Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#176

Post by nbc » Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:14 pm

The phrase "natural born citizen" was, as far as I can tell, looked at by several courts to establish the citizenship status. Minor v Happersett, US v Wong Kim Ark.Do you really still completely fail to grasp the difference between dicta and holding?Again focusing on the ad hominem and ignoring what I did say?





Truly fascinating...





I guess that we can thus freely ignore what the Courts have said because you believe it to be dicta? At least you should do the work to show that it is indeed dicta. But it may be simpler to just resort to silly games...

User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#177

Post by nbc » Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 pm

I have given you the facts, specific examples where statutory law has become incorporated into common law. You've ignored them. I have repeated them over and over. You have yet to address a single one. You continue to repeat a falsehood which belies a total failure to grasp what common law even is.You claim it to be a falsehood and you claim that it is my failure to grasp what common law even is. Why not present a more coherent argument and then explain how I repeat a falsehood by answering what I believe? Now I may be wrong, it would not be the first time, but your childish namecalling only serves to drag down the discussion.Is that what you want?I do not believe that I have denied that statutory law cannot become incorporated into common law, so I do not believe that I have to address your red herring. You claim that I repeat falsehoods but fail to accurately represent my arguments.It should be self evident that not all statutory law is common law or would even become common law, although some statutory law formalizes concepts from common law and common law, when it interprets statutory law, incorporates such parts into common law.The argument is not that statutory law cannot become common law but rather that in case of natural born citizenship, common law never incorporated statutory pronouncements on this issue. So I am not sure why you insist on something as if it were relevant to the discussion, unless we have been misunderstanding eachother's position? I see no problem with your claims about statutory law, but I fail to see its relevance.I thought I was pretty clear when I explained my understanding, which you called subsequently a falsehood.1. Do you define common law as judge-made law only as opposed to statutory law?That is how I understand its meaning, not to be confused with the fact that statutory law cannot become incorporated in Common Law. But it's through the combination of Common Law and Statutory law that the Courts reach their decisions. In that sense they are not separate yet still distinct concepts.In other words, I do realize that statutory law can become common law, through judges incorporating it in their ruling. But they also remain distinct concepts, since not all statutory law has been incorporated in common law. While I do not want to claim that Wikipedia is a sufficient legal resource, I found the following reflected in many other works I looked at trying to understand these conceptsCommon law', also known as case law, is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action.Other examples are [/break1]mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/hale/common]http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/hale/common]The History of the Common Law of England[/url] by Matthew Hale

User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#178

Post by nbc » Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:19 pm

Let me refresh your memory as you may have forgotten what the Judge in Wong Kim Ark foundThe Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]Where does that say any time any term, anywhere, is undefined, you robotically go off and search the common law? Oh. Yeah. It doesn't. Because as I pointed out, nobody who knew what they were talking about would say that.Stop making up strawmen Muldrake, it would be far better if you could instead focus on what I did say.That of course, would require a bit more effort and I would understand your reluctance.

gentrfam
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:22 pm

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#179

Post by gentrfam » Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:27 pm

I guess that we can thus freely ignore what the Courts have said because you believe it to be dicta?Was defining NBC to exclude those born abroad essential to the ruling in Wong? If not, then it is, objectively, dicta, regardless of what you, Muldrake, or I believe. Since Wong was born in the United States, how could it have been essential to the ruling?

User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#180

Post by nbc » Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:37 pm

I guess that we can thus freely ignore what the Courts have said because you believe it to be dicta?Was defining NBC to exclude those born abroad essential to the ruling in Wong? If not, then it is, objectively, dicta, regardless of what you, Muldrake, or I believe. Since Wong was born in the United States, how could it have been essential to the ruling?That was not my question

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45127
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#181

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:44 pm

nbc - May I suggest you tone down the hubris? Let's just focus on the arguments and stop playing Gotcha. That is getting old and you're not doing as well as you hope think you are.

User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#182

Post by nbc » Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:47 pm

In WKA, whether or not a citizen was a natural born citizen or not, and therefore, would be eligible to run for President, was simply not at issue at all.The Government clearly thought otherwise, and logic dictates that the issue was clearly one of natural born versus naturalized, since WKA could clearly not be a naturalized citizen because of the anti-Chinese laws, the conclusion is obvious, so obvious that the dissenting Judge objected to the ruling because it would lead to a situation where foreign born children would not be eligble, while children born to foreigners on US soil, could indeed run for the office of the President.The Court goes through great length outlining its argument:Is Wong Kim Ark a citizen? There are two kinds of citizens recognized by the Constitution: Natural born and naturalized. Since the term natural born citizen was left undefined in the Constitution, the Court pointed out that its meaning should be found in Common Law. Through a careful analysis of Common Law, both English, the law in the Colonies and the early laws in the Republic, as well as by extensive references to scholarly works, the Court established that under Common Law anyone born on soil is a natural born citizen, and thus indeed, Wong Kim Ark, by virtue of his birth was in fact a citizen.In reaching this decision, the Court also looked at arguments raised by the GovernmentThe question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizenMore after a brief intermission.The government argued that it was Jus Sanguinis not Jus Soli which guided the principles of citizenship in our nation, which is why it was important for the Court to address this argument and find that the concept had found no place in Common Law.There is nothing in the statute which would justify the conclusion that it is declaratory of the common law in any but a single particular, namely in regard to the children of the King; nor has it at any time been judicially held to be so. . . . The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45127
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#183

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:53 pm

nbc - May I suggest you tone down the hubris? Let's just focus on the arguments and stop playing Gotcha. That is getting old and you're not doing as well as you hope think you are.Oh, what would you know? You're just some dumb guy who has spent decadescenturies practicing law.I'd tell you to STFU, whippersnapper, but then Pieter would come in here and smack me down.

User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#184

Post by nbc » Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:33 pm

nbc - May I suggest you tone down the hubris? Let's just focus on the arguments and stop playing Gotcha. That is getting old and you're not doing as well as you hope think you are.My fault... When people start to accuse me of falsehoods, or apply other ad hominems, it's often tempting to show some disdain for their position which is not based on facts or reason but rather on a logical fallacy.





And your suggestion that I should just focus on the arguments may be expressed to a wider audience?





But yes, I must not be doing as well since I seem to have a hard time getting to focus on the arguments and instead have to answer a lot of complaints that have little relevance here. Which is unfortunate. On the good side, I have learned a lot of new things, found some interesting papers such as the one by Solum, and have gotten an even better appreciation of the wisdom of the Court in US v Wong Kim Ark.





All in all, not a bad day but still...

User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#185

Post by nbc » Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:34 pm

nbc - May I suggest you tone down the hubris? Let's just focus on the arguments and stop playing Gotcha. That is getting old and you're not doing as well as you hope think you are.Oh, what would you know? You're just some dumb guy who has spent decadescenturies practicing law.I'd tell you to STFU, whippersnapper, but then Pieter would come in here and smack me down. :o :lol: :lol: =D>

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 16095
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#186

Post by ZekeB » Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:38 pm

I'm beginning to come here whenever I can't fall asleep at bedtime.
Trump: Er hat eine größere Ente als ich.

Putin: Du bist kleiner als ich.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45127
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#187

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:15 am

I'm beginning to come here whenever I can't fall asleep at bedtime.A good bath and a shave could help, too.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45127
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#188

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:25 am

Now that we're all buds again and all the snark (except that directed to my shotgun toting friend) is over, let me suggest, nbc, that you take a look at this Wikipedia article. It's somewhat basic, and is missing a lot, but it should be of some help in understanding the complexities and choices available to an advocate. [/break1]wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_ ... etationThe task is neither as easy nor as linear as you may believe. Beyond that, judges will have their own predilections and preferences and often use a construction technique which will give them the results they want. So, that's often where policy arguments or the Brandeis brief come in. (Less likely today than 40 years ago, however.) And even then such advocacy techniques won't be of any use. When a judge decides how s/he wants a case to be decided, you are pretty much along for the ride.In any event, I think most of us believe that no one on SCOTUS (except for maybe Thomas) would be willing to blow the country up over a literalist or excessively narrow interpretation of the founding document. As I wrote earlier, the justices will find a way to make the next McCain eligible, no matter what we might otherwise predict from dicta in the prior cases.Good night everyone. Zeke, sleep well.

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 16095
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#189

Post by ZekeB » Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:30 am

Now that we're all buds again and all the snark (except that directed to my shotgun toting friend) is over.....Did you see that, Ellie? He called it a shotgun! :shock: Bite him with your teeth! :evil:
Trump: Er hat eine größere Ente als ich.

Putin: Du bist kleiner als ich.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45127
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#190

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:42 am

Now that we're all buds again and all the snark (except that directed to my shotgun toting friend) is over.....Did you see that, Ellie? He called it a shotgun! :shock:





Bite him with your teeth! :evil:Sorry. Your BB gun Remington Model 700 rifle.

elliewyatt
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 12:31 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#191

Post by elliewyatt » Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:49 am

Now that we're all buds again and all the snark (except that directed to my shotgun toting friend) is over.....Did you see that, Ellie? He called it a shotgun! :shock: Bite him with your teeth! :evil:Don't that hick know from a Springfield Rifle?! Was he raised in a barn by animals?! [-(

brygenon
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:42 pm

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#192

Post by brygenon » Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:57 am

There's no inflation of "minor discrepancies" in my stuff. I described that Court ruling in Robinson v. Bowen as exactly what it was: a district court ruling on a motion for preliminary injunction. It was not the Supreme Court, nor even an appellate court opinion, nor was it a dispositive ruling, but it was a real federal court, looking at the merits of the point actually at issue. Here it is again:So we agree that the quote was without much relevance since the issue raised by the plaintiffs was not one which is similar to the argument I raise, nor were any relevant cases raised to support the argument. So in other words, your reference has no relevance.Glad we come to understand this.Understand NBC, when you snip something it just means it won't appear in your follow-up. It doesn't make the facts go away. The ruling is more relevant than any case you've cited, because it's on the point actually at issue: was a person born outside the U.S. and granted citizenship from by statute, possibly retroactively, a natural-born citizen eligible to be president. A real judge in a real court, on the question actually at issue, allowed that Congress does have that power.And thus, unable to address the findings I have quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Rogers v Bellei, Miller v Albright, Brygenon has to focus on minor discrepancies, not unlike what many birthers do when they attempt to support their position.Of course that's simply not true. What actually happened here, NBC, is that the scholarly literature you reject anticipated and dismantled your arguments before you made them.To refute the position of Amar and Pryor with a court ruling, you'd need a case where the Court said a person who was citizen from the time of birth was *not* a natural-born citizen. So far you've shown none. I'm not a legal scholar, so I don't know that there is no such case. Is there? What court, and it was part of the ruling or just dicta? Is it today controlling law?As to scholars, more contemporaneous to the actual Constitution, I suggest you read Horace Binney, or Blackstone, one of the foremost experts on common law and explain to us the logic through which you believe children born abroad to US citizens would become natural born citizens given our Constitution and the stated powers of Congress to define Uniform rules of Naturalization.No hiding behind skirts or meaningless dicta this time...I thought I explained already: I'm not pretending to be a constitutional scholar. I'll never understand the subject at the level of Harvard or Yale professor of constitutional law, so I'm going to defer to the real experts. I though your suggestion, "that merely could mean that these people are all confused about the historical and legal precedents," was an absolute howler, and whatever leads you to say things like that I definitely want to avoid.

brygenon
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:42 pm

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#193

Post by brygenon » Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:43 am

There is no constitutional right to have a Court decide whether or not you are a natural born citizen, which of course does not mean that the term Natural Born Citizen does not have a clear meaning, which, as the Court in US v Wong Kim Ark decided, is to be found in Common Law. Not just common law, but it clearly rejected any hopes that common law principles included granting citizenship to children born abroad


We adopted the language of English Common Law, but not the rule. As Gabriel J. Chin put it:





Those born in the United States are uncontroversially natural born citizens. There is also a strong argument that those obtaining citizenship at birth by statute are natural born citizens, well articulated by Charles Gordon in Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma. However, natural born citizenship can be acquired only at the moment of birth. As stated by the leading Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, " ‘British subject' means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the crown. . . . ‘Natural-born British subject' means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth."


[/break1]michiganlawreview.org/articles/why-senator-john-mccain-cannot-be-president-eleven-months-and-a-hundred-yards-short-of-citizenship]http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articl ... itizenshipThe quote of Chin is also consistent with the views of [link]Akhil Reed Amar,http://www.slate.com/id/2183588/[/link] and [link]Jill A. Pryor,http://www.yalelawjournal.org/the-yale- ... igibility/[/link]. "Natural-born U.S. citizen" means a U.S. citizen who has become a U.S. citizen at the moment of his or her birth. The interesting twist is that Chin rules out retroactive grant of citizenship from birth, but the one court ruling we've seen that consider the issue allowed the possibility. From the ruling on a motion for preliminary injunction in Robinson v. Bowen:





Under this view, Senator McCain was a citizen at birth. In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already.


[/break1]justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2008cv03836/206145/39/]http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 206145/39/

brygenon
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:42 pm

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#194

Post by brygenon » Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:24 am

To me the most convincing argument that natural born citizen refers to when citizenship begins and not only where a person is born is the progression in the length of citizenship requirements written in the Constitution for the positions of representative, senator, and finally president. These are 7 years, 9 years, and lifelong citizenship respectively. There is a clear relationship between the importance and power of the position and the tenure of citizenship.


That does seem at least a strong clue.





While there seems to be some question about individuals granted citizenship by statue at birth such as John McCain there seemed to be no controversy of significance except a merely ceremonial discussion in the Senate ending with a nonbinding resolution. I side with Stern and others who say that if this were ever pursued in a properly framed case in the Supreme Court it would be a one sided decision in favor of the broad interpretation.A decision against the candidate seems implausible, but as Charles Gordon wrote in his Who Can Be President paper [link]28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968),http://www.law.umaryland.edu/academics/ ... t/#archive[/link], "It is quite possible, of course, that the courts might find the issue political and nonjusticiable at any milestone of consideration." As we learned from eligibility cases, evaluating presidential qualifications is up to Congress, not the judiciary. Congress has to apply the eligibility clause, and the Supreme Court has consistently held that the federal courts cannot give advisory opinions.





While we cannot say for 100% certain what would have happened had McCain won the election, we do know that any branch of government that was going to object to his eligibility was going to do so *after* the voters chose him as our next President. Gordon's paper, which proved remarkably prescient on the eligibility suits we've recently seen, considers possible post-election challenges, "But at this stage of the election process, the possibility of a judicial expression is so remote as to be virtually nonexistent."

ballantine
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#195

Post by ballantine » Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:55 am

The phrase "natural born citizen" was, as far as I can tell, looked at by several courts to establish the citizenship status. Minor v Happersett, US v Wong Kim Ark.Do you really still completely fail to grasp the difference between dicta and holding?Again focusing on the ad hominem and ignoring what I did say?





Truly fascinating...





I guess that we can thus freely ignore what the Courts have said because you believe it to be dicta? At least you should do the work to show that it is indeed dicta. But it may be simpler to just resort to silly games...Dicta should not be ignored, but it should not be overstated either. Dicta is often on issues that were not briefed or argued and may only reflect the opinion of a single Justice. Justices sign on the holding, not the dicta, and will rarely write a separate opinion solely on diferrences in dicta. Some dicta is well argued and persausive, but often it is an unsupported assertion. Accordingly, lower courts sometimes follow Supreme Court dicta, sometimes they do not. The Supreme Court itself often pays little attention to previous dicta. Heck, Scalia pays little attention to previous holdings that conflict with his original understanding.





I think Justice Gray himself presents a good example of this point. You see, Justice Miller in Slaughterhouse said in dicta that children of foreigners were not citizens. However, there were a number of subsequent lower court rulings that ignored or dismissed such statement. Justice Gary similarly dismissed such dicta in Wong Kim Ark. Gray tells us why he dismissed the dicata:





"This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together ..."





Gray then quoted Marshall on dicta:





"It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated."

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15830
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#196

Post by Reality Check » Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am

brygenonYes, I always thought that the meaning of "natural born citizen" should be viewed in the context of the entire document since the Constitution established qualification criteria for only a handful of offices. All the other criteria are time based (length of citizenship and time of residence in the US) so it makes sense to me to view natural born citizen in the same context. While we cannot say for 100% certain what would have happened had McCain won the election, we do know that any branch of government that was going to object to his eligibility was going to do so *after* the voters chose him as our next President. Gordon's paper, which proved remarkably prescient on the eligibility suits we've recently seen, considers possible post-election challenges, "But at this stage of the election process, the possibility of a judicial expression is so remote as to be virtually nonexistent."I think you are correct. The courts would have been just as reluctant (and powerless) to inject themselves into the process post election as they are with Obama. The only plausible way this would have ever made it to the court systems would have been from a challenge by an opponent (most likely in a primary) at the state level by another candidate. Even then there is no guarantee that the courts would have found the litigant to have standing. I think such a challenge to Barack Obama is almost guaranteed in 2012. If such a case progresses we can only hope that the defense produces the very same COLB that was photographed by FactCheck. The trial will be very short. If the plaintiff brings up de Vattel, so much the better we can settle that one too.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

gentrfam
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:22 pm

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#197

Post by gentrfam » Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:34 am

"It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated."You can see this very clearly in WKA. Reading the [/break1]uchastings.edu/library/topical-and-course-research-guides/wkadisplay/AppellantsBrief.pdf]Appellant's Brief for example, their argument wasn't that English Common Law included jus sanguinis or not, it was that whatever English Common Law had been, it had been soundly rejected by the United States. Gray writes:





It has sometimes been suggested that this general provision of the statute of 25 Edw. III was declaratory of the common law.Who suggested it? Neither party in the case! He points to Bacon's argument in Calvin's Case, Westlake and Pollack in the De Geer case, Lynch v. Clarke and Ludlam v. Ludlam. But, neither side quoted any of those sources to say that 25 Edw. III was declaratory of the common law. Neither side even mentioned 25 Edw. III as far as I can tell. Gray argues that the conclusions reached by those four sources were based on an erroneous reading of the 1688 Dyer's Reports and the Year Book of 1 Ric. III with Hussey's report in it. Again, neither side quotes the Dyer's Reports, nor the Year Book.





The [/break1]uchastings.edu/library/topical-and-course-research-guides/wkadisplay/Brief.for.the.Appelle.pdf]Appellee's Brief mention's Binney's article in the American Law Register and argued, without any further analysis (saying that Binney's article was "most exhaustive and interesting" and "[left] nothing for further research prior to the time it was written"), that those born abroad to American parents wouldn't be citizens.





Aside: The Appellee brief cites the ALR article. Gray describes the ALR article as "in a less complete form" than the pamphlet Binney published and that Gray quoted from.





Whether or not children born abroad to American parents was clearly an issue that was not being joined by the parties - it was irrelevant to Wong's case (NBC includes those born here) and irrelevant to the Government's case (American rejected British common law and adopted the Roman/International rule).





Kettner finds at least two cases not dealt with by Gray, the Case of Elyas de Rabayn (1290) and Bacon v. Bacon (1641), where the three judges found that the daughter of an English merchant, born in Poland after her father's death, would inherit as a natural born subject under the common law.





Finally, it seems pretty apparent that Gray and Binney are attempting to correct the historical record, a record that was relied upon by lawyers in Britain and the United States. It wasn't until [/break1]google.com/books?id=T6gNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA324&dq=bacon+v.+bacon+1641&hl=en&ei=5ee-TI-UCoH7lwf7tKzjBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=bacon%20v.%20bacon%201641&f=false]1890 that Dyer's report was corrected:





It is stated by Dyer, in a note on p. 224a of his Reports, that it was adjudged in Tr. 7 E. 3 that children of subjects born beyond the sea in the service of the king shall be inheritable. But this is a mistake. I searched the roll with the kind assistance of Mr. Selby, and we found that Dyer misread or misunderstood the words prcedicto Johanne filio ipsius Edwardi antenato in partibus marinis tunc existente, which mean that a certain John le Botiller, an elder son of Edward, was then living beyond sea, not that he had been born beyond sea.Gray was answering a question unasked by the litigants. And the question he puts into the litigants mouths is the wrong one. Instead of looking to see if Dyer and Kent were correct in finding the common law to include those born abroad, he should have asked if the Founders read Dyer's and Kent's treatises and if they believed at the time of the founding that Dyer and Kent were correct.





NBC, since Dyer said in 1688 that common law in England included those born abroad to subjects, and he wasn't corrected until 1890 and Kent said the same in 1826 and wasn't corrected until Binney's pamphlet in 1853, what proof do you have that in 1789, the Founders knew of this correct interpretation of common law? Show me a treatise from around the time of the founding that excluded those born abroad from the definition of natural born.

Post Reply

Return to “Legal Claims by Birthers”