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.
But Blackstone is confusing on this issue. Blackstone also writes, “To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. "2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.” This use of Blackstone gave Great Britain claim over US Citizens, which lead to the war of 1812, when Britain went about impressing American sailors into their navy because English law did not recognize the right of our Founding Father’s naturalizing themselves into our new country. “Once an Englishman, always an Englishman,” was the reason the British used to impress our citizens into service for the Crown. This law and concept of claim to the subjects to the Crown, regardless of place of birth is still in effect in Great Britain, and had the effect of Congress passing a law that required all the officers and three fourths of the seamen on a ship of the United States be natural born citizens. (Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, February 9, 1813) Further, the Crown passed a law that made it treason for former British subjects, even though they were now American citizens to participate on the side of America during the war of 1812. (Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, February 23, 1813) to If the Founding Fathers accepted Blackstone’s definition of a natural born subject, then impressments of American-British citizens into the Royal Navy would not have been a casus belli, for the War of 1812. The fact that Madison included the impressments of American Citizens as a reason for a state of War clearly indicates that they rejected Blackstone’s definition of a natural-born subject."
"At this point there can be little doubt that the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone and Vattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone. [b]The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that the loyalty of a Natural Born Citizen is a loyalty can never be claimed by any foreign political power. The only political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a natural born citizen is that power that governs of his birth. Vattel by including the parents and place removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural born citizen ought to lie, as Vattel’s definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil, and is the only definition that is in accord with Jay’s letter to Washington."
It only comprises the etymologies of the word phrase. "natural born citizen" that is placed in the Constitution - Very useful for a Supreme Court Decision, which also would not BE the Constitution, literally, that is.
Unadulterated literation - that's what this country needs.
The entire matter is ridiculous, and people make themselves appear to be unable to reason for themselves. President Obama's only mistake has been that he relies on the intelligence of the American
people to make wise decisions...he's said it repeatedly. Clearly there is no cure for the willful ignorance of many Americans: that's a shame and a blight on our nation.
It only comprises the etymologies of the word phrase. "natural born citizen" that is placed in the Constitution - Very useful for a Supreme Court Decision, which also would not BE the Constitution, literally, that is.
Unadulterated literation - that's what this country needs.
"Natural Born Citizen" has been explained many times on this thread. If you don't agree with present US law, you can try to get it changed.
"Natural Born Citizen" has been explained many times on this thread. If you don't agree with present US law, you can try to get it changed.
The meaning of words in the Constitution are to be interpreted by the Supreme Court in accord with the understanding of the words by the drafters.
Only an Amendment to the Constitution can "modernize", or provide relative sophistication, to a populous-demand, or urge, for a change from the drafters' understanding.
You are claiming to know what the drafters meant, by posting this crap about inheriting from the father only; from, interestingly, after the constitution was written. (I think, you don't give a date for some of this stuff). "By her husband's consent", LOL! Even the Church of England doesn't require women to obey their husbands any more.
It is your interpretation, not the Supreme Court's that we seem to be aruging here. Just like all the birthers. We have to agree with the constitution as interpreted by ergohead. Good Night!
You are claiming to know what the drafters meant, by posting this crap about inheriting from the father only; from, interestingly, after the constitution was written. (I think, you don't give a date for some of this stuff). "By her husband's consent", LOL! Even the Church of England doesn't require women to obey their husbands any more.
It is your interpretation, not the Supreme Court's that we seem to be aruging here. Just like all the birthers. We have to agree with the constitution as interpreted by ergohead. Good Night!
The meaning of words in the Constitution are to be interpreted by the Supreme Court in accord with the understanding of the words by the drafters.
Only an Amendment to the Constitution can "modernize", or provide relative sophistication, to a populous-demand, or urge, for a change from the drafters' understanding.
There have already been a few dual-citizen presidents whose fathers were not US citizens. Any Supreme Court decision would have to take into account these precedents already being set.
But specifically regarding the 14th amendment, it is beyond doubt that this was done so that former slaves would have their citizenship enshrined in the Constitution and not subject to revocation. It was passed specifically in response to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was designed to grant citizenship to ex-slaves. They passed the amendment because there was fear that the Civil Rights Act could be revoked as a simple law.
These former slaves were obviously not children whose fathers were citizens unless they were one of the few slaves fathered by white masters.
Therefore the idea that the 14th amendment had anything to do with giving citizenship based on the father's citizenship makes absolutely no sense considering the context of why this amendment was passed. It was specifically passed to give citizenship to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." PERIOD
With few exception, formers slaves were children whose father was a non-citizen slave. The point was to grant these freed slaves citizenship based on birth in the U.S. alone without regard to the citizenship status of their father. Otherwise these ex-slaves could never become citizens.
This was also confirmed in Wong Kim Ark vs U.S. Supreme Court case. He was born in he U.S. to parents who were BOTH non-citizens. The court ruled that his birth in the US alone granted him natural born citizenship based on the 14th amendment regardless of his parents citizenship status. This ruling completely contradicts any notion that the 14th amendment requires anything other than birth in the US (and not being the child of diplomats).
Last edited by sonoranrat; 08-06-2009 at 02:11 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
