Discovering Citizenship Truth & Error from Coke to Wong
July 18, 2014 3 Comments
An Obama eligibility supporter opined:
“All aliens in the United States are fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Such is perhaps the most fundamental maxim of international law found in all treatises on the subject and stated quite clearly by our Supreme Court. For example:
“E]very independent state has full and complete jurisdiction over all persons and things physically situated within its territorial limits, whether those persons and things are permanently or transitorily present.” John Norton Pomeroy, Lectures on International Law in Time of Peace, pg. 202 (1886).”
~News Flash! Due to the basic superficiality of all legal thought on such matters, you have been deluded by flat-world, two-dimensional thinking. Hopefully your eyes can be opened to another dimension that goes ignored due to general thoughtlessness.
“fully subject to the jurisdiction” means to the full extent of jurisdiction that can be exercised over citizens of the nation. The absurdity of the quoted statement is seen in the total absence of a real-world context. In the real world foreign Ambassadors exist. What jurisdiction are they under?
Why does the expressed view fall flat on its stupid face as soon as they are added to the picture? Because of superficial thinking and mindless regurgitation of what one’s “expert authority” mentors and predecessors taught,-mindlessly as well.
Ambassadors are not in a sealed category all by themselves. They have and had company. Foreign invaders, foreign guests, foreign visitors, foreign military attaches, foreign students, American Indians, Gypsies, etc.,etc.
Everyone’s mistake is three-fold: -one is that lawful authority is not the same as martial power.
Another is that jurisdiction is limited, and not unlimited. It is limited by various things, including international treaties, the law of nations, moral law, and natural rights.
Governments like the United States exist under written constitutions. Even the Constitutions of socialist states such as Cuba and Kenya do not ascribe to the government unlimited power nor authority. It is always limited.
Yet the view of neo-imperialists, such as those bloviators, promotes the presumption that such governments are made from the mold of the British Parliament, which possesses authority without any limits since Britain lacks any limiting Constitution. There may be no other government on Earth following the American Revolution that is so governed. It is not conceivable that the men who learned from us and wrote their nation’s Constitution granted their legislature unlimited power.
“The discretion, however, of a Nation as to the particular Law which shall be administered in its Courts is absolute, and it may decline to allow its Courts to give any effect to Foreign Law…” Travers Twiss, The Law of Nations (1861).
First, any American court judge that gave authority to foreign laws should be immediately impeached for breach of the oath of office.
Those words reveal that the author was only considering the situation of the unlimited power of Parliament over all judicial authority. No court could judge as unlawful the rule of Parliament because Parliament was its own judge of what was lawful. The courts were not imbued with authority to judge them.
As you know, but the author seemingly didn’t, we rejected such a system and such legislative authority. Courts in America judge everything that they choose to. They are not limited by the will or wishes of Congress. They can be, and often are, just as unrestrained by the decrees of Congress and the Constitution as Congress is also unrestrained by that old rag of a document, the U.S. Constitution.
And the idea that civil jurisdiction is the entirety of full jurisdiction is blindly ignorant. As is the view that our government possesses power that it chooses to not exercise over foreigners present on our soil.
It chooses to not exercise the power that it does not have unless it chooses to act unconstitutionally, (which is most of the time).
No free, moral, constitutional government on Earth views itself as having the authority to conscript foreign ambassadors, or visiting foreign men or women or children or elderly or disabled into their military.
Only Satan himself is so presumptuous that he thinks he has the right to do anything he wishes. Moral men and women in morally established republics are ruled by a fundamental unwritten principle, and that is self-limitation.
Not limitation on the exercise of power but limitation on the presumption of authority. They do not presume that they possess authority that they have no moral right to possess, otherwise the entire concept of natural rights goes right down the toilet, -making government GOD and man its slave.
Attorney General Bates enforced the draft and said:
“A child born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, is by the fact of birth a native-born citizen of the United States, entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.” Attorney General Bates, 10 Op. A. G., p. 328 (1862).
A” s far as I know, Mr. Secretary, you and I have no better title to the citizenship which we enjoy than the accident of birth”
He was an ignorant man who would have made the founders shudder.
“As far as I know…” Yes, and that is not very far, and as far as it went, it was wrong because in that misconceived imperialistic common law view, American fathers and mothers and children did not possess any unalienable right to belong to each other nor to their own country. It was all, by gosh, just pure dumb luck!
Well, he was not alone in that false impression resulting from (rejected) British common law policy. It was the same one that I, and you, and everyone else grew up with. What did we know, and what more did our teachers know? Nothing. But now I know, and I’m duty bound to share what I’ve discovered.
“What the Court said is the law and is reality.”
That’s what the consensus view is but it is basically crap.
No court opinion is the law. There is no such thing as “court law”. There are only opinions and orders.
No opinion of any court is law. Only Congress can make laws. Courts only interpret what the laws of Congress mean. The other superior branches of government are not obligated to heed an unconstitutional high court opinion. But if they ignore it, and a case goes to trial, the courts can rule against the government and the defendant wins, so disobedience to the view of the White House and Congress would go unpunished since it would eventually not be enforced.
They courts have no enforcement power, legislative authority, nor any supreme moral authority in our federal system. Their supremacy was only in regard to lesser federal court.
Both the President and Congress, -as well as the States and all publicly sworn officers. are duty bound to ignore unconstitutional orders, laws, and court opinions, -just as the courts are duty bound to rule against unconstitutional actions by the President and Congress and declare them to be the travesties that they are.
But we have devolved into the very nightmare that Jefferson and other founders fear, one in which the courts have usurped all ultimate authority and made themselves an oligarchy of gods who can rule and over-rule almost anything.
“one Senator, Senator Edmunds, involved in the adoption of the [14th] Amendment wrote Gray after the opinion saying he “interpreted the 14th Amendment exactly as we members of the Senate understood it at its passage.”
How exactly does one “understand” words that are innately ambiguous without making an unfounded presumption? If the words are undefined, and not universally understood to have a specific meaning, then it is impossible to “understand” their true meaning since they have no true meaning. That is what ambiguity makes impossible.
What was his understanding of being born in the United States? Did that mean being born in the U.S. government? Or within the bordered territory of the States, or on federal lands including the nation’s capital? And how can one be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” when the “there of” refers not to authority but to territory that one must be born within?
But if, as reason dictates, “the United States” jurisdiction that one must be subject to is government authority, then what government authority? That of the President? The laws of Congress? The opinions of the Supreme Court? The laws of the individual republics of the Union? Civilian law or political law or regulatory law or military law? And when subject, how fully subject? Half subject? Three-quarters? Or 100 %? No answers, zero clarity, 100% ambiguity. The answer is that if you are male, then you are subject to all of them, which includes military subjection if duty calls.
Slartibartfast said…”Here I’m defining two classes of “citizens of the US” according to when citizenship was obtained (at birth, -or later) to make clear that I believe Justice Jay only intended to exclude those who received their US citizenship at some point after their birth.”
He foolishly chooses to focus on timing instead of origin as the criterion of the framers in deciding how to deal with the issue of possible disloyalty by a covertly unpatriotic President whose father and supporters were scions of European aristocracy and nobility who might seek to “raise a creature of their own” into the seat of the American chief “magistracy”.
So by that warped and extremely deficient criterion, a son of Adolph Hitler, who happened to be born during a visit to the U.S. Nazi Party by his mother would have been qualitatively equal to a son of John Adams born in Germany during his ten years abroad serving as a foreign minister for the young American republic even though his American ancestors included no aliens or immigrants going fully back to the days of the founding of the first colonies.
So…. the timing of when an alien-born infant was granted citizenship (“at birth”, -as apposed to say at one year of age, or ten years of age) would be just as secure a means of avoiding foreign influence in the White House as American roots? How can a rational person imagine that the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution were so stupid?
~Wilted Rose replied to his “at birth” doctrine:
“A previous draft by Hamilton had the president required to be “born a citizen”. That was changed to “natural born Citizen” because of Jay’s letter, which emphasized “born” by underlining it. My theory is that Jay’s underlining had a specific meaning, and that the adding of “natural” wasn’t superfluous.
When Jay was just starting out on his law career, he was bequeathed some law books. It was a small bequest, but it included the complete set of the Reports of Sir Edward Coke. No doubt he became very familiar with their contents over the years.”
“Here is why I think Jay underlined “born”.
From Lord Coke’s report on Calvin’s case (1608): “Every Man is either Alienigena, an Alien born, or Subditus, a Subject born.”
[note: those terms are ambiguous but probably mean both born of aliens or subjects and also born as aliens or subjects.]
“One curious thing about English “subjecthood” is that when someone was naturalized to be an English subject, it was considered to be effective from birth. Therefore, every subject of the King was a “subject born” whether they actually were subjects at birth or not.”
[note: The legal establishment was well aware that their fiction of law was just that, and that there were actual natural born subjects while the naturalized were fictional natural-born subjects. The distinction only matter when it came to high office, -Parliament, any position of public trust, and the King’s Council. No person being naturalized was eligible, and that was required to be stated in every naturalization act of Parliament.
Being naturalized meant being made into a fictional natural subject. All natural subjects are naturally subjects by birth to subject parents, so the naturalized were a fictional imitation, like excellent counterfeit money. Looks the same, but close inspection reveals it is not.]
~”Every [natural-born] subject is either natus, born, or datus, given or made …”
I think the previous sentence is why Jay underlined “born”. He was differentiating between those who were born subjects and those who were made subjects.”
[in other words; those who were born as “natural-born subjects” and those who were made “natural-born subjects” by legal fiction. But her logic was faulty. He was not distinguishing between natural citizens and naturalized citizens as in the English example, since he would have assumed that they were not being considered as eligible. That’s why he didn’t say the Command in Chief should not be given to any who was not “a born citizen”, (-as apposed to “a made” or naturalized citizen). Instead, his words drew a three-fold distinction between 1. a non-citizen and a citizen, 2. a citizen and a born citizen, and 3. a born citizen and a natural citizen. One must be all three by birth.
But in order to avoid a fictional “natural citizen” of either the naturalized type or the alien-born type, it was necessary to underline “born” in order to emphasize that the only “natural citizen” acceptable was one that was born as such and not made such as a fiction of law. There is no other logical explanation for his underline.]
Coke continues to define these born subjects …
“There be regularly three incidents to a subject born (unless it be in special cases [i.e., children born abroad of the king and his ambassadors]).
1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King.
2. That the place of his birth be within the King’s dominion. And,
3. The time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a King of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the King of the other.” [reference to the Calvin case, 1608]
Rose explained: “The phrase “be under the “actual” obedience of the King.” can be explained by this quote:
“2. There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances [mandatory loyalty]; the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta pura, et indefinite, and this originally is due by nature and birth-right, [born of subjects] and is called alta (high, profound, actual) ligeantia, and he that oweth this is called subditus natus (subject born).
The second is called ligeantia acquisita, not by nature but by acquisition or denization, being called a denizen, or rather donaizon, because he is subditus datus (subject made). [naturalization by Parliament or denization by the king]
The third is, ligeantia localis, wrought by the law; and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is here, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other. [required to obey the orders of the king and the laws of the land that one is in]
The fourth is a legal obedience, or ligeance which is called legal, because the municipal laws of this realm have prescribed the order and form of it; and this to be done upon oath at the torn of the leet.” [sworn obedience, probably the obedience required as in an oath of office, -a public trust responsibility that requires legal or fiduciary fidelity, as in a notary or court of record]
Binney (1850’s) continues;
” But the common law principle of allegiance, was the law of all the States… -and by that principle the citizens of the United States are…, “
He was a neo-loyalist when it came to citizenship principles because he falsely described the British doctrine as a “principle” when it was anything but.
Principles are derived from nature and its laws. They are not man-made arbitrary rules created to benefit a monarch or to control certain persons.
Binney was blind to not comprehend that all forms of allegiance were abolished as elements of nationality in the new nation. He must have been ignorant of the Dissertation of David Ramsay since he was oblivious to the impact of something called “The Revolution”.
His view had the new nation faithfully continuing in the royal doctrine, pattern, mold, and tradition of Britain with nary an original thought of its own as to nationality and how it was rightfully acquired.
In other words, the USA was a slave to British common law practice. What a bonehead!
Where does he distinguish the difference between State nationality policy and federal? Nowhere. Instead he incredibly equates “The United States” with the British king, as if the government created by “We, The People” was the new monarch that everyone owed allegiance to in place of King George III.
That not only is un-American; it is even anti-American. It has Government as the new Sovereign instead of We, The People, the creators of the government. Instead, it was the new Lord & Master, and we were just its subjects.
That is treasonous to American principles and the very thing that men sacrificed all to over-throw. He was like the dog that returned to its own vomit, because we Americans, as children of Americans, have an unalienable birthright, -a right by blood inheritance, by birth to American parents who transmit certain things to their children, the first of which is their nature, and the second of which is their national membership status.
It’s a perversion to claim that a natural right is acquired merely by being born within certain borders. But in time, that legal “right” in Britain became a life-sentence to be the King’s subject until death, -with no natural right to dump him and his doctrine of “perpetual allegiance”, and become a member of another nation, or a subject of another sovereign.]
“Logic. I was looking at Minor v Happersett again and this is what I came up with.
In Minor v Happersett, the question was one of citizenship.
1) “It was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
1A) Premise: all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens are citizens. [note: they not only are citizens, -they are natural born citizens.]
2) “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class [the 2nd class] there have been doubts, but never as to the first. ”
[Statement 2 speaks of doubts about citizenship because State law or policy was opposed to federal policy since State nationality rules included jus soli citizenship whereas federal rules did not. The States didn’t respect the federal policy and the federal administration was not bound to honor the nationality policy followed by the States as common law incorporated into State law. They were “at loggerheads” because Congress, in the naturalization acts, had left all alien-born children as aliens (regardless of place of birth) as far as American international policy was concerned. The federal government was not concerned about intra-State policy until the issue of slavery had to finally be addressed permanently.]
2A) Premise: children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents may not be citizens.
[Premise 2A is true but incomplete without being accompanied by the collateral or secondary conclusion that those in the first class (natural born citizens), can also be members of the 2nd class since the wording was not “with reference to their parents” (referring to alien parents) but instead it is “without” reference. Both classes can be native born.]
3) “For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” Since they did not have to solve those doubts, then Minor was without a doubt a citizen. If she was without a doubt a citizen, then by necessity she was born in the US to US citizen parents according to what the court just said. Statement 4 also supports this premise.
3A) Premise: The plaintiff was born in a country of parents who were its citizens (inferred)
4) “It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
4A) Conclusion: The plaintiff is a citizen.
I am following the logic of the court here. Since the issue was the privileges of citizenship, the court had to determine that she was without a doubt a citizen.
“Citizenship” alone was the issue discussed.
Premise: all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens are citizens.
Premise: some children born within the jurisdiction (without reference to the citizenship of their parents) may not be citizens.
Premise: The plaintiff was born in a country of parents who were its citizens (inferred)
Conclusion: Therefore, the plaintiff is a citizen.
So, being born in the country to citizen parents is a sufficient condition for being a citizen, but it is not a necessary condition because persons who are naturalized are also citizens. Naturalization is also a sufficient condition.
I am following the logic of the court here. Since the issue was the privileges of citizenship, the court had to determine that she was without a doubt a citizen. “Citizenship” alone was the issue discussed.”
[~and that Truth collapses the house of cards that is built on the false premise that the issue before the court was natural citizenship and that its “requirement” of native-birth is confirmed and constitutionalized by an opinion that really does not even exist. The court never made an issue of native-birth as any sort of necessary factor for citizenship.
It only observed and mentioned it as a corollary factor, -never referencing it as a necessary factor. “Correlation does not equal Causation.” It was just a part of the picture, or perhaps more like the frame. A picture without a frame is still a picture, -and a foreign-born child of Americans is just as much a natural born American as all other children of Americans, -just without the frame of native-birth. One could also compare it to an elephant without any tusks; it’s still an elephant; -or a rhino without its horn…]
Being born to citizen parents is a sufficient condition for being a citizen, and it is a necessary condition to be born as a natural citizen since natural citizenship isn’t about where one was born but to whom one was born; an American father? or a foreign father? With alienage, …or without alienage? American roots or foreign roots? American jurisdiction only or additional secondary foreign jurisdiction?]
natural born citizen
Birthers often focus on the word “natural”, however, if we consider the nomenclature in which the Founders chose to write the Constitution, all citizens are natural citizens, whether they became so at their birth or were made so by statute later in life. Thus all citizens possess the quality of being natural which is implied in this phrase.”
The framers did not “choose” the nomenclature. It was the only one they all knew since it had been around long, long, before they were born. But then Slarti made the biggest mistake possible. He individualized the words of the term, -rendering their unitary term-of-artifice meaning null and void. That means that he is presenting them as having separate meanings instead of the equivalent to “natural-born subject” which was purely a term of art meaning in effect simply “subject”.
Under that term, if equivalent to natural-born citizen, then just as all subjects were natural-born subjects, so also all citizens were natural born citizens, only they weren’t.
But then he goes one step even further from the position of his own heresy by confirming that “all citizens are natural citizens” -like I’ve been preaching day and night for years now. What a mistake such an admission is!
But he then errs by mischaracterizing what that means. Instead of recognizing it as purely a fiction of law, he characterizes it as essentially literal in the political sense, stating that “all citizens possess the quality of being natural” No, they do NOT! They only possess the quality of being citizens.
They are merely covered by the pretense, -the legal fiction that they are natural citizens. They do not actually possess the real quality of being natural citizens. Do adopted children actually possess the genes of the adoptive parents? Are they “possess the quality of being natural” children, -or merely the status?
He continues: natural born citizen
Birthers also like to argue that the Founders choice of “citizen” rather than “subject” reflects some profound philosophical difference which should be inferred here. To address this topic, what better source could there be than the interpretation of the Founder’s original intent by the Holy and Unanimous SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett. They said:
“For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words ‘subject,’ ‘inhabitant,’ and ‘citizen’ have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government.
Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.“
“nothing more”??? Liberty and self-governance are nothing more than membership? Subjects of tyrants and monarchs had membership, whether they wanted it or not. I think the people of Iran would understand what mere membership does not provide. They supposedly live under a republican form of democratic government and yet are they free? Free to speak their resistance to government policy, and free to adopt any religion they choose? Free to keep and bear arms and overthrow their government?
With membership in Britain, did the people have an unchallengeable right to unite together into armed militias? Militias to defend themselves from over-reaching government and feudal nobles? A realistic examination of reality shows that citizenship involves quite a bit more than mere membership, although that is certainly where it begins, but NOT where it ends.
He concludes: natural born citizen:
Since “natural” and “citizen” don’t help us distinguish those who satisfy the Article II requirement from the rest of the body politic, we must turn to the word “born”. By definition, this means “existing as a result of birth”. So, in context, the phrase refers to those who’s natural condition of membership in the nation [whose natural citizenship] existed as a result of birth. [-as apposed to law, policy, tradition, location, or legal fiction]
What of the Founder’s intent? Well, we know that John Jay emphasized the word “born” in his letter to George Washington, so he seems to have felt that the focus should be on “born” rather than “citizen” or “natural”.
[~not “focus” but emphasis, -to emphasize that requiring that one be “a natural citizen” was insufficient since it was innately ambiguous. One must be born as an actual natural citizen rather than be “made” into a fictional natural citizen (whether made so via naturalization or via common law for the alien-born in America) who become fictional natural citizens from day one.]
[Note: I’m adding quotation marks around words and phases that are either false assertions or outright, unadmitted presumptions.]
In addition, we “know” that Justice Jay’s “good friend” and fellow New Yorker Alexander Hamilton proposed the wording born-a-citizen. Since it is “virtually certain” that “the two met” while the Constitution was being written and would have “discussed it”, it is “reasonable to assume” that they agreed on this topic.
After all, if John Jay felt it important enough to send a letter to George Washington, he “would certainly” have thought it important enough to try and convince his “friend” who was involved in the writing of the Constitution. This means that “we would expect” Hamilton’s “lay term” born-a-citizen” to mean the same thing as Jay’s “lawyerly term” “natural born citizen”.
All of this “adds up” to make it clear that the Founders intent was to restrict the Presidency to only those who became citizens of the United States at birth rather than being naturalized later in life.
Correction for Mr. Knows-all-things: not “at birth” but “by birth”. Citizen-born children are Americans even before birth, but alien born children are not because for them citizenship does not begin until after birth. What all of “THIS” adds up to is less than ZERO.
He fails to acknowledge the very real possibility of native-birth to foreigners with no intention of staying in the United States nor of becoming citizens. Such persons’ child would acquire State citizenship but not be raised as a State citizen nor an American citizen but as a foreign subject living in his family’s foreign nation while being acculturated to think like a non-American.
Why on Earth would the framers and defenders of the Constitution and the nation want to swing wide open such a dangerous gate? At 21 years of age, such a foreign-raised, foreign-indoctrinated, foreign-devoted agent of foreign interests could emigrate to America, and fourteen years later be eligible to run for the office of President. No one who knows history and the Federalist Papers, thinks that such a scenario never occurred to the framers of the Constitution.
What was the only possible roadblock to prevent such a usurper from occupying the position of Chief Commander of the American Army & Navy and State Militias? It was in prescribing exactly what sort of father he must be born to and be raised by. No sane creator of a new nation and government would feel it to be perfectly safe for a future leader of the nation, and wielder of its ultimate power, be raised by a foreign father and mother with unknown and unknowable interests and motives.
He must be raised only by American parents since only they would be free of foreign bonds, foreign philosophies, foreign interests, and foreign benefactors. Only they would be free of alienage and duplicity. Only they could insure he be free of dual nationality, dual allegiance, conflicted world views, and un-American philosophies of government & religion.
To emphasize the extent of their willingness to exclude outsiders, just consider that known facts behind their prohibition of “NO PERSON, except a natural born citizen…”. They prohibited non-whites from serving, along with those completely unelectable, including the uneducated, the divorced, the morally tainted, the immature, the entire female gender, the indentured, the criminal, and the non-Protestant.
So what part of exclusion do Obama’s supporters not understand? He was born an alien son of an alien even if born in America because he was not born subject to the full jurisdiction of the American government. He was born an alien son by being born of an transient alien father and was not even in the same universe as natural born citizens.
Well, actually he was half in the American universe since his mother was an American, but her nationality could not be conveyed to him even by law since she was about four months too young by the Naturalization Act of 1952. So it was all about the father, and his father could provide him only British Commonwealth subject status via Kenya. That status determined the jurisdiction he was subject to from birth and that determined that by the 14th Amendment he did not qualify for American citizenship.
by Adrien Nash July 2014 obama–nation.com