John Jay’s Essay & the Reign of English Common Law in America
September 5, 2014 8 Comments
“I direct your attention to the very first supreme court case, which was decided by Chief Justice John Jay. Yes that guy who wrote the letter to Washington about the position of Command in Chief. It was called Chisolm v Georgia. In it Jay lays out the basis of The State’s authority, in that The State is the VICEROY of the people. But even more shockingly, in his concurring opinion, Justice Iredell considers English Common law to be in force in all the states until overwritten, -as if the principles, policies, and practices of the new national government were bound by anything other than the Constitution and its provisions as understood”
The enduring preeminence of the common law
The only principles of law, then, that can be regarded are those common to all of 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. [note that the context is not the laws of the federal government, -yet to be written in most regards, but States only] 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.No other part of the common law of England, it appears to me, can have any reference to this subject but that part of it which prescribes remedies against the Crown.Every State in the Union, in every instance where its sovereignty has not been delegated to the United States, I consider to be as completely sovereign as the United States are in respect to the powers surrendered. [the plural “United States are” refers to the unifying central government of the union of States.]The United States are sovereign as to all the powers of Government actually surrendered: each State in the Union is sovereign as to all the powers reserved. It must necessarily be so, because the United States have no claim to any authority but such as the States have surrendered to them.Of course, the part not surrendered must remain as it did before. The powers of the general Government, either of a legislative or Executive nature, or which particularly concerns treaties with foreign powers, do for the most part (if not wholly) affect individuals, and not States. They require no aid from any State authority. This is the great leading distinction between the old Articles of Confederation and the present Constitution.
John Jay himself wrote:
1st. In determining the sense in which Georgia is a sovereign State, it may be useful to turn our attention to the political situation we were in prior to the Revolution, and to the political rights which emerged from the Revolution.All the country now possessed by the United States was then a part of the dominions appertaining to the Crown of Great Britain. Every acre of land in this country was then held mediately or immediately by grants from that Crown.All the people of this country were then subjects of the King of Great Britain, and owed allegiance to him; and all the civil authority then existing or exercised here, flowed from the head of the British Empire. They were in strict sense fellow subjects, and in a variety of respects one people.The Revolution, or rather the Declaration of Independence, found the people already united for general purposes, and at the same time providing for their more domestic concerns by State conventions and other temporary arrangements.
From the Crown of Great Britain, the sovereignty of their country passed to the people of it, and it was then not an uncommon opinion that the unappropriated lands, which belonged to that Crown, passed not to the people of the Colony or States within whose limits they were situated, but to the whole people; on whatever principles this opinion rested, it did not give way to the other, and thirteen sovereignties were considered as emerged from the principles of the Revolution, combined with local convenience and considerations.The people nevertheless continued to consider themselves, in a national point of view, as one people; and they continued without interruption to manage their national concerns accordingly.Afterwards, in the hurry of the war and in the warmth of mutual confidence, they made a Confederation of the States the basis of a general government. Experience disappointed the expectations they had formed from it, and then the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution.Page 2 U. S. 471 It is remarkable that, in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights, and their own proper sovereignty, and, conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity: “We the People of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country, and, in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will that the State governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform.Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner, and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects in a certain manner.By this great compact however, many prerogatives were transferred to the national government, such as those of making war and peace, contracting alliances, coining money, etc. etc. If then it be true that the sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State, it may be useful to compare these sovereignties with those in Europe, that we may thence be enabled to judge whether all the prerogatives which are allowed to the latter are so essential to the former.
There is reason to suspect that some of the difficulties which embarrass the present question arise from inattention to differences which subsist between them. It will be sufficient to observe briefly that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere.
That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority, and from his grace and grant derives all franchises, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint.
It was of necessity, therefore, that sue-ability became incompatible with such sovereignty. Besides, the Prince having all the Executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued.
The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the People, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. [page 2 U. S. 472]
[note: that elucidates the fundamental American policy or doctrine of citizenship equality, -by which all citizens are viewed as natural citizens, -with natives being so by birth while immigrants become so via natural-ization. That relates to the use of the words “natural born citizen”. It refers to those who were born as natural citizens as apposed to those who were “made” natural citizens by the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation (the same sort of fiction of law as long existed in Britain for when Parliament “naturalized” a foreigner, thereby making him as one who was born in England of an Englishman.)]
From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a Nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides.
In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people. There, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance. Our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.
Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences; our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens.Firstly, as noted by Jay, the monarchical and feudal system was NOT that of “Owner-slave” it was “Liege-vassal” A vassal declared his obedience to the Liege, [his allegiance] but in return gained protection from his enemies and the Liege agreed to take care and protect the vassal.The was the original basis of the feudal system in its original form, and, even in its worst excesses, serfs theoretically had rights which could be appealed to the King for redress. Serfs were not slaves, and the Lord had responsibilities to the serfs which he could be brought down for not fulfilling. It happened more than you might think.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)
“The Act of Congress confers citizenship. Who are citizens, and what are their rights? The Constitution uses the words “citizen” and ‘”natural-born citizens;” but neither that instrument nor any Act of Congress has attempted to define their meaning. British jurisprudence, whence so much of our own is drawn, throws little light upon the subject.
… “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.”
Such a view is totally treasonous to fundamental American values and principles. Such blindness is seen in the failure to add to the words; “Birth and allegiance go together -in a monarchy!!! Allegiance only has two contexts in a free democratic republic, and they are to one’s comrades in combat, and to the security of one’s nation in regard to acts of treason or betrayal. Otherwise allegiance is something owed to a superior person or oligarchy. In a free nation, it is the government and its servants who must maintain allegiance to The People, and not seek despotic power over their rightful sovereigns.
So it is an extremely statist, imperialistic stance that declares that the People of these United States “owe” allegiance to the government that exists to serve them. But people who love and treasure and revere raw State Power, National Glory, omnipotent Government, and pride of Conquest will always show their true colors by speaking such traitorous words against the very foundation of our nation: individual liberty for all. They are the American neo-imperialists.
“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.” 2 Kent Com. 1 ; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1 ; 4 Black. Com. 366 ; Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. Ch. 139.
Pompous ignorance. He arrogantly ignored every native inhabitant of the entire land of North America, along with Gypsies, transient aliens & foreign guests, and foreign marauders.
The unique case of Julia LynchLynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844). Summary of Case:“The defendant, Julia Lynch, was born in the City of New York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city. She returned with them the same year, to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States [-by a State court].” [NYLO at 238.]
“It is an indispensable proposition, that by the rule of common law of England, –if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States. * And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States and, indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus.* [he went a bridge too far by presuming to define a key constitutional term, which no state judge has authority to do. -he should have simply left it at “a citizen of the United States”.]By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents.So if a Frenchman and his wife, came to England, and had a son during their stay, he was a liege man. This was settled law in the time of Littleton, who died in 1492. And its uniformity through the intervening centuries may be seen by reference to the authorities, which I will cite without further comment. [list of citations to cases/authorities].
[~and what was the response of the French government to such British arrogance and greed? Did it just roll over and play dead as its sovereignty over its own subjects and children was grossly violated? We never read about the push-back and hostility that must have been provoked by such a British stance. But perhaps there was none because it was all just theory on paper. The British government did not prevent it visitors and guests from leaving whenever they felt like it, so French parents of a newborn would simply leave and perhaps never return. Then what “jurisdiction” did the British have over such a child? [Such national British membership would have no down-side if there was no obligatory military conscription of young men, but would have the upside of having the rights of subjects, including the right of inheritance.]
“Mr. Chitty [one of authorities cited], says that by the common law, all persons born out of the king’s dominion and allegiance were deemed aliens; and whatever were the situation of his parents, the being born within the allegience of the king, constituted a natural born subject. He states no exception to the latter proposition; although there are some exceptions to the former, in favor of children of British subjects who are born in foreign countries….” [NYLO at 238.]
“At and before the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the case was undoubtedly different. … Foreigners arriv[ing] here intermediate the Declaration and the adoption of the Constitution, became citizens or continued aliens, according to the laws of the several States where they resided; and the children of aliens born here during that interval, became citizens of those states, because, as will presently be shown, the common law was in that respect, the law of all the states. “[NYLO at 241.]
“~after discussion of common and statutory law in colonies during the pre-Constitution period: “It may then be safely assumed, that at the Declaration of Independence, by the law [or custom?] of each and all the thirteen states, a child born within their territory and liegeance respectively, became thereby a citizen of the state of which he was a native.
This continued unchanged to the time when our national Constitution went into full operation. There is no evidence of any alteration of the rule in any of the states during the period that intervened; and the references which will be made under another head, show conclusively that there had been no intermediate change to their policy.”[NYLO at 243-44.]
“In regard to the effect of birth upon the right of citizenship, it is my duty not to establish the rule of law for the first time, but to ascertain a rule which has been in force from the era of the Federal Constitution, and which has affected the rights of persons and property constantly from that period to the present.” [note: a rule is not a law; it is merely an accepted convention, custom, mores, tradition]
“Were this, however, to be determined solely on its intrinsic propriety and adaptation to our circumstances, I am not sure that any rule different from that of the common law, ought to be adopted in our country. It is indispensable that there should be some fixed, certain and intelligible rules for determining the question of alienage or citizenship. The place of nativity, furnishes one as plain and certain, and as readily to be proved, as any circumstance which can be mentioned.
[note: although it’s highly unnatural, it is highly practical regardless of it also being highly illogical.]
If we depart from that, and adopt the rule of some of the continental nations, [jus sanguinis; “by right of blood”] we have two more remote and difficult tests introduced. We are to ascertain first, by evidence of facts removed one generation from the time of the inquiry, the status or citizenship of the parents at the time of the birth of the propositus; and next, the election or intention of the propositus himself, in reference to his adoption of the country where he was born, or that of which his parents were citizens [assuming they were immigrants]. And oftentimes, as in this case, the question will arise, before he attains to the age of election.”
[note: being born in a foreign nation is an unnatural situation in every legal-political-philosophical sense, and so there is no “natural” solution to ascribing nationality to children born of foreigners. There is only a legal solution, -which is jus soli: national membership determined by the borders within which the birth event occurred, and not determined by blood relationship. For an entire population, it need not be one or the other but of necessity needs to be both for the sake of Natural Rights and practical considerations.]
“In harmony with the certainty of the common law rule respecting natives born, are our statutory provisions for the admission of aliens to the rights of citizenship. Such admission is a judgment of a Court of Record. Thus in almost every instance, we have an unerring guide or test, capable of ready investigation and authentication. The exceptions are the children of ambassadors, (who are deemed to be born within the allegiance of the sovereign represented,) and the children of our own citizens born abroad. ….. [NYLO at 247-48.]
[note: he failed to distinguish that “our own citizens born abroad” (as with children of Ambassadors) were exceptions by natural principle, natural law, -and not by mandate of naturalization act, which would render them unnatural citizens, statutory citizens and not natural born citizens, and thus never in life being eligible to serve their nation as its leader. -That is an extremely rare possibility that life might make important, -but it happened to John McCain. Murphy’s Law.]
“6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, [the law??? -there was no “law”] every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.
[nash notes: What a stellar display of erroneous presumption. His unwillingness to entertain doubts based “upon principle” is a fraud because place-of-birth follows no principle whatsoever. It is merely an arbitrary, artificial, contrivance for the benefit and convenience of the monarch and his government, and that such a criterion of national belonging was pulled out of a hat a millennia ago and had never been questioned until the founders dumped it in favor of the original natural criterion for membership, is a testament to the enduring strength of royal power and the subservience of its sycophantic subjects.
The fact that he dared to call alien-born children natural citizens of America is the outcome of his total indoctrination into British law and thinking, as evidenced by his use of the terms “dominions and allegiance”, is if America were an imperial, sovereign power over a world-wide empire. It’s astonishing that he was so thoroughly programmed in British-think that it did not even occur to him that the words “natural born citizen” might simply mean what the words mean and not that which the rejected British nationality system attached to “natural-born subject”, -which had devolved to meaning anyone who was a subject, all being equal and therefore not in need of any differentiation. ]
“It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question. None was found by the counsel who argued this case, and so far [as] I have been able to ascertain, it never has been expressly decided in any of the courts of the respective states, or of the United States.”
He failed to grasp the reality of nationality assignment in the United States. If a State deemed a native-born person to be its citizen, then that citizenship was accepted nationwide as long as it did not deviate from the standard (regarding race and / or ethnic background). And the federal government was never involved until a person sought to travel abroad and needed travel papers, or later, a passport.
Then what did the feds do? Did they interrogate an applicant to find out if the father was still just an immigrant who had never been naturalized during the years of his child’s minority? Of course not. All they did was ask for a birth certificate and that was that. Passport issued.
So when would such a case ever come before a court? Only under two circumstances: presidential eligibility, which never happened, or a case like Julia Lynch, born in the U.S. to transient aliens and promptly returned to Europe. That very rarely happened.
As an adult, if such a person as Ms Lynch tried to claim that he or she was an American based on native birth alone, and thus be eligible for a U.S. passport, (and inheritance rights if she was so named in a will) the Department of State would be perplexed as to how to respond, having never faced such a situation before, -or within living memory.
“This circumstance itself, in regard to a point which must have occurred so often in the administration of justice, [no evidence of that] furnishes a strong inference [which is different from evidence] that there has never been any doubt but that the common law rule was the law of the land. [meaning the law of the States, excluding federal law and policy.
[“The law of the land” has no official meaning since citizenship was mostly a State matter, along with naturalization, although Congress had the authority to require the States to follow one single uniform rule in order to make a foreigner into a new citizen of the nation, -and not just a citizen of the State of his residence and naturalization. While it was undoubtedly true for a time that native-birth was regarded as the basis of citizenship for children of immigrants, it does not follow that even though it may have continued to be the law in every State of the Union, that is was therefore the law of the federal government which had authority to write the nation-wide naturalization rule. Congress acknowledged no such citizenship based simply on native-birth, and required that only the children residing in the United States were considered United States citizens via their father’s naturalization, -without any mention of where his children may have been born. If Congress had intended to recognize the alien-born as being national citizens, it could have and would have so stated, but it did not.]
This inference is confirmed and the position made morally certain, by such legislative, judicial, and legal expositions as bear upon the question. Before referring to those, I am bound to say that the general understanding [consensus opinion] of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind [“common knowledge presumption], so far as I have had the opportunity of knowing it, [in my quite limited knowledge and understanding] is that birth in this country does itself constitute citizenship. … [or… birth in a State whose law allows jus soli citizenship, -being as “the country” had no universal “law”] The universality of the public sentiment in this instance [i.e. conventional thinking], is a part of the historical evidence of the state and progress of the law on the subject [“the law” should be in quotation marks. ~public sentiment is never a part of the state of “the law”; example; Prohibition.]
It indicates the strength and depth of the common law principle [custom, tradition, conventional practice, but not law, LAW WAS ABSENT! -and common law did not adhere to an actual “principle” but solely to an artificial policy.], and confirms the position that the adoption of the Federal Constitution wrought no change in that principle.” [NYLO at 250.]
[that is true, because it did not even address the subject of citizenship except in regard to the office of the President. It couldn’t because it was 100% under the purview of State authority. It only authorized Congress to write a rule of naturalization for immigrants which the States would be obligated to adopt and make part of their positive law.]
from Justices Taney and Curtis:
Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 405 (1857) “It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States .” [Wow! it’s right there in print! -just what I’ve been postulating for years but with no previous corroboration.]
“Among the powers unquestionably possessed by the several States was that of determining what persons should and what persons should not be citizens… It embraced…what native-born persons should be citizens of the United States.” Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, __ (1857)(Curtis, J., dissenting)
So the States retained, under the Constitution, their own sovereignty over their own inhabitants and citizens, and that continued until federal input was mandated by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which had the effect of causing freed slaves to be admitted to citizenship.
Wilted Rose said…
If Julia Lynch had been considered a citizen in the first place, the case would never have been brought before the court. New York [afterward] passed the Law to overrule the erroneous court ruling.
Also, the states of Montana, California, North Dakota and the District of Columbia also had the law about [children of] transient aliens [not being citizens] on the books. It wasn’t just New York. The Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America specified that the children of transient aliens were aliens.
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA bill: February 27, 1801
THE CIVIL CODE of LAW AND PROCEDURE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA …
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled in manner following, that is to say,…
GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS
The inhabitants of this District are its citizens, and comprise – 1) All persons born and domiciled within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls…
The Civil Code of LAW AND PROCEDURE of the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
PEOPLE OF THE DISTRICT.
Sec. 21. The people of this District consist of–
1. Persons who are inhabitants;
2. Persons who are not inhabitants.
Sec. 22. The inhabitants of this District are its citizens and comprise–
1. All persons born and domiciled within it, except the children of transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls.
2. All persons born out of this District who are citizens of the United States and domiciled within this District.
[Who were citizens of the United States? They were all natural born citizens and all naturalized citizens [and their resident children] who were naturalized by the uniform rule of naturalization written by Congress.
The 14th Amendment of 1868 stated that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.” The question for the Supreme Court three decades later, was what determines who is subject and who is not? And to what extent of jurisdiction? Are aliens subject, and thus their native-born children also subject through them? Or are they still subject only to their own foreign government?
This District of Columbia Civil Code reveals the answers as they existed in 1800. In its case; they are citizens who are born and domiciled within the District. Those who are not domiciled are not citizens and not inhabitants but are “transient aliens”.
Barack Obama Sr. was not domiciled in the United States because his permanent home was still in Kenya. He came to the U.S. on a 1 year student Visa. He was never what this code called “an inhabitant” or citizen, but was only a transient alien, and thus he remained subject to the government where he had his permanent domicile (Kenya), and did not fit the status of 14th Amendment national sovereignty subjection that his son would have to be born under in order for citizenship to be attached to him. So by the law of the Federal District passed by Congress in 1801, his son was born solely under the foreign jurisdiction of his father whose foreign domicile was also that of his son, and thus was not born as an American citizen.]
Sec. 23. Persons in this District [who are] not inhabitants of it are either–
1. Citizens of the States or Territories of this Union; or,
Sec. 24. Domicile is the place of permanent residence –the home.
Sec. 25. There may be a domicile in one place and a residence for particular purpose in another.
Sec. 27. Every person has one domicile, and only one. This domicile is the place where a person remains when not called elsewhere for labor, or other special or temporary purpose, and to which he returns when such labor is accomplished.
Sec. 28. One domicile cannot be lost until another is acquired.
Sec. 29. The domicile of an unmarried child is the same as that of the father during his life, and after his death it is the same as that of the mother while she remains single.
Sec. 30. The domicile of the wife is that of her husband, except as provided in section 142 (relating to divorce).
Sec. 31. The domicile of an unmarried minor, who has a parent living, cannot be changed either by his own act or by the act of his guardian.
Sec. 32. Domicile is changed only by the union of act and intent. [Obama Sr. had no intent to change domicile and stated he planned to return to his own nation.]
Sec. 33. Every natural person, while within this District, is subject to its jurisdiction and entitled to its protection.
[Sec. 26. As a person, a corporation, for the purpose of jurisdiction, has a residence in this District when it has an office or agency for the transaction of business.]
~We see that a native-born child, born of transient aliens, is neither a citizen nor an inhabitant because its father has not abandoned his homeland residency and his child has the residency of the father, -not the place of its birth.
Only the native-born child of domiciled immigrants had a District residency, therefore, only they, in 1801, were considered to be inhabitants of the District. Only inhabitants were considered citizens. Only immigrants who domiciled within the District could bring forth a child that was both born in and domiciled in the District, and therefore a common law citizen. All those who were born in and domiciled in the District were among the inhabitant citizens regardless of parentage.
So jus soli continued on after the revolution for native-born, immigrant-fathered children, leaving the fathers and mothers and foreign-born siblings as aliens while the native-born were citizens, resulting in dual citizenship.
That was the ordinance of Congress regarding its district, so it appears that it was not averse to dual-nationality locally since it was meaningless due to permanent residency giving the U.S. government jurisdiction over such children by the choice and intent of the parents.
So three recognized origins of domestic citizenship were possible: 1. natural citizenship via native-birth to citizen parents. 2. naturalization via the uniform rule of Congress. 3. naturalization via the more liberal rules of individual States or the District of Columbia, or federal territory.
Not all who were or could be made citizens by State law would be recognized as citizens in other States, or by the Federal District, or the State Department. And technically, not all of those who were nationally recognized as citizens by all States had to be recognized by the federal government in its dealings with international travel and relationships.
Its naturalization acts stated that of the children of naturalized fathers, only those “dwelling within the United States” were deemed to be citizens, -which had the collateral effect of meaning that the children of non-naturalized immigrants were not recognized as United States citizens regardless of native-birth. They were considered to be domiciled in and subject to the foreign government or sovereign of the father regardless of domicile in the United States. Clearly, inconsistency and conflict reigned between the various jurisdictions in America, -at least until the Wong opinion was handed down from the high court in 1898.
The question is: was Congress of two minds (when it came to international relationships)? Did it in effect disenfranchise such persons if they traveled abroad, viewing them as non-citizens of The United States while simultaneously accepting them locally as citizens of the District?
I’m assuming so. Two different jurisdictions would have been involved. One would be the Civil jurisdiction of the District, while the other would be the international jurisdiction of the U.S. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, -which later became the Department of State.
Otherwise, there is no explaining the 1790, 1795, and 1802 naturalization acts which did not view children of aliens as citizens until the father naturalized [along with the later 1855 act].
A tangential point, prompted by this quote from the DC code:
~District Code Sec. 20. The word person includes a corporation as well as a natural person; oath includes affirmation or declaration; and every mode of oral statement under oath or affirmation is embrace by the term “testify“;
Note: No official from Hawaii has ever made an affirmation or declaration synonymous with an oath, nor ever “testified” to the facts regarding the true nature of what is stored in their paper, microfilm, and digital archives regarding Barack Obama or what his mother or grandparents submitted on his behalf in August 1961 or later.
But Loretta Fuddy did make a lying false public declaration of having been a witness to that which is never done in the digital age; and that was the supposed coping of the “original” birth certificate of Barack Obama, when all birth certificates in fact are simply printed out from a file in their department data-base on its computer server.
Paper documents are never resorted to anymore for birth certificate production. Everything is digital. But her official lying statement was not a form of legal testimony, so she could never have been criminally culpable for making it, plus she could have taken the 5th amendment exemption or simply said that she didn’t write it nor sign it, even though it contained her signature. But having been conveniently murdered by death, she will never be able to tell anyone about the conspiracy of which she was a part, a conspiracy for which she was hired just weeks previously, -replacing the newly hired Director who mysteriously “resigned” for reasons that even he was unaware of, -which “resignation” he learned about from a reporter. The fix was in. A counterfeit long-form Certificate of Live Birth needed to be produced and posted on the internet, and the new director was not a sycophantic team-player like Fuddy was, and could not be approached about allowing criminal access to the original affidavit filled-out by Obama’s mother or grandmother, -which stated that he was born at home in Hawaii. It was needed for producing the fake, and Fuddy allowed that access. But her story can never be told now since she is very conveniently dead. The only thing that could be more suspicious would be for Lois Lerner to dropped dead next.
by Adrien Nash Sept. 2014 obama–nation.com