Fax this Memo to your Congressman

The concept of birthright U.S. citizenship by native-birth alone is a carryover from English law as practiced by the American colonies, but superseded by the 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act that relied on the ‘Law of Nation’s’ § 212 description of “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

The reason ‘native-born citizen’ is so terribly conflated in the American psyche as synonymous with ‘natural born citizen’ is because of over a century of the judiciary ignoring U.S. statute.

The Lynch case (1844) violated the 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802, and 1804 uniform naturalization acts through semantic gymnastics and false logic, implying law and intent that went beyond the clear language of the acts themselves.

Wong Kim Ark (1897) side-stepped the existing requirements of legislated Act by creating a special ‘constitutional’ citizenship-at-birth. Ark’s violation of jurisprudence (neglecting to address treaty and equity issues actually within the court’s jurisdiction) completely ignored the 1866 Civil Rights Act’s “not subject to any foreign power” as precursor to the 14th Amendment’s “under the jurisdiction thereof” clause. Ark continues in its effect to this day, causing the courts to ignore the conflicts of dual nationality at birth and, through Plyler vs. Doe (1982), forcing states to treat children of even illegal aliens as citizens.

The Judiciary versus Congress; Removing the Redundancy

The constitution, and case law cited in Wong Kim Ark, specifically enumerates congressional plenary power over uniform naturalization law. However, while Minor vs. Happersett (1874) commented in dicta [or Judicial Notice] that a ‘natural born citizen’ was without doubt a child born of U.S. citizens, the judge in Ark intentionally fabricated a ‘constitutional’ citizen out of reach of congressional Article I powers.

The judiciary’s reliance on English jus solis principles for citizenship at birth was belied by English law itself; that law relying on both ‘descent’ and ‘otherwise than by descent,’ i.e., of patrilineal inheritance, or just born within English dominion. The courts compounded their error by creating the ‘birthright’ native-born citizen, which has burdened the states by encouraging illegal immigration. [See also the Preamble to the 1772 British Nationality Act, defining children of British subjects born outside British territory, i.e., the United States from its first inception, natural born British subjects . . . therefore, under British law Obama was a natural born British subject.]

In addition, judicial error has created a constitutional crisis, for it has justified the son of a British subject, Barack Hussein Obama, to erroneously claim Article II eligibility to the presidency through native-birth alone. This is obviously something the framers never intended.

Congress has the power to correct over one-hundred years of judicial ‘legislation’ simply by clarifying Title 8, U.S.C. § 1401(a) with a definition that “under the jurisdiction thereof” is extended from the 1866 Civil Rights Act’s “not subject to any foreign power.” The legislative history supports this amendment to existing statute.

In addition, the current misinterpretation is a gross redundancy; a child ‘born in the United States’ is obviously within its territorial jurisdiction. Foreign political jurisdiction conferred through the law of nations is, as defined in the rest of the Aliens and Nationality Act, the effect of one alien or non-citizen parent who introduces alienage.

https://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/the-missing-link-confusing-english-law-with-natural-born-citizenship/

https://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/who-is-a-citizen-at-birth-or-a-natural-born-citizen/

https://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/the-transition-from-jus-soli-obama-not-a-natural-born-citizen/

 

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

23 Responses to “Fax this Memo to your Congressman”

  1. slcraig Says:

    The definition of natural born Citizen must be made in light of the conditins that existed ‘post’ the Declaration of Independece up to the adoption of the Constitution along with its placement within the Constitution as it relates to the ‘specific’ concerns of the ‘Office’ and as a means of indentifying a ‘person’ that is acceptable for the ‘needs’ of that Office.

    Taken together making the ‘term of words’ into a wholly American ‘idiom’ imbued with contemplative ‘specics’;

    Idiom (Latin: idioma, “special property”, f. Greek: ἰδίωμα — idiōma, “special feature, special phrasing”, f. Greek: ἴδιος — idios, “one’s own”) is an expression, word, or phrase that has a figurative meaning that is comprehended in regard to a common use of that expression that is separate from the literal meaning or definition of the words of which it is made.

  2. paralegalnm Says:

    ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is ‘idiomatic’ of a free Republic comprised of citizens, and thus rises to the level of ‘term of art.’

  3. slcraig Says:

    Ummm, not sure I completely agree because that implies a certain degree of ‘universality’ that is not present in the prerequisite specifics of its COTUS usage.

    Using the Preamble as a guide the specific language says the Constitution was established ‘for Ourselves and Our posterity*’ which confines the ‘idiom’ to the limits of the Constitution of the US and specifically separated from ANY OTHER Nation, State or Guv’mnt.

    *Our Posterity to include the anticipated additions by both ‘birth to citizens’ and ‘naturalization’.

    But also, to be a ‘term of art’ it implies ‘universal’ agreement on its definition among those that would use it.

    Sadly, not the ‘current’ case, is it…?

  4. BlueOhio Says:

    The reason that the US Congress voted to confirm Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY is that not one member in the 535 believed that the citizenship of Obama’s father has any effect on Natural Born Citizen status. And, neither does the vast consensus of legal and Constitutional scholars.

    “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    • paralegalnm Says:

      In my blog two prior to the one you are commenting on, I posted in Appendix A two letters from congressmen. It is because of their misunderstanding of the law, especially birthright citizenship conflated with natural born citizenship, that I wrote more blogs on the topic. My first blog is fairly complete in its own right, but the later blogs explain why most people have been fooled into believing native-born equals natural born.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      I too have a copy of the Heritage Guide, and am disappointed on the lack of depth of analysis in the article you cited. Not even a quote acknowledging Vattel or Minor vs Happersett . . . so, good comment, but the Heritage article was not written during an actual crisis on point, with specific fact patterns to analyze.

  5. BlueOhio Says:

    Re: “Not even a quote acknowledging Vattel or Minor vs Happersett . . .”

    Vattel was not even mentioned in the Federalist Papers. There is no evidence at all that the writers of the Constitution had Vattel in mind. A search of the writings of John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and yes, John Jay shows that they NEVER used the phrase “Natural Born” in the sense that Vattel did or to refer to the parents of the citizen. They ONLY used it in the common law sense, referring to citizenship due to the place of birth.

    The ruling in Minor v Happersett was BEFORE the ruling in Wong Kim Ark, which held:

    “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

    As you can see, the ruling (six to two with one justice not voting) held that the meaning of Natural Born refers to the common law and that in Britain and in the early colonies and in the early states, AND under the US Constitution, every child born in the country (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is Natural Born.

    A Natural Born citizen is, duh, a US citizen who was Natural Born, meaning a citizen at birth, of which the vast majority are those who were born in the country.

    There is NO crisis. Virtually every legal and constitutional scholar holds that the meaning of Natural Born in the Wong Kim Ark decision applies to every US citizen who was born in the USA.

    “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

    “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning. “– the Wall Street Journal.

    The overwhelming consensus on this is why the US Congress voted to confirm Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY. If even one senator or congressman had held the theory that Obama’s father affected Natural Born status, it could not have been unanimous.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      1) So, you’re saying that Madison, Washington, Franklin, etc., had no idea who Vattel was?
      2) From your comments on common law, it is obvious you haven’t read my blog post on Native Born versus Natural Born, just two clicks away;
      and, finally, 3) try in future arguments to avoid, like the plague, starting your point with the word ‘clearly.’ It is a dependable sign that Bullshit is to follow.

  6. BlueOhio Says:

    Re: “1) So, you’re saying that Madison, Washington, Franklin, etc., had no idea who Vattel was?

    That is what the loony theory that the writers of the Constitution followed the Vattel definition and not the Blackstone definition amounts to. Well, if they did, the writers of the Constitution would have said somewhere that they were following Vattel or that the definition of Natural Born required two citizen parents. BUT they did not say it.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      I ask you to resist long diatribes.

      I have explained in my blog how the judiciary reliance on English common law, and incorrectly at that, led to confusion over citizenship at birth, or children of aliens who became citizens upon naturalization of the father. Legislated Act voided the English common law cited supporting jus solis citizenship.

      The Ark case twisted the 14th Amendment to create a citizen solely born in the U.S. without consideration of the nationality of the father, thus creating a ‘constitutional’ citizen outside the jurisdiction of congress . . . but creating a dual national . . . a conflict of laws.

      If you took the time to read my blogs instead of dismissing them as nonsense, you’d accomplish more towards understanding.

  7. readertwain Says:

    Re: “have explained in my blog how the judiciary reliance on English common law, and incorrectly at that, led to confusion over citizenship at birth, or children of aliens who became citizens upon naturalization of the father. Legislated Act voided the English common law cited supporting jus solis citizenship. ”

    Answer: You have not “explained.” You have given your theory, a theory that is not accepted by the vast majority of constitutional scholars. The reason that the US Congress voted to confirm Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY is that not one single member in the 100 senators and 434 members of the house agrees with you.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      You are suggesting the Question of Law, “Is Barack Hussein Obama, the son of a British subject, eligible to the presidency,” is moot.

      My research is not theory; it is an assemblage of facts, fact patterns, law, history, and analysis.

      If you don’t agree, fine. However, your reference to congressmen, or jurists for that matter, does not dispose of the issue.

      There is no citation of case law that settles the matter, for it is in the law that legislated act supercedes common law, or English law as practiced by the colonies. The misinterpretation of the Naturalization Act in one case is flaccid reasoning, and ignores the plain and clear language of the law.

      In the end, Congress has plenary power over naturalization law. In my opinion, the matter is best left to an exploratory commission and open debate in congress . . . not to nine ex-lawyers in robes.

  8. readertwain Says:

    Re: ““Is Barack Hussein Obama, the son of a British subject, eligible to the presidency,” is moot.”

    Answer: Not moot. The answer is YES. Yes, the son of a British subject is eligible to be president. The writers of the Constitution never said anything that would make this not so. The meaning of Natural Born at the time that they wrote referred simply to citizenship due to the place of birth. NOT one of them ever used the phrase Natural Born the way that Vattel did, meaning to refer to the parents of the citizen.

    The THEORY that the writers of the Constitution required two citizen parents is based on the principle that the writers of the Constitution really held that the US-born children of US citizens are more trustworthy than the US-born children of foreigners. I think it highly unlikely that justices with the names Alito and Scalia, whose fathers were Italian (whether naturalized before or after birth does not matter to the justices) and a chief justice whose mothers name was Podrasky, would hold that the US-born children of US citizens are superior to the US- born children of foreigners.

    But that is what the two-fer principle holds. Moreover, it holds the crazy notion that the writers of the Constitution really believed that the US-born children of foreigners were not as trustworthy as the US-born children of foreigners, but that somehow they did not get around to telling us about the matter.

    And, of course, there is the key ruling, Wong Kim Ark, which clearly defined Natural Born as including every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats and invading armies. It is obtuse to claim that a US citizen who was Natural Born, meaning born in America, is not a Natural Born Citizen.

  9. readertwain Says:

    Re: “Your reasoning is fatally flawed.”

    That is a weak response.

    The reason that the US Congress voted to confirm Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY is that not one member in the 535 (one hundred senators and 435 in the House) agrees with your reasoning. They agree with Edwin Meese:

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

  10. paralegalnm Says:

    No. It is accurate as a response based on the analysis I provided in this blog, as supported by further research and citations of law in prevoius blogs.

    Lynch by-passed the fact that the same common law the ‘jus soli’ jurists relied on to conclude English law controlled citizenship at birth voided that concept, the common law voiding itself in the face of legislated Act.

    If you read my previous blog on the subject, that common law is cited from several states.

    Wong Kim Ark couldn’t get around the same legislated Act, so did an ‘end-run’ around it misinterpreting the 14th Amendment to create a ‘constitutional’ citizenship at birth, outside legislated Act. I explained that instead of relying on provisions existing in legislated naturalization Act, and remaining within the court’s jurisdiction over Treaties and Equity, the court Legislated from the bench. Instead of ‘abiding’ by existing law, it made an unlawful and illogical ‘loophole’ to ram ‘jus soli’ citizenship through.

    My research is accurate and fully explained in the blogs. As the poker player said as he laid down his cards, ‘Read ’em and weep.’

    As much as I admire Edwin Meese, his mistakenly relied on bad case law. I did more research than he did.

  11. readertwain Says:

    Re: “Wong Kim Ark couldn’t get around the same legislated Act, so did an ‘end-run’ around it misinterpreting the 14th Amendment to create a ‘constitutional’ citizenship at birth, outside legislated Act. ”

    The situation is that the decisions of the US Supreme Court are final (unless the court itself overturns a previous ruling or we pass a Constitutional Amendment to change the ruling). So, unless and until the US Supreme Court changes the Wong Kim Ark ruling, or we pass that amendment, it is the law of the land.

    You say it is wrong, and that Meese is wrong, and that all the lawyers in the US Congress are wrong, and that Black’s Law Dictionary is wrong. Well, you are dreaming.

    And, not only is it the decision of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, it was also the consensus of legal opinion long before the Wong Kim Ark case:

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    This is based on the fact that the meaning of Natural Born in America (not Switzerland) at the time that the Constitution was written referred only to the place of birth. Not a single American leader at the time can be found writing an article in which Natural Born refers to the parents of the citizen.

    • paralegalnm Says:

      The natural born citizenship of a president/candidate has never been adjudicated, and therefore the dictum of various sources, or commentary on English common law leading to other decisions, are invalid.

      Research shows that the judiciary was in error relying on English common law.

      1) English common law goes both ways, jus solis and jus sanguinis.
      2) English law has a very broad application for their term natural born subject.
      3) It is also in the common law of the early states, contemporaneous with the time of the passing of the 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act, that legislated act voided common law principles.
      4) Lynch and Ark were incorrect in their reasoning, and easily overturned in their definitions of a citizen at birth.

      If you read my blogs, you would know this already.

  12. readertwain Says:

    Re: “The natural born citizenship of a president/candidate has never been adjudicated, and therefore the dictum of various sources, or commentary on English common law leading to other decisions, are invalid.”

    Answer: Until the citizenship of a president/candidate is adjudicated, the law that stands is based on the meaning of Natural Born, as decided by the Wong Kim Ark case. Since Obama is Natural Born, as defined by that case, and he is also a US citizen, both being determined by his birth in Hawaii, he is a Natural Born citizen.

    The extremely broad definition of Natural Born in common law was for a purpose, and you have not shown that ANY American leader at the time of the writing of the Constitution disagreed with the meaning of Natural Born in common law, or that a single one of them used the phrase the way that Vattel did, or to refer to the parents.

    Re: “English common law goes both ways, jus solis and jus sanguinis.”

    Answer: But EVERY child born in Britain, regardless of whether his parents were subjects or aliens became a Natural Born subject simply due to the place of birth. (Except for the children of foreign diplomats and of invading armies.)

    That is why the Wall Street Journal wrote:

    “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning. “

  13. paralegalnm Says:

    I’m sorry, but the court’s invalid commentary that English law obviated the 1790 Naturalization Act is pure error.

    As Justice Waite said in Minor vs Happersett, that particular issue was not decided by the case.

    The definition of Natural Born Citizen, your claims versus our reseach is a cause de novo.

  14. paralegalnm Says:

    Now I know you haven’t read the linked blogs.

    They explain why your position is untenable if the issue is adjudicated de novo.

    In fact, in my Appendix, I cite more case law supporting your position than you can shake the proverbial stick at.

    My legal analysis is based on common law existing at the time of the passage of the first Naturalization Acts, those legislated Acts, and solid analysis of Jurisprudence.

    The SCOTUS case law relied upon for a prima facie determination of citizenship at birth is in violation of all of those precepts of law, as well as logic itself.

    Please study my linked memos of law, and think prior to commenting . . . please.

  15. LAD Says:

    It is obvious I have analyzed both sides of the argument.

    If the jus solis argument was valid, I’d accept it. However, it isn’t and I explain why.

    I have overcome cognitive bias, which is your next step in intellectual development.

  16. paralegalnm Says:

    It was John Marshall that opined that an unconstitutional court holding was ‘void and a fraud.’

    The Congress has plenary power, admitted in Wong Kim Ark while citing Chirac vs Chirac, so the judiciary had no jurisdiction to override and supersede legislated Act, . . . and that goes for the Lynch case . . . so citing Calvin’s Case, etc., as I have listed in Appendix, is a futile argument.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: