I have argued how some people foolishly allow themselves to be enslaved by myths, lies, or foolish stories.

On Dr C’s blog we find the following comment by our friend Scott Brown, attempting a “silly joke” based on some foolishness in 2008

The common law, by which all persons, born within the king’s allegiance, became subjects, whatever were the situation of their parents, became the law of the colonies and so continued while they were connected with the crown of Great Britain. It was thus the law of each and all of the states at the Declaration of Independence and so remained until the national constitution went into effect that a ohild bom within their territory and ligeance respectively though of alien parents who were abiding temporarily thereby became a citizen of the state of which he was a native. The Constitution of the United States, as well as those of all the thirteen old states, pre-supposed the existence of the common law and was founded upon its principles so far as they were applicable to our situation and form of government. And to a limited extent the principles of the common law prevail in the United States as a system of national jurisprudence.

Continue reading »

Dr C has done it again. He has shown, using historical resources how the term Natural Born Subject and Natural Born Citizen are interchangeably used.

It is just so obvious to see that colonial and state lawmakers understood that the term “natural born citizen” derives from the English common law term “natural born subject.” And here, I have traced it.

I hasten to add that this article is no new discovery or clever argument on my part. Vice-Chancellor Sandford of the New York Chancery court made this argument back in 1834.

From Wong Kim Ark

That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatce office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than 50 years after the adoption of the constitution when the matter was elaborately argued In the court of chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford In favor of their citizenship Lynch v Clarke 1844 1 Sandf Ch 683

The term citizen was used in the Constitution as a word the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the Constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle in the section which defines the qualification of the President. No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President etc. The only standard which then existed of a natural horn citizen was the rule of the common law and no different standard has been adopted since Lynch v Clarke 1844 1 Sandf Ch NY 656 .The term citizen as understood in our law is precisely analogous to the term subject in the common law and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people and he who before was a subject of the king is now a citizen of the State. State v Manuel 1838 4 Dev & BL N Car 26 quoted US v Rhodes 1866 1 Abb US 39 27 Fed Cas No 16,151

Source: A treatise on American citizenship  By John Sergeant Wise, United States. Supreme Court

And the text of Lynch v Clarke.

Source: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Court of Chancery of the State of New-York: before the Hon. Lewis H. Sandford, Assistant Vice-Chancellor of the First Circuit, Volume 1, Gould, Banks & Co., 1846

The rhetoric over health care has ensnared many an unaware US citizen to believe in plain falsehoods, but some have taken steps beyond foolishness. Point in case, a recent arrest of a Texas man who made public death threats against our President, for passing Health Insurance Reform.

DALLAS — A Dallas man describing himself as a terrorist threatened to kill President Barack Obama in an online posting because he was upset about health care reform, according to a criminal complaint.

Brian Dean Miller, 43, faces one count of making threats against the president, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. He is scheduled for arraignment in federal court Friday.

His public defender and his mother did not return phone messages Thursday.

According to a criminal complaint, Miller made the death threats March 21 on Craigslist under a posting titled “Obama must die.” The posting said he was following through on a promise to become a terrorist if the federal health care bill passed.

“I am dedicating my life to the death of Obama and every employee of the federal government,” the posting said. It ended with a call to arms: “This is war. Join me. Or don’t. I don’t care. I’m not laying down anymore.”

He said, “Today I become a terrorist.”

The Huffington Post reports

Ken Blackwell, author of the new book, “Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency,” was on “The Daily Show” last night where Jon Stewart tore to shreds his argument that the Obama administration is tyrannical and unconstitutional. (Blackwell has responded here.)

Stewart pointed out that the level of rhetoric in the book does not match what is actually happening in government, adding that the “tyranny” that Blackwell discusses is actually the constitutional use of executive power to do things that Blackwell and other conservatives don’t like.

Jon called Blackwell out by differentiating between the rhetoric used in the book and what he is actually arguing:

If the debate is “I don’t like your programs,” or “I don’t like the philosophy of the judges you have the right to appoint,” that’s a very different conversation than “You are becoming a tyrant and subverting the constitution,” because that’s a very emotional, loaded statement that’s not seemingly backed up by a tremendous amount of, I guess you’d call them facts.

Blackwell didn’t seem to have a lot of his facts straight, as Stewart corrected him on a number of issues, such as the fact that Bush appointed more judges than Obama has in the same amount of time. Later, Stewart got Blackwell to admit that George Bush had in fact made a similar “power grab” to the one Blackwell accuses Obama of making, though he said it was “not as comprehensive.”

Stewart summed it up when he uncovered the real nature of Blackwell’s argument: “They can’t use executive power to do things you don’t like,” he said, “but that’s not tyranny.”

Continue reading »

Gorefan’s response to Yellow was the 8000^th comment on this blog. Almost 1600 postings, making it a ratio of 5:1.

Without the many commenters, it would have been far less fun, far less educating (to me at least). It’s the quality of comments which makes me proud…

Thanks to Vince for pointing out that the quote was missing its source: History of the Bench and Bar of California, 1901, Edited by Oscar Shuck, containing the article “Citizenship of Chinamen” By Marshall b. Woodworth, San Francisco Cal. The belief that it was International Law and not Common Law which guided the rules of citizenship in the United States ignores that the US is a sovereign State and can accept any rules they so choose, even when some people believe that the International Law rules are superior, more logical. Even the Judge in the lower Court in CA agreed that the International Law principles make more sense but that he was bound by the Constitution not by legal fiction.

The dissenting opinion is elaborately drawn, and for the most part may be said to be predicated upon the recognition of the international law doctrine. But the error the dissent apparently falls into is that it does not recognize that the United States, as a sovereign power, has the right to adopt any rule of citizenship it may see fit and that the rule of international law does not furnish ex proprie vigore the sole and exclusive test of citizenship of the United States however superior it may be deemed to the rule of the common law. It further does not give sufficient weight in interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to the doctrine which was prevalent in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the amendment in question which was undoubtedly that of the common law and not of international law. In conclusion it may be said that the decision sets at rest whatever of doubt may have been formerly entertained on the proposition. It conclusively answers the advocates of the international law doctrine. With respect to the superiority of the international law doctrine over that of the common law it may be conceded that while the rule of international law that the political status of children follows that of the father and of the mother when the child is illegitimate may be more logical and satisfactory than that of the common law which makes the mere accidental place of birth the test still if the Fourteenth Amendment is declaratory of the common law doctrine it is difficult to see what valid objection can be raised thereto nor how the subject of citizenship of the United States can be deemed to be governed by the rule of international law in the absence of an express adoption of that rule any more than it could be governed by the law of France or of China.