View Single Post
Old 03-28-2018, 07:54 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 445
Thanks: 3
Thanks 46

I seriously doubt that Im wrong in my assessment of you considering that all of your qualms have concerned the representation of religion in local government. But ok. Lets say youre speaking true and you dont want a theocratic state. Certainly you wish a government that more accurately mirrors the religion of the region. Lets settle on that compromise and examine the rest, which youve yet to do.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

From our talks I think its safe to assume that your primary concerns are the first two sections. You mentioned Black without too much elaboration other than saying that he felt the amendment was imposed upon the states, which in a way is true of every amendment, because every amendment in some measure abridges the freedom of the states. Your second concern though that the courts have used it to convey "Birthright Citizenship" can be easily dismissed as Section 8.4 of Article I states that the congress has the uneqivocal power:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

So that part of the argument can be thrown completely out and Ill be charitable and assume thats your only objection to Section 1.

Even so the practice has precedence in English common law (emphasis mine):

There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances; the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta pura, et indefinite, and this originally is due by nature and birth-right, 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 here, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other. The fourth is a legal obedience, or ligeance which is called legal, because the municipal laws of this realm have prescribed the order and form of it; and this to be done upon oath at the torn of the leet. The first, that is, ligeance natural, &c. appeareth by the said Acts of Parliament, wherein the King is called natural liege lord, and his people natural liege subjects; this also doth appear in the indictments of treason (which of all other things are the most curiously and certainly indicted and penned) for in the indictment of the Lord Dacre, in 26 H. 8. it is said prĉd' Dominus Dacre debitum fideietligeant suĉ, quod prĉfato, domino Regi naturaliter et de jure impendere debuit, minime curans, &c. And Reginald Pool was indicted in 30 H. 8. for committing treason contradom' Regem supremum et naturalem dominum suum. And to this end were cited the indictment of Edward Duke of Somerset in 5 E. 6. and many others both of ancient and later times. But in the indictment of treason of John Dethick in 2 and 3 Phil and Mar it is said, quod prĉd' Johannes machinans; &c. prĉdict' dominum Philippum et dominam Mariam supremos dominos suos, and omitted (naturalis) because King Philip was not his natural liege lord. And of this point more shall be said when we speak of local obedience. The second is ligeant' acquisita, or denization; and this in the books and records of the law appeareth to be threefold: 1. Absolute, as the common denizations be, to them and their [7-Coke-6 a] heirs, without any limitation or restraint: 2. Limited, as when the King doth grant letters of denization to an alien, and to the heirs (a) males of his body, as it appeareth in 9 E. 4. fol. 7, 8. in Baggot's case: or to an alien for term of his life, as was granted to J. Reynel, 11 H. 6. 3. It may be granted upon (b) condition, for (c) cujus est dare, ejus est disponere, whereof I have seen divers precedents.

Later (emphasis again mine):

3. Concerning the local obedience it is observable, that as there on the King's part, so there is a (d) local ligeance of the sub this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. (e) and 3 and 4 Ail and Mar. Dy Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen, a concluded (f) contraligeant' suĉ debitum; for he owed to the King that is, so long as he was within the King's protection; which Loa but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a nat. he hath issue here, that issue is (g) a natural born subject; a fortiori under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which, as it alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to subject; for localis ligeantia, est ligeantia intima et minima, et maxim? incerta. And it is to be observed, that it is nec cĉlum, nec solum, neither the soil, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born; for come into the realm, and possess town or fort, and have issue the subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject protection of the King. And concerning this local obedience, a pre Hilar. 36 Eliz when Stephano Ferrara de Gama, and Emanuel Lewis Tinoco, two Portuguese born, coming to England under Queen Elizabeth's safe conduct, and living here under her protection, joined with Doctor Lopez in treason within [7-Coke-6 b] this realm against Her Majesty; and in this case two points were resolve First, that their indictment ought to begin, that they intended trea Reginam. &c. omitting these words (naturalem domin suam) and ought (a) ligeant' suĉ debitum. But if an (b) alien enemy come to invade I taken in war, he cannot be indicted of treason (B); for the indict cannot conclude contraligeant suĉ debitum, for he never was in the protection of owed any manner of ligeance unto him, but malice and enmity, and be put to death by martial law. And so it was in anno 15 H. 7. i case, who being an alien born in Flanders, feigned himself to be a Edward the Fourth, and invaded this realm with great power, with upon him the dignity Royal: but being taken in the war, it was justices, that he could not be punished by the common law, but be and marshal (who had special commission under the Great Seal to E the same according to martial law) he had sentence to be quartered, which was executed accordingly.

I would reccommend giving the entire case a read:

The gist then is that because the alien come here is under our laws, thus under our protection, they owe allegiance to that protection. In the case of the United States that protection is provided by the constitution that governs the land thus allegiance is due to that document as opposed to the royal corpus. The interesting thing here is that the claim is for persons being in amity to the king which we could say the illegal immigrant is not under such amity. However any person born cannot profess allegiance to anything and so must default to the body governing the land upon which it was born. Furthermore since the government supersedes the familial unit, as in cases when the state deems a parent unfit, the parent cannot claim that the individual born is solely under the jurisdiction of a foreign state.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by bluewpc; 03-28-2018 at 08:23 PM..
Reply With Quote