Tweet
Natural Born Defined: Natural Born Citizen vs. British “Common Law” Natural Born Subject
Birther Report
9/2/2012
Excerpt:
Natural Born Defined: Natural Born Citizen vs. British “Common Law” Natural Born Subject
By T.J. McCann, III
Natural Born Citizen vs. British “Common Law” Natural Born Subject:
"Many reference British Common Law in search for a definitive answer as to the meaning of natural born, and resolve, by that Common Law, the definition of natural born to result from birth on the native soil of a country. Justice Gray does a thorough job of delving into British history in the landmark case of U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), even going back to Lord Coke and Calvin‟s case (1608), some 180 years before this nation‟s founding, and preceding the Ark decision by 290 years.
However, in truth, Lord Coke‟s decision in Calvin‟s case is as fundamentally alien to these United States‟ founding principles as the rest of British Common Law citizenship. Calvin‟s case was landmark in its day, and the early modern common-law mind, for being the first to articulate a theoretical basis for territorial birthright citizenship. Calvin‟s Case was not only influential in establishing the citizenship right of American colonials, but also was much later argued as the basis common-law rule for U.S. birthright citizenship. Calvin's Case is the earliest, most influential theoretical articulation by an English court of what came to be the common-law rule that a person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth.
However this recognition of British common law also ignores the inherent conflicts with the fundamental tenets of our Constitution, conflicts so profound philosophically that they were causal in the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. In Lord Coke‟s decision, the law of the Creator is conflated with the law of England and being lain down via edict to the common man from that divine Crown through the judiciary. Even as described by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark, the Coke decision involves feudal concepts of “ ‘ligealty,’ ‘obedience,’ ‘faith,‘ or ‘power’ of the ‘King’”. This feudal oblige and extension of the dominion of the Crown to ANY territory held by the King, even making “natural born subjects” of those born in America, contributed to British settlers leaving Britain in the first place and ultimately became a primary factor in the "Declaration of Independence", with colonists declaring themselves free of such an involuntary burden of the Crown while having no protection and no representation.
In 1765 the British Jurist William Blackstone recognized the mandate of the Crown having changed the inherent meaning of "natural-born Subject", progressively over time, to be anyone born in British territory, regardless of the parents' allegiance or citizenship. Initially a child was born a natural-born subject if born on British soil, even if the child's parents were aliens.
However, Blackstone later wrote in his 1765 Commentaries, the following:
This passage indicates that even those not born on British territory are to be thenceforth considered "natural born" because of blood lineage no less, and for the purpose of trade (as well as the Treasury), showing that this is not a static understanding of "natural born", but one evolved over time and by “executive” mandate of the Crown – hardly any sort of “common law.”
What Gray has represented as British “common law” natural born subject, was not static and was the evolution of Crown dictate over time, expressed in statutory law. This statutory definition is far removed from any sort of natural, 'self-evident' term employed by the United States in its Constitution."
.......................................
CONTINUED ... HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/104741948/...l-Born-Subject
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...ural-born.html
Birther Report
9/2/2012
Excerpt:
Natural Born Defined: Natural Born Citizen vs. British “Common Law” Natural Born Subject
By T.J. McCann, III
Natural Born Citizen vs. British “Common Law” Natural Born Subject:
"Many reference British Common Law in search for a definitive answer as to the meaning of natural born, and resolve, by that Common Law, the definition of natural born to result from birth on the native soil of a country. Justice Gray does a thorough job of delving into British history in the landmark case of U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), even going back to Lord Coke and Calvin‟s case (1608), some 180 years before this nation‟s founding, and preceding the Ark decision by 290 years.
However, in truth, Lord Coke‟s decision in Calvin‟s case is as fundamentally alien to these United States‟ founding principles as the rest of British Common Law citizenship. Calvin‟s case was landmark in its day, and the early modern common-law mind, for being the first to articulate a theoretical basis for territorial birthright citizenship. Calvin‟s Case was not only influential in establishing the citizenship right of American colonials, but also was much later argued as the basis common-law rule for U.S. birthright citizenship. Calvin's Case is the earliest, most influential theoretical articulation by an English court of what came to be the common-law rule that a person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth.
However this recognition of British common law also ignores the inherent conflicts with the fundamental tenets of our Constitution, conflicts so profound philosophically that they were causal in the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. In Lord Coke‟s decision, the law of the Creator is conflated with the law of England and being lain down via edict to the common man from that divine Crown through the judiciary. Even as described by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark, the Coke decision involves feudal concepts of “ ‘ligealty,’ ‘obedience,’ ‘faith,‘ or ‘power’ of the ‘King’”. This feudal oblige and extension of the dominion of the Crown to ANY territory held by the King, even making “natural born subjects” of those born in America, contributed to British settlers leaving Britain in the first place and ultimately became a primary factor in the "Declaration of Independence", with colonists declaring themselves free of such an involuntary burden of the Crown while having no protection and no representation.
In 1765 the British Jurist William Blackstone recognized the mandate of the Crown having changed the inherent meaning of "natural-born Subject", progressively over time, to be anyone born in British territory, regardless of the parents' allegiance or citizenship. Initially a child was born a natural-born subject if born on British soil, even if the child's parents were aliens.
However, Blackstone later wrote in his 1765 Commentaries, the following:
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 passage indicates that even those not born on British territory are to be thenceforth considered "natural born" because of blood lineage no less, and for the purpose of trade (as well as the Treasury), showing that this is not a static understanding of "natural born", but one evolved over time and by “executive” mandate of the Crown – hardly any sort of “common law.”
What Gray has represented as British “common law” natural born subject, was not static and was the evolution of Crown dictate over time, expressed in statutory law. This statutory definition is far removed from any sort of natural, 'self-evident' term employed by the United States in its Constitution."
.......................................
CONTINUED ... HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/104741948/...l-Born-Subject
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...ural-born.html