Originally Posted by
MichaelNo 
As we can see, the SCOTUS in the Minor v Happersett case relied on a "common law" to both define a US natural born citizen AND reject the notion that native-birth to alien parents even made a citizen at all.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
None of that can truthfully be found in Minor v. Happersett.
|
You wish!
From
the decision of the Minor v Happersett case (below), we can see that at the time of
the decision, the 14th Amendment was a part of the US Constitution.
Therefore the 14th Amendment does not define Article II "natural born Citizen".
The court also says to look elsewhere and it looked to a "commonm law".
Quote:
|
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
|
Then the court refers to a "common law", which was familiar to the Framers and the Framers clearly understood it's provisions.
Per this familiar "common law" it was never doubted that a natural born citizen of the US was one who was both native-born AND born to US citizen parents.
Now time to think.....
This statement by the court about native-birth plus US citizen parents was made in light of the 14th Amendment's existence.
But the 14th Amendment already provided generally for the native-born to be US citizens IF those native-born were also "
subject to the jurisdiction".
(see below as compared to "within")
Therefore the natural born citizen defined by the court must have been the equivalent to a 14th Amendment native-born citizen PLUS with US citizen parents.
The court's decision continues.....
Quote:
|
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
|
From the above quote, we can also see that the "common law" referred to, provided for BOTH native-birth AND citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
The court makes mention of some authorities who include as "citizens" (
not natural born citizens) the native-born to aliens.
That SAME "common law" also gave the court reason to DOUBT that inclusion, i.e. if native-birth to aliens sufficed to make a US citizen at all ("citizen",
not to be confused with natural born citizen).
The court gave favorable merit to the doubts by saying that the doubts had still to be solved, virtually saying that native-born children to aliens, were alien-born until such time as the question of their citizenship had been resolved some time in the future.
The court,s decision continues............
Quote:
|
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 there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
|
If it was the English common law which the court referred to, then the English common held that native-birth DID NOT SUFFICE to make a natural born subject.
IFthe English common law DID accept native-birth as sufficient to make a natural born subject, then the court was referring to a "common law" which WAS NOT the English common law.
In summary, we have the following facts in settled law....
The court determined that the 14th Amendment (being a part of the US Constituton) did not define an Article II natural born citizen.
The court recognized a "common law" which held that both native-birth AND US citizen parents made a natural born citizen.
The court recognized that the same "common law" had no provision for native-birth to aliens to be sufficient to make a citizen (nothing to do with natural born) and therefore neither a natural born citizen.
The court made a clear distinction between "subject to the jurisdiction" and "
within the jurisdiction", and therefore held that mere presence with the US did NOT necessarily make a person "subject to the jurisdiction", i.e. said person was only considered by the court as "
WITHIN the jurisdiction" and there was an
extra quality required to make that person "subject to the jurisdiction"
The court recognized and held that it was the allegiance of the parents of native-born children which determined the allegiance of their children.
The court gave merit to doubts if native-birth sufficed to make a citizen at all (not a natural born) stating that the doubts had still yet to be solved and until such time as those doubts were solved, those who were native-born to aliens were alien born. (a person is not a citizen first until proven an alien, but rather a person of dubious citizenship is an alien until citizenship is proven).
The court recognized that native-birth PLUS "
subject to the jurisdiction"
DEFINITELY did NOT define a natural born citizen (
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
)
The court recognized that native-birth PLUS "
within the jurisdiction"
MIGHT possibly make an
ORDINARY citizen (not a natural born), yet to be determined at some future tiime.
Bottom-line is Frank, that even with all your moaning and desperate ad hominem and default chants of denial, it has been proven beyond any doubt that it is the allegiance of the PARENTS which determines the allegiance of their children.
You have no reasonable or sound argument, you have been smacked down by the truth, at best you run interference by employing deceit, opinionated rants, ad hominem, etc......... no one takes the garbage you post seriously .......... you are only a legend in your own mind.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
