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.
Nowhere in the 17th century English law was it held or ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.
The benchmark English court case, i.e. Calvin's case was used by the SCOTUS in the Wong Kim Ark citizenship case where Wong was affirmed to be a "citizen of the United States" but not a "natural born citizen".
These are the only two classes of citizens mentioned in the US Constitution, they are distinctly different within the context of Article II of the US Constitution, and where it is made clear that a "citizen of the United States" is NOT eligible for the office of president of the United States, (a "citizen of the United States" may be a born US citizen) but the other class of US citizen is, i.e. a "natural born citizen", which is descriptive of a person who would already be a US citizen, but with an extra quality of being "natural born".
This situation where there are two types of born US citizens was made clear in the US Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark, when in the decision of the court Justice Horace Gray cited Horace Binney's recognition of two types of born US citizens, i.e.
1. "the child of an alien, if born in the country"
2. " the natural born child of a citizen"
A thorough reading of Lord Coke's report on Calvin's case makes it plain to see that Lord Coke in his report, expressly rejected native-birth as sufficient to make a natural born subject, Coke further stated that a friendly alien visitor to the English realm was embraced as a "subject" due to local ligeance and that if a native-born child was "not born under the ligeance of a subject", then that child "can be no subject" at all and would be an alien-born.
It was always about the allegiance of the father, i.e. it was the father's ligeance which was the deciding factor in determining if his child's subject or alien-born status.
It was NEVER determined by place of birth.
IF it were true that the Founders and Framers followed the English rule, then for a child born native in US to be a natural born citizen, that child would by necessity have to be "born under the ligeance of" a US citizen father.
Here are some verbatim excerpts from Lord Coke's report of Calvin's case...
"There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita, and this originally is due by nature and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia and he that oweth this is called subditus natus. 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. 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 there, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other."
"Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of the subject’s part. And this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. and 3 and 4 Ph. and Mar. Dyer 144. Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum; for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject:"
"This word ligeance is well expressed by divers several names or synonymia which we find in our books. Sometime it is called the obedience or obeysance of the subject to the King"
"And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum, neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King."
"....in case of an alien born, you must of necessity have two several ligeances...."
"An alien born is of foreign birth or foreign allegiance"
"There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
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;..."
"The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject."
The notion that "alien parent + native-born child = natural born subject" was the English rule, is utterly wrong and is a misrepresentation of the actual facts.
Nowhere in the 17th century English law was it held or ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.
Last edited by MichaelNo; 04-29-2013 at 04:19 PM..
Nowhere in the 17th century English law was it held or ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.
The benchmark English court case, i.e. Calvin's case was used by the SCOTUS in the Wong Kim Ark citizenship case where Wong was affirmed to be a "citizen of the United States" but not a "natural born citizen".
These are the only two classes of citizens mentioned in the US Constitution, they are distinctly different within the context of Article II of the US Constitution, and where it is made clear that a "citizen of the United States" is NOT eligible for the office of president of the United States, (a "citizen of the United States" may be a born US citizen) but the other class of US citizen is, i.e. a "natural born citizen", which is descriptive of a person who would already be a US citizen, but with an extra quality of being "natural born".
This situation where there are two types of born US citizens was made clear in the US Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark, when in the decision of the court Justice Horace Gray cited Horace Binney's recognition of two types of born US citizens, i.e.
1. "the child of an alien, if born in the country"
2. " the natural born child of a citizen"
A thorough reading of Lord Coke's report on Calvin's case makes it plain to see that Lord Coke in his report, expressly rejected native-birth as sufficient to make a natural born subject, Coke further stated that a friendly alien visitor to the English realm was embraced as a "subject" due to local ligeance and that if a native-born child was "not born under the ligeance of a subject", then that child "can be no subject" at all and would be an alien-born.
It was always about the allegiance of the father, i.e. it was the father's ligeance which was the deciding factor in determining if his child's subject or alien-born status.
It was NEVER determined by place of birth.
IF it were true that the Founders and Framers followed the English rule, then for a child born native in US to be a natural born citizen, that child would by necessity have to be "born under the ligeance of" a US citizen father.
Here are some verbatim excerpts from Lord Coke's report of Calvin's case...
"There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita, and this originally is due by nature and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia and he that oweth this is called subditus natus. 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. 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 there, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other."
"Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of the subject’s part. And this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. and 3 and 4 Ph. and Mar. Dyer 144. Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum; for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject:"
"This word ligeance is well expressed by divers several names or synonymia which we find in our books. Sometime it is called the obedience or obeysance of the subject to the King"
"And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum, neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King."
"....in case of an alien born, you must of necessity have two several ligeances...."
"An alien born is of foreign birth or foreign allegiance"
"There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
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;..."
"The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject."
The notion that "alien parent + native-born child = natural born subject" was the English rule, is utterly wrong and is a misrepresentation of the actual facts.
Nowhere in the 17th century English law was it held or ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.
Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitutionand thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03(1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678,684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett,88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.
Ankeny v. Daniels
Quote:
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark,we conclude thatpersons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
Kindly keep the ad hominem and fallacies out of this thread.
The TOPIC is about English law rules and the fact that they have been misrepresented.
Listing those who have also misrepresented or have carried-on with the misrepresentation, does not alter the fact.
Either show where in the English law that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject, or take your nonsense elsewhere.
The problem is: you have ceased, long ceased, to be entertaining. There is still some slight entertainment value in your changing avatars, assumed when banned under an old one by the moderators, but that is about it.
As for your challenge about English Law: I actually had the opportunity, after I received my J.D., of going to the United Kingdom to study English law. I declined, for it had no bearing on my legal life in the US of A.
"English Common Law" had some relevance in the early days of this Republic. When the Court was faced with some issue that had not yet been addressed by the Constitution, or the laws passed by Congress, the Court could, if it chose, seek guidance in the English Common Law. However, I do not recall any instance in which a United States Federal Court stated that it MUST rule in a certain way due to the precedence established by English Common Law. The reason is simple: the United States of America was no longer bound by the laws of His Majesty the King, or his lawful heirs.
It has long been established that your argument is moot. Only you, and a handful of like-minded people, believe that said argument is somehow relevant to, well, anything.
You do not have 'secret knowledge' that other people lack. It is no longer entertaining. Rather, it has become, to me, sad.
In the time it takes you to write you various missives, you could improve your resume. Seek employment, for even the search for work will improve your self-esteem. Do not just sit in your house or apartment, receiving disability payments, and write nonsensical arguments on the Internet. It helps no one, benefits no one, and only injures you.
When the US becomes 17th century England, and disregards 3 centuries of law including the court decisions, then you might have a remote sense of what is happening in reality.
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.
