

Check the answer book

by Dr. Conspiracy on 29. Sep, 2009 in Research Notes

Parody Civics book

Parody Civics book

I have had commenters here swear that they were taught in their high school Civics class that (a) anyone born in the United States could be President or (b) only those born in the United States to citizen parents could be president.

Now I  personally don’t remember the subject coming up at all, but then that was a very long time ago and I don’t remember a lot of high school anyway. I think high school classes pretty much follow high school text books, and so the truth of the matter probably lies in those books. So I offer this challenge:

Come up with a text book published in the last 100 years that explains US presidential eligibility and in particular, what “natural born citizen” means.

Please, verifiable entries only.

I realize that a high school text book will not settle the legal question, but it will help settle the question of what the expectations of the American people were prior to the current marketing effort supporting a certain view.

Jon Stewart’s book,  America (the book) Teacher’s Edition: A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction (2004), pictured above, does address the question by saying:

You must be a native citizen of the United States. Very important. Imagine having fought for years to win your independence from England only to have King George get on the ballot and win. Very embarrassing. (Page 40)

Stewart, as many writers and court decisions have, uses the phrase “native” and “natural” interchangeably.

Read full story • Comments { 85 }

Supreme Court Justice Scalia believes natural born citizenship is jus soli

by Dr. Conspiracy on 27. Sep, 2009 in Citizenship, Supreme Court

Justice Scalia

Justice Scalia

Jus soli citizenship is based on the land of birth and jus sanguinis is citizenship based on parentage. In the oral arguments of Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS  (No. 99-2071), Justice Scalia made it clear that his view is that natural born citizenship, the requirement to be president, is based on jus soli (birth in the United States).

Here is the relevant section from the transcript:

Justice Scalia: … I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?

They did not want that.

They wanted natural born Americans.

[Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token…

Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?

[Ms.] Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.

Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.

I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.

I don’t think you’re disagreeing.

It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?

The transcript is fascinating listening.

Thanks to NBC for the link! We have such GREAT commenters here!

Read full story • Comments { 122 }

More international law on citizenship

by Dr. Conspiracy on 27. Sep, 2009 in Citizenship

Continuing our series on international law and citizenship, we introduce the book International Law (1904) by John Westlake, Professor of International Law, Cambridge University. The section on citizenship is very long and the following is but a small part, selected for its particular relevance from Chapter 10.

Who are Nationals Jus soli and jus sanguinis

Historically nationality arose out of allegiance. The sovereign lords in the dealings between whom international law had its origin belonged to a system of which the dominant character was feudal and in feudalism the personal relation of a man to his lord was blended with the territorial relation of a fief to the lordship of which it was held. By virtue of the latter the personal relation to the lord was imposed on all natives of the fief or of the country considered as a collection of fiefs and this jus soli was not inconvenient because few persons were to be met with in any country who had not been born in it except traders and other obviously casual visitors. It was therefore on birth on the soil or on certain circumstances equivalent to birth on the soil that the character of a natural born subject primarily depended. By the common law of England which fairly represents the old common law of western and central Europe on the matter allegiance was due to the king from all persons born on land within his dominions with the exceptions presently to be mentioned or in foreign harbours on board an English ship of war or packet enjoying the immunities of a ship of war or at sea on board an English ship and from children born abroad to a duly accredited English ambassador or minister, but not from children born on foreign soil to English soldiers or sailors…. (more…)

Read full story • Comments { 12 }

Donofrio v FactCheck.org (Updated again)

by Dr. Conspiracy on 02. Sep, 2009 in Citizenship, Leo Donofrio

Leo. C. Donofrio

Leo. C. Donofrio

[When I learned of Donofrio's article discussed here, I contacted FactCheck.org, and received a reply Sept. 3rd from director Brooks Jackson that FactCheck would be issuing a correction on one point discussed below in an article titled: Obama and Kenya Again. FactCheck suggests that they are tired of the whole Obama conspiracy mess, and have referred folks to another web site for more information.]

Leo C. Donofrio has challenged FactCheck.org and come out swinging.

Anyone who has been following Obama conspiracy theories and the attendant novel legal theories on citizenship will be familiar with the article by FactCheck.org, Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship? from August 6, 2008. This article contains the famous quotation:

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:

immortalized by its inclusion by the Obama Campaign in its Fight The Smears web site.

Donofrio, who has made denying Obama’s eligibility to be president his own personal crusade through a failed lawsuit (Donofrio v. Wells) taken all the way to the Supreme Court, and his Natural Born Citizen his web site, has now taken issue with FactCheck.org  with a brand new article: CONFIRMED: Factcheck.org Published Bogus Fact Regarding Obama’s Kenyan Citizenship. We covered much of the same ground on this blog in my article: Is President Obama a British Citizen? But let no one deride this blog for refusing to cover the same ground over and over.

Donofrio opens his attack by planting a vague, undefined doubt:

The relationship between President Obama and Factcheck.org has been on my mind recently….

But propaganda tactics aside [Obama has no relationship to FactCheck], what is the meat of Donofrio’s complaint? (more…)

Read full story • Comments { 623 }

Thomas Jefferson on “Natural Born”

by Dr. Conspiracy on 18. Jul, 2009 in Citizenship

Jefferson

Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson in December, 1783, wrote these notes to Congress [emphasis in the original]:

Qu. 1. Can an American citizen, adult, now inherit lands in England?
Natural subjects can inherit–Aliens cannot.
There is no middle character–every man must be the one or the other of these.
A Natural subject is one born within the king’s allegiance & still owing allegiance. No instance can be produced in the English law, nor can it admit the idea of a person’s being a natural subject and yet not owing allegiance.
An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power.
The treaty of peace acknowleges we are no longer to owe allegiance to the king of G.B. It acknowleges us no longer as Natural subjects then.
It makes us citizens of independent states; it makes us aliens then.
A treaty with a foreign nation where the king’s powers are competent to it as in this which is a case of peace & war, supersedes all law.
If the king’s powers were not competent before, the act of parliament of 1782 has made them so. An American citizen adult cannot inherit then.

Qu.2. The father a British subject; the son in America, adult, and within the description of an American citizen, according to their laws. Can the son inherit?
He owes no allegiance to Great B. The treaty acknowleges he does not. But allegiance is the test of a natural subject. Were he to do an act here which would be treason in a British subject he could not be punished should he happen to go there. (more…)

Read full story • Comments { 36 }
Older Entries »