Two things today; Point of No Return and Presidential Eligibility

Sorry, but I can't agree with your conclusions.

The birthers (not in a derogatory sense) all have "opinions." They rarely provide the facts on which their "opinions" are based.

I have not researched the "facts" myself, nor do I know of anyone who has.

According to undisputed (I believe) facts that might fall into the general category of common knowledge, Harris was born in Oakland California. I don't believe anyone disputes this.

What I don't know and what the birthers have not produced are the facts about the status of Harris' parents at the time of her birth. Again, common knowledge suggests that her father was born in Jamaica and her mother in India. Just like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Obama, we have stories that could just be apocryphal. The birthers just haven't had the time in 15 years to produce actual evidence. I suspect that's because the basis of their opinion is so weak.

Consequently, I don't agree with you because you haven't produced (not that you need to) the missing facts on which a solid opinion would be based.

Based on the circulating story about Harris' parents, it appears to me that they were here with the permission of the United States, therefore they were not invaders. Nor does it appear that they were foreign diplomats. I mention those cases because they are exceptions to the English common law of citizen by birth on the land (jus soli).

The birthers also don't like the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). Regardless of the holding in Wong Kim Ark, the court spent many pages of the opinion describing the history of the English common law with respect to citizenship. The birthers also derogate the English common law because it used the word "subject" and not "citizen." As you'll see, that was pure speculation. They never did their homework.

Based on the story, therefore, Harris is a natural born citizen. However, I am completely open to the possibility that she is not, were someone to provide the missing evidence about the parents.

De Vattel was Swiss-German. He based most of his work on the previous work of a German, Christian Wolff, who wrote his opus in Latin. I suspect, like most Swiss, de Vattel also spoke French as French was the language of diplomacy in Europe. De Vattel, obviously, was a better marketer than Wolff. He published the Law of Nations in 1758. He died in 1767. Others translated his French language work to other languages, including the first English translation in 1760. There was another French edition in 1773 that included de Vattel's notes, posthumously. There are more than one English translation and there are several editions, including an edition from 1797 which is the most easily available.

I'm using the 1797 English translation as I have not been able to acquire a pre-constitution English edition online. Based on the quotations used by the birthers and the courts, I suspect that all used the 1797 English translation. Use of the 1797 edition is problematic for the obvious reason that the founders did not have it available when creating their own state constitutions or constitution of 1787. Since I don't know what Franklin was sent either as to edition or language, I can't conclude that the language in the 1797 English translation was the same as in the edition that they had.

The birthers like the story that a Swiss editor (maybe the 1773 French edition editor) sent Franklin three copies. The birthers have not determined whether those copies were the 1773 French edition or the 1760 English edition, or perhaps even some other edition or translation. Curious minds want to know.

The most quoted line from section 212 (1797) is: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

At the time de Vattel wrote, every other nation in Europe (and on earth for that matter), other than Switzerland, was some form of hereditary monarchy. Switzerland had citizens. Everyone else was a subject. So it's curious that de Vattel never distinguishes "subjects" from "citizens" anywhere in his treatise. When you peruse the pre-1787 State constitutions, you will notice the word "citizen" is rare, especially when used as a term. "Subject" is used in every State constitution to refer to its citizens often, but the most often used word is "inhabitant." According to de Vattel, "inhabitants" are "foreigners."

The birthers also only ever quote from section 212 of the Law of Nations. They never address the inconvenient sentence from section 214 (1797): "Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner."

Remember that de Vattel based The Law of Nations on the Latin work of another German. England was an outlier in the area of citizenship. It's clear he knew that. But, when you examine the English common, as the court in Wong Kim Ark did, it does not describe citizenship (subjectship) by birth on the land as "naturalization." Nor do the constitutions of the states following the Declaration of 1776.

The birthers also point to a letter by John Jay (who was not a delegate to the 1787 convention) to George Washington (who was the president of the 1787 convention) while the convention was in progress.

John Jay was probably the finest legal mind among the founders. He wrote the New York Constitution of 1777 (which I'll get to shortly). Remember, he was nominated by Washington as the first chief justice of the supreme court and his nomination was ratified by senators who had likely worked closely with over the years.

The birthers answer to the English common law of citizenship by birth on the land is this (not an exact quote): "Do you really think that the founders, having just fought a war with England, would adopt English common law?" Seriously, that's the gist of their rebuke. After all they lived under English common law, their entire lives; much of the Declaration's complaints revolved around the colonials not being treated as English subjects with the benefits of English common law. No, the birthers contend that the founders threw out English common and adopted Roman civil law citizenship by blood (jus sangui). It's an absurd argument. But they have to make it to preserve their religion.

But let's look at the translated statement that we have in section 212 - "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Throughout de Vattel's treatise, you can find multiple references to the father. Such a statement, that the birthers completely ignore, is the very sentence following the one they always quote.

"As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizen, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

Remember, back in the 18th century, society was completely male-oriented. De Vattel may not have even known that in Judaism, it is the mother's blood that determines whether a child is Jewish or not. The point is that when a man married, the woman automatically became a citizen of the same nation as the husband. It's only been in modern times, perhaps, our own lifetimes that we have the situation of a husband and wife not sharing the same citizenship. And that's not due to any natural law. It's due to laws enacted to prevent the woman from automatically getting citizenship by marriage and vice versa. Remember Gerard Depardieu and Andie MacDowell in Green Card?

Very early on, I posed the English common law citizenship doctrine to the birthers (around 2010). My response to their rebuke was: Under what law had the colonies been operating under since 1607? More importantly, under what law were the colonies (now states) operating under from the First Continental Congress, through the Articles of Confederation, and not only up to but through the submission of the constitution to the states for ratification?

The birthers just ignored this. I didn't have the time to get all this information back then. The whole birther thing died down after Obama was out of office.

But I did go back earlier this year. I sat down and found a book online that contained all the constitutions of all the states through its publication date in 1909. I OCR'd the relevant pages for each state. Did you know that Connecticut was operating under its original "Fundamental Orders" from 1639 until it adopted its first constitution in 1818? Rhode Island didn't get around to changing its 1663 royal charter into a constitution until 1842.

Anyway, the Second Continental Congress, since late 1775, had been urging each colony to adopt its own constitution. Most of the states adopted one after the Declaration of 1776.

Remember that these were war-time documents. Some states called their chief executive a governor, others called him a president. So, you would think that in the middle of a war, the conventions that created these documents would be very leery of having a chief executive in control of the state while the legislature was not in session who sided with England. Many of constitutions didn't even mention citizenship or electors. So, unlike the birthers fallback position of natural-born citizen preventing divided loyalty, most states believed they had that under control without even mentioning it in their constitutions.

The exceptions were the constitutions of Pennsylvania (1776) (in which Franklin played a large part) and New York (1777) (written by John Jay). Vermont (1777), a few months later, copied an entire section of the Pennsylvania constitution verbatim. I bet you didn't even know that Vermont was an independent state throughout almost the entire war.

Here's what Franklin's constitution said about citizenship.

"Every foreigner of good character who comes to settle in this state, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year's residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence."

Vermont adopted the exact same language. So much for the birthers "natural born subject" misinformation.

As for John Jay, this is what he wrote as the final article of the New York constitution.

"And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that it shall be in the discretion of the legislature to naturalize all such persons, and in such manner, as they shall think proper:

Provided, All such of the persons so to be by them naturalized, as being born in parts beyond sea, and out of the United States of America, shall come to settle in and become subjects of this State, shall take an oath of allegiance to this State, and abjure and renounce all allegiance and subjection to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, and State in all matters, ecclesiastical as well as civil."

The point of this is that the state constitutions that founders created beginning in 1776 and prior to the 1787 convention recognized English common law (jus soli) as the basis of citizenship. Note Jay's language that foreigners were "born in parts beyond sea, and out of the United States of America."

So, even then, the new states recognized both their independence and their union. They recognized that those born anywhere in the United States of America were not foreigners subject to naturalization.

I think it's quite compelling. The birthers, of course, have deeply held beliefs in their birtherism religion. They are certainly entitled to their beliefs. They are not entitled to imposing their "facts" on anyone.

The birthers, who have found succor at Sharon Rondeau's web site since the site was created, will never change their minds. Anyone who challenges their opinions is either an idiot or a traitor. Ms. Rondeau censors almost all challenges to birtherism. They all have too much invested in their tiny world to admit that they really didn't do any competent research and just stopped when they thought they could make a convincing argument.

Replies

Richard Michael July 23, 2024 at 9:29pm

Sorry, but I can't agree with your conclusions.

The birthers (not in a derogatory sense) all have "opinions." They rarely provide the facts on which their "opinions" are based.

I have not researched the "facts" myself, nor do I know of anyone who has.

According to undisputed (I believe) facts that might fall into the general category of common knowledge, Harris was born in Oakland California. I don't believe anyone disputes this.

What I don't know and what the birthers have not produced are the facts about the status of Harris' parents at the time of her birth. Again, common knowledge suggests that her father was born in Jamaica and her mother in India. Just like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Obama, we have stories that could just be apocryphal. The birthers just haven't had the time in 15 years to produce actual evidence. I suspect that's because the basis of their opinion is so weak.

Consequently, I don't agree with you because you haven't produced (not that you need to) the missing facts on which a solid opinion would be based.

Based on the circulating story about Harris' parents, it appears to me that they were here with the permission of the United States, therefore they were not invaders. Nor does it appear that they were foreign diplomats. I mention those cases because they are exceptions to the English common law of citizen by birth on the land (jus soli).

The birthers also don't like the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). Regardless of the holding in Wong Kim Ark, the court spent many pages of the opinion describing the history of the English common law with respect to citizenship. The birthers also derogate the English common law because it used the word "subject" and not "citizen." As you'll see, that was pure speculation. They never did their homework.

Based on the story, therefore, Harris is a natural born citizen. However, I am completely open to the possibility that she is not, were someone to provide the missing evidence about the parents.

--

De Vattel was Swiss-German. He based most of his work on the previous work of a German, Christian Wolff, who wrote his opus in Latin. I suspect, like most Swiss, de Vattel also spoke French as French was the language of diplomacy in Europe. De Vattel, obviously, was a better marketer than Wolff. He published the Law of Nations in 1758. He died in 1767. Others translated his French language work to other languages, including the first English translation in 1760. There was another French edition in 1773 that included de Vattel's notes, posthumously. There are more than one English translation and there are several editions, including an edition from 1797 which is the most easily available.

I'm using the 1797 English translation as I have not been able to acquire a pre-constitution English edition online. Based on the quotations used by the birthers and the courts, I suspect that all used the 1797 English translation. Use of the 1797 edition is problematic for the obvious reason that the founders did not have it available when creating their own state constitutions or constitution of 1787. Since I don't know what Franklin was sent either as to edition or language, I can't conclude that the language in the 1797 English translation was the same as in the edition that they had.

The birthers like the story that a Swiss editor (maybe the 1773 French edition editor) sent Franklin three copies. The birthers have not determined whether those copies were the 1773 French edition or the 1760 English edition, or perhaps even some other edition or translation. Curious minds want to know.

The most quoted line from section 212 (1797) is: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

At the time de Vattel wrote, every other nation in Europe (and on earth for that matter), other than Switzerland, was some form of hereditary monarchy. Switzerland had citizens. Everyone else was a subject. So it's curious that de Vattel never distinguishes "subjects" from "citizens" anywhere in his treatise. When you peruse the pre-1787 State constitutions, you will notice the word "citizen" is rare, especially when used as a term. "Subject" is used in every State constitution to refer to its citizens often, but the most often used word is "inhabitant." According to de Vattel, "inhabitants" are "foreigners."

The birthers also only ever quote from section 212 of the Law of Nations. They never address the inconvenient sentence from section 214 (1797): "Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner."

Remember that de Vattel based The Law of Nations on the Latin work of another German. England was an outlier in the area of citizenship. It's clear he knew that. But, when you examine the English common, as the court in Wong Kim Ark did, it does not describe citizenship (subjectship) by birth on the land as "naturalization." Nor do the constitutions of the states following the Declaration of 1776.

--

The birthers also point to a letter by John Jay (who was not a delegate to the 1787 convention) to George Washington (who was the president of the 1787 convention) while the convention was in progress.

John Jay was probably the finest legal mind among the founders. He wrote the New York Constitution of 1777 (which I'll get to shortly). Remember, he was nominated by Washington as the first chief justice of the supreme court and his nomination was ratified by senators who had likely worked closely with over the years.

--

The birthers answer to the English common law of citizenship by birth on the land is this (not an exact quote): "Do you really think that the founders, having just fought a war with England, would adopt English common law?" Seriously, that's the gist of their rebuke. After all they lived under English common law, their entire lives; much of the Declaration's complaints revolved around the colonials not being treated as English subjects with the benefits of English common law. No, the birthers contend that the founders threw out English common and adopted Roman civil law citizenship by blood (jus sangui). It's an absurd argument. But they have to make it to preserve their religion.

But let's look at the translated statement that we have in section 212 - "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Throughout de Vattel's treatise, you can find multiple references to the father. Such a statement, that the birthers completely ignore, is the very sentence following the one they always quote.

"As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizen, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

Remember, back in the 18th century, society was completely male-oriented. De Vattel may not have even known that in Judaism, it is the mother's blood that determines whether a child is Jewish or not. The point is that when a man married, the woman automatically became a citizen of the same nation as the husband. It's only been in modern times, perhaps, our own lifetimes that we have the situation of a husband and wife not sharing the same citizenship. And that's not due to any natural law. It's due to laws enacted to prevent the woman from automatically getting citizenship by marriage and vice versa. Remember Gerard Depardieu and Andie MacDowell in Green Card?

Very early on, I posed the English common law citizenship doctrine to the birthers (around 2010). My response to their rebuke was: Under what law had the colonies been operating under since 1607? More importantly, under what law were the colonies (now states) operating under from the First Continental Congress, through the Articles of Confederation, and not only up to but through the submission of the constitution to the states for ratification?

The birthers just ignored this. I didn't have the time to get all this information back then. The whole birther thing died down after Obama was out of office.

But I did go back earlier this year. I sat down and found a book online that contained all the constitutions of all the states through its publication date in 1909. I OCR'd the relevant pages for each state. Did you know that Connecticut was operating under its original "Fundamental Orders" from 1639 until it adopted its first constitution in 1818? Rhode Island didn't get around to changing its 1663 royal charter into a constitution until 1842.

Anyway, the Second Continental Congress, since late 1775, had been urging each colony to adopt its own constitution. Most of the states adopted one after the Declaration of 1776.

Remember that these were war-time documents. Some states called their chief executive a governor, others called him a president. So, you would think that in the middle of a war, the conventions that created these documents would be very leery of having a chief executive in control of the state while the legislature was not in session who sided with England. Many of constitutions didn't even mention citizenship or electors. So, unlike the birthers fallback position of natural-born citizen preventing divided loyalty, most states believed they had that under control without even mentioning it in their constitutions.

The exceptions were the constitutions of Pennsylvania (1776) (in which Franklin played a large part) and New York (1777) (written by John Jay). Vermont (1777), a few months later, copied an entire section of the Pennsylvania constitution verbatim. I bet you didn't even know that Vermont was an independent state throughout almost the entire war.

Here's what Franklin's constitution said about citizenship.

"Every foreigner of good character who comes to settle in this state, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year's residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence."

Vermont adopted the exact same language. So much for the birthers "natural born subject" misinformation.

As for John Jay, this is what he wrote as the final article of the New York constitution.

"And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that it shall be in the discretion of the legislature to naturalize all such persons, and in such manner, as they shall think proper:

Provided, All such of the persons so to be by them naturalized, as being born in parts beyond sea, and out of the United States of America, shall come to settle in and become subjects of this State, shall take an oath of allegiance to this State, and abjure and renounce all allegiance and subjection to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, and State in all matters, ecclesiastical as well as civil."

The point of this is that the state constitutions that founders created beginning in 1776 and prior to the 1787 convention recognized English common law (jus soli) as the basis of citizenship. Note Jay's language that foreigners were "born in parts beyond sea, and out of the United States of America."

So, even then, the new states recognized both their independence and their union. They recognized that those born anywhere in the United States of America were not foreigners subject to naturalization.

I think it's quite compelling. The birthers, of course, have deeply held beliefs in their birtherism religion. They are certainly entitled to their beliefs. They are not entitled to imposing their "facts" on anyone.

--

The birthers, who have found succor at Sharon Rondeau's web site since the site was created, will never change their minds. Anyone who challenges their opinions is either an idiot or a traitor. Ms. Rondeau censors almost all challenges to birtherism. They all have too much invested in their tiny world to admit that they really didn't do any competent research and just stopped when they thought they could make a convincing argument.

This reply was deleted.