English Common Law Requires Jus Sanguinis as Essential for Natural Born

Discussion in 'Other/Miscellaneous' started by MichaelN, May 29, 2011.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Quoting from Lord Coke - Calvin's case.

    Calvin's case case was cited in dicta of Wong Kim Ark as the source for a definition of 'natural born Citizen'.

    Even after citing Calvin's case and with all the discussion that took place in dicta, Wong Kim Ark was ruled a 'citizen', but not a 'natural born Citizen'.

    English common law requires TWO essential qualities to make a natural born, of which jus sanguinis is paramount, for without the parent being a subject, his child cannot be a natural born, even if born in the land.

    http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=...itle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27
     
  2. Nosferax

    Nosferax Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    5,716
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Since when does English Common Law applies to the USA?
     
  3. Apuzzo

    Apuzzo Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,493
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Obama's website during the campaign stated that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed his birth status since his father was a British National.

    From Fight the Smears:

    “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.”


    John Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment which defined what a 'citizen' is defined a 'natural born citizen' as this:

    “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

    As you can see, Obama's father held allegiance to the British Crown and that negates Obama's natural born citizen status at his birth.
     
  4. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is not my contention that English common law should apply in defining US 'natural born Citizen' ........... the SCOTUS in WKA case cited in dicta English common law, particularly Lord Coke - Calvin's case, in their quest to define NBC and yet still gave Wong 'citizen' ONLY.

    The point is that English common law requires the parent to be a subject, for a child of that parent to be a 'natural born' & that the subject status of the parent is ESSENTIAL as the PARAMOUNT quality for 'natural born'.

    So IF the framers of the USC did take English common law as a guide, then jus sanguinis is undoubtedly paramount & essential in establishing NBC status in USA.

    It appears that the WKA court took on-board the English common law requirement of jus sanguinis per Lord Coke, because even after all the considerations in WKA dicta about NBC, SCOTUS ruled WKA a 'citizen' only and NOT a NBC.
     
  5. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Also in Minor v. Happersett SCOTUS included in it's ruling the definition of "natural born citizen".

    This should explain, with certainty, what is meant by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the united States Constitution.
    Italics and highlights are mine.


     
  6. Colonel K

    Colonel K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,771
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    British Citizenship can be acquired both by:
    lex soli: By birth in the United Kingdom to a parent who is a British citizen at the time of the birth, or to a parent who is settled in the United Kingdom
    lex sanguinis: By descent if one of the parents is a British citizen otherwise than by descent (for example by birth, adoption, registration or naturalisation in the United Kingdom).
    The premise of the OP is flat wrong.
     
  7. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Obama is a British subject (he sure dissed his Queen during the toast) by birth, maybe on British protected soil, certainly according to the British nationality Laws of 1948.

    I do not believe, there is any way in heck, that the Founding Fathers would have understood the words they carefully wrote into Article II Section 1 Clause 5 as permitting a British subject to be able to ascend to the office of Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military forces. Do you?

    P.S. Paul Revere was an Original Citizen as were all of the early American Patriots. Do you need me to explain what it meant to be an Original Citizen or are you trolling with your sig line?
     
  8. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
  9. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So?

    Why? .......... how? .............. because you want it to be 'wrong'?
     
  10. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    funny thing is that I have watched your theory get torn to shreds elsewhere.

    But I don't care.

    Because here in the U.S. everyone knows that anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen.
     
  11. Nosferax

    Nosferax Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    5,716
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yep, still suck to be a birther...
     
  12. keymanjim

    keymanjim New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    10,351
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Only due to a bastardization of the 14th Amendment.

    What other amendments would you like bastardized? Before you know it, the 1st Amendment will only guarantee you the right to play soduku on the backs of albino midgets.
     
  13. keymanjim

    keymanjim New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    10,351
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I case you forgot, you aren't an American.

    And, weren't you threating to leave because people were making points different than yours?
     
  14. Nosferax

    Nosferax Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    5,716
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah I know I'm not an american, still this is a free forum and not your personal place. If you don't like what I post put me on ignore.

    And as for me leaving, it wasn't because of a divergence of opinion but more about silly trolls like you that bring down the level of discussion to a bar room brawl.

    You never contribute anything to any discussion you spam.
     
  15. keymanjim

    keymanjim New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    10,351
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Whereas your posts are so full of valuable information?

    No, it sucks to be you.
     
  16. Nosferax

    Nosferax Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    5,716
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nah, the birther have the monopoly on sucking...
     
  17. keymanjim

    keymanjim New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    10,351
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe that it was the Wong Kim Ark case that got the ball rolling. In that case it was ruled that Ark was a US citizen because he was born on US soil to parents who held permanent residence even though they weren't US citizens themselves. What is widely overlooked is the fact that Justice Grey, who was appointed by Chester A. Arthur, had no choice but to rule in his favor. If he ruled against Ark it could have been turned around to declare Arthur, whose father wasn't a US citizen at the time of his birth, also ineligible for citizenship. Thus, making justice Grey ineligible for his spot on the bench. His ruling was based on protecting his own robe.

    It is true that the 14th Amendment has the stipulation that people must be subject to the jurisdiction of the US in order to be US citizens. The definition of this phrase has been bandied about for years. But, I believe the definition of the man who inserted the phrase into the 14th should always be the best one to use:

    A person's citizenship at birth is defined by not only where they are born but who they are born to. If a person is born of even one foreign national then they inherit that parents citizenship. But, in doing so they are not under the complete jurisdiction of the US. Therefore, they are not born a US citizen.

    This point is further enhanced by the main architect of the 14th Amendment, John Bingham. On April 25, 1872 during a debate regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

    (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)

    So, John Bingham, the father of the 14th Amendment, believed up to and beyond that point that all laws pertaining to citizenship in the US, including his 14th Amendment, defined citizenship as being born on US soil to two US citizen parents.

    It doesn't matter where he was born. According to the 14th Amendment, he is not a US citizen.

    Suck on that, nimrod.
     
  18. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    go ahead and quote the rest of it now. you know, the part which directly refutes your point, but you like to ignore.
     
  19. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,682
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course we dont' care what English Common law says.

    Because here in America, we all know that anyone born in the U.S. can aspire to be elected President.

    Unlike what Aussie Mike thinks
     
  20. keymanjim

    keymanjim New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    10,351
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You always forget that part. It's in the US Constitution.
    The real one. Not the one you wish we had.
     
  21. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lol, says the man who's definition of the 14th A is in direct opposition to what the SCOTUS has defined. You don't get to make up your own definitions to US law.

    that's why it sucks to be a birther.
     
  22. Montoya

    Montoya Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    Messages:
    14,274
    Likes Received:
    455
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Here in the US there are only 2 types of citizens, citizen at birth (NBC) and naturalized (immigration). You are either one or the other. You cannot be in between.
     
  23. MichaelN

    MichaelN New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are TWO TYPES of born citizens.

    'native' via jus soli

    'natural' via sanguinis
     
  24. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
  25. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    not in the US. here in the US, there are only 2 types of citizen. citizen at birth and natualized. that's it. there is no mysterious third type.
     

Share This Page