Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles

By Michael David Rawlings

Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles is a series of related articles or chapters. It is strongly recommend that these articles be read in the order listed, as each builds upon the next.

Note:  for those who still do not rightly understand that constitutional, natural-born citizenship is that which is conferred at the moment of birth, observe and learn:  Senator Ted Cruz is a natural-born citizen of the United States of America, born abroad on Canadian soil of an American Citizen duly qualified to pass her citizenship on to her offspring at birth under the controlling statute at the time of his birth in 1970, i.e., The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Section 301(a) 7, and Senator Cruz duly retained his natural-born citizenship in accordance with the requirements of Section 301(b) of the same.  Despite any beliefs or insinuations to the contrary, neither the fact of Senator Cruz's Canadian birthright citizenship nor his renunciation of the same has any bearing whatsoever on the nature of his U.S. citizenship or the validity of any presidential aspirations he might have.  The renunciation of his Canadian citizenship relative to constitutional or statutory law is pure political theater.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Citizenship and Nationality: Historical Foundation and Framework

By Michael David Rawlings

The entire legal structure of the Anglo-American tradition of citizenship and nationality rests on the philosophical construct of territorial-hereditary allegiance.  In accordance with the common-law rules of jus soli ("the law of the soil"), British citizenship was ultimately premised on the soil of the Realm; however, in 1350, the Crown instituted the Roman principle of jus sanguinis ("the law of the bloodline").  All persons sired by natural-born subjects—regardless of where they were born, on the soil of the Realm or abroad—owed their fealty to the Crown and were entitled to its protection from the moment of birth.

Monday, January 25, 2010

The Natural-Born Citizen Clause of the Constitution

By Michael David Rawlings

The Fifth Clause of Section One, Article Two ("Natural-Born Citizen Clause") of the United States Constitution with its grandfather provision:

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Of the two terms universally understood at the time of the drafting of the Constitution to be associated with the construct of territorial-hereditary allegiance, had the Framers intended a more restrictive definition of inherent citizenship, they would have used the term "native born", not "natural born", and the more expansive concept of natural-born citizenship goes back centuries: defined and established by Roman Law, passed down to English and American law.1 Neither the Constitution nor statute defines the concept; the concept comes down to us defined and understood in legal tradition. Instead, the Constitution establishes the two fundamental classifications of citizenship in American law—natural-born citizenship and naturalized citizenship—by enunciating the fundamental characteristics that divide them—the moment of conferral and presidential eligibility—and statute stipulates the respective terms of acquisition that govern them.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

A Compendium of the Statutory History of Jus Sanguinis

Organized by Michael David Rawlings

Chapter III, Section 1, Statute II of Session II (pg. 103 - 104) of the Naturalization Act of 1790 of the First Congress:

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.1

Saturday, January 23, 2010

The Straight Dope on U.S. Territories

By Michael David Rawlings

While all formally owned possessions of the United States do reside within the wider, territorial boundaries of the United States' national allegiance and, therefore, within the United States' martial-judicial jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the Fourteenth Amendment encompasses the several states of the Union and the incorporated territories of the United States only. The Fourteenth Amendment's jurisdiction strictly pertains to the full slate of constitutional rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship, not to the administrative jurisdiction that the United States might wield at any given time over formally owned or leased possessions abroad.1

Friday, January 22, 2010

Was Senator John McCain a U.S. Citizen at Birth?

By Michael David Rawlings

I. The Resolution
II. The Challenges
A. "Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship"
B. Professor Chin v. Tribe-Olson: A Summary of the Facts
1. Professor Chin
2. Tribe-Olson
a. Because His Parents were U.S. Citizens
b. Because He was Born in the Territory and Allegiance of the Untied States
C. The Tin-Foil-Hat Argument and the Undiscovered Country of Jurisprudencia: or how Wittlake sailed around the world and never landed on the Shores of Legalese
1. The Moment of Conferral: Natural-Born Citizens and Naturalized Citizens
2. Up Jumped the Monkey: Naturalized-Born Citizenship?
3. Wong Kim Ark: A Legacy of Uncertainty
4. Unraveling the Mumbo Jumbo
5. Meanwhile, Lost at Sea . . .

Appendix A - The Insular Cases and Unincorporated Territories
Appendix B - Zimmer et al. v. Acheson: A Comedy of Errors
Appendix C - Physical Presence: Lefty's Magic Wand

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Was Senator John McCain a U.S. Citizen at Birth?


A - The Insular Cases and Unincorporated Territories
B - Zimmer et al. v. Acheson: A Comedy of Errors
C - Physical Presence: Lefty's Magic Wand

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

A Critique of the Chin Argument

By Michael David Rawlings


I. The Love Child of Judicial Activism
A. The Birth
B. The Quarrel
II. Congressional Prerogative and the Glitch that Stole Eligibility
III. Muddling the Point
IV. Whoa, Nelly! The Wheels Fall Off the Wagon
A. Common Law
B. The Insular Cases
C. The Plenary Power Doctrine

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Wong Kim Ark Meet Rogers

By Michael David Rawlings

I. Schneider
II. Afroyim
A. The Marshall Dictum
B. Perpetual Allegiance and the Principle of Assent
C. The Congressional Power of Expatriation in Doubt
D. The Congressional Power of Expatriation Reaffirmed
E. The Sovereignty of the People or the Temerity of Judicial Activism?
F. The Manifest Purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment
G. The Dissent
III. Rogers
A. High Stakes and Low Lifes
B. Blackmun Pulls a Fast One
C. Smack Talk
Closing Arguments

Appendix A - A Compendium of Errors
Appendix B - The Opposing Lines of Judicial Opinion

Monday, January 18, 2010

Wong Kim Ark Meet Rogers

A - A Compendium of Errors

B - Key Decisions from the Opposing Lines of Judicial Opinion

Sunday, January 17, 2010

The Obama Controversy and the Soiler Factor

Michael David Rawlings

Soilism is the commonly held fallacy that one must be born on American soil in order to be a natural-born citizen of the United States. Despite more than two-hundred years of statutory history showing otherwise, adherents desperately cling to this doctrine with the feverish, cult-like fanaticism of a Truther. The Soiler's typical response to anyone who attempts to talk them down, as it were, is to cover his ears and sing, "la-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you, la-la-la-la-la". This doctrine also includes the idea that the premises of U.S. military installations and diplomatic facilities beyond the several states of the Union and its incorporated territories are American soil for constitutional purposes.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Citizenship and Nationality: List of Links

Citizenship and Nationality
Citizenship - Wikipedia

Citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia

Naturalization - Wikipedia

United States Nationality Law - Wikipedia

Court Cases
Afroyim v. Rusk

Dorr v. United States

Downes v. Bidwell

Dred Scott v. Sanford

Hawaii v. Mankichi

Osborn v. Bank of the United States

Perez v. Brownell

Plyler v. Doe

Rassmussen v. United States (1905)

Rogers v. Bellei

Schneider v. Rusk

Vance v. Terrazas

United States v. Manzi

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Weedin v. Chin Bow

Zimmer et al. v. Acheson

Foreign Affairs Manuel-Volume 7, Table of Contents
U.S. Department of State: Diplomacy in Action

Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Rights Guaranteed, Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection

Natural-Born Citizenship
Natural Born Citizen Clause - Wikipedia

"The Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution: Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President To Be a 'Natural Born Citizen' and What Does this Clause Mean for Foreign-Born Adoptees?" by John Yinger

"The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty" by Jill A. Pryor

Foreign Affairs Manuel: "Acquisition and Retention of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality, Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth in the U.S."

Foreign Affairs Manual: "Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth Abroad to U.S. Parent"

Professor Gabriel J. Chin Argument
Faculty Profile, formerly with the University of Arizona

Michigan Law Review: "Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship"; First Impressions Online Companion of the Michigan Law Review: "Senator John McCain and Natural Born Citizenship"

New York Times: "McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out"

Washington Post: "McCain's Birth Abroad Stirs Legal Debate"

Prawfsblawg: "John McCain and Natural Born Citizenship", Rumor Has It: "The Natural", Genealogy:  "John McCain’s Citizenship Status"

Senate Resolution 511 ("The McCain Resolution")

United States Statute
Chapter III, Section 1, Statute II of Session II - Naturalization Act of 1790 (pg. 103);
Chapter III, Section 1, Statute II of Session II - Naturalization Act of 1790 (pg. 104)

American Citizens Abroad: "A Brief History of U.S. Citizenship Law and Americans Overseas"

The Panama Canal Zone Citizenship Act of 1937

Jus Sanguinis: Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795

United States Territories
Foreign Affairs Manuel: "Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in Territories and Possessions"

Territories of the United States - Wikipedia

United States Territory - Wikipedia

Friday, January 15, 2010

Who Are the Real Conspirators?

While all the evidence points to Hawaii, Birthers just know that Barak "the Messianic One" Obama was born in Kenya. . . .

by Michael David Rawlings
July, 2009

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal writes: "They claim without basis that today's birth certificate is a fake; there is nothing to stop them from claiming without basis that yesterday's is as well" ("It's Certifiable: The last word on President Obama’s place of birth").

For sure. But if not for a widespread ignorance about the provisions governing citizenship and presidential eligibility, this foolishness would have been arrested by the American conservative a long time ago. Unlike the sober among us, Birthers are not tethered to the constraints of demonstrable facts; hence, they are free to conjure up any number of alternate realities in which even vast and complex conspiracies are commonplace.

Friday, January 1, 2010

Revisions and Divisions

by Michael David Rawlings

By the late 1950s, Americans were no longer almost entirely guided by the Judeo-Christian worldview, and challenges to the teaching of Christian values in the public schools began to be heard by federal courts. Plaintiffs had two principal grievances: (1) school prayer directed at the Christian deity, and (2) school-imposed biblical instruction. (It was not until 1980, however, that the Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky law that required the state's schools to post copies of the Ten Commandments in classrooms.)

The Warren Court, never one to miss an opportunity to engage in a little social engineering and ever-ready to grab more power for the federal government, happily accommodated the plaintiffs by ignoring historical practice and the original intent of the First Amendment. This was accomplished by tossing out the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause and superimposing a twisted version of an old idea onto the Establishment Clause.

The Jeffersonian doctrine known as the Wall of Separation between Church and State, we were told, does not pertain so much to the protection of the Church against the impositions of the State, as much as it pertains to the protection of the State against being exposed to the religious notions of the Church. That the Court's version of the doctrine is not that of either the Jeffersonian or constitutional expression was irrelevant to the Court.

Apparently, the First Amendment's new meaning imbued federal judges with the omniscience to discern for the rest us the difference between those ideas that were religious and those ideas that were not. In other words, judges would direct the schools' curriculum, not the people. By this, however, the Court did not mean to suggest that it was legal for public school teachers to invade American homes and scream obscenities at children; they would just whisper them into children's ears in the public schools.

Hence, the Warren Court resolved a serious problem by further exacerbating it. After correctly observing that it was unconstitutional for state schools to impose the teachings of Judeo-Christianity on other-religious and non-religious persons, the Court decided to settle the matter by imposing a similar violation on all of us. Instead of simply recognizing that the people who pay the education system's bills should be free to educate their children as they see fit, at home or in a school of their choice, the Court opted to ignore original intent altogether, especially as it pertained to parental consent and authority.

Instead of allowing that a culturally diverse and changing society would require a new means of allocating funds for education in order to satisfy the requirements of the First Amendment for all, the Court elected to enshrine a one-size-fits-all scheme.  Instead of requiring the nation's schools to honor the constitutional rights of all their students or close their doors, the Court chose to expel the "Miscreant," known as "God" to many, who had instigated all the hullabaloo in the first place. Hence, it would not be the state schools that would have to change their ways or go, it would be the people, millions of Americans, who would have to compromise their most cherished convictions under the new hegemony or take their convictions and get out.

The Court effectively and quite consciously established secular humanism as the official religion of the state and established the public education system as the state's "church".

But the Warren Court did not so much overthrow the First Amendment as much as it turned it on its head and, thereby, created a whole new legal conundrum, one that constantly pits faction against faction in an unending battle in which no one's rights or concerns can ever be fully realized. It is for this very reason that the increasingly heated and bitter debate over the content of our schools' academics continues to rage right up to this day. This fiasco is the direct result of the Court elevating what had only been up to that time a homegrown and locally operated system of education, one that was mostly non-existent before the 20th Century, to a federally mandated and administered regime. This "nationalization" of the education system subsequently alienated an even greater number of Americans from their rights and needlessly instigated a vicious cultural civil war.

But the irresponsible behavior of the Warren Court should not surprise anyone. Being that the leftist does not grasp the truth about human nature and about the nature of things, he's the consummate meddler who's forever jumping into the private affairs of others, never merely encouraging, but ever obnoxiously insisting upon their participation in the next, great utopian love fest. He does not have the good sense to allow that Americans should decide for themselves with whom they would sleep.

It is readily self-evident that no institution exists in an ideological vacuum. Thus, if the underlying ideology governing the academic fair offered in today's public schools is no longer Judeo-Christianity, what is it? Where in the Constitution is the federal government delegated the power to define for you or me what does or does not constitute religious training? How could such a power not effectively render the First Amendment meaningless? Does the First Amendment protect the individual's perspective or that of the state?

Why is it a good thing when Christians are taxed to support the propagation of secular humanism in the public schools, but a bad thing when others are asked to spare a few lousy dimes to provide children transportation from a public school to a parochial school just a few miles down the road for instruction on matters that, according to idiotic leftists, the public school cannot provide? Why does the public education system not violate the constitutional rights of Christians when the teachings of Moses, Jesus Christ or the Apostle Paul cannot be taught, but the atheistic drivel of Darwin, Freud or Nietzsche can? The leftist, over whose head the outrage of his own suggestion flies, responds by telling the Christian that he is free to send his children to whatever type of school he pleases. But if the Christian "chooses" to flee the insults of public schools, he must necessarily leave behind the tax dollars he is compelled to fork out for an education system that is fundamentally hostile to him!

And what about the far too many bombed out prisons that pass for schools in America's larger inner cities? Why do wealthy leftists adamantly oppose initiatives that would extend the same kind of educational opportunities enjoyed by their children to the children of the impoverished?

No one should wonder why such an inherently unjust system turns out such a mediocre product. After all, this is the same system in which precious time and resources are now wasted on nonsense like "conflict resolution" and "sensitivity training," the sorts of things that give leftists goose bumps and the rest of us indigestion. In truth, these are merely the insipid alternatives to "thou shalt not."

No one should be surprised by the stupefied looks that appear on the faces of so many youngsters these days when they are asked to respond to the most elementary questions about the history of their own country. "Abraham . . . who?" At your local high school, you might be told by students that Shakespeare is a racial slur or some dead white guy from New England who wrote the Bible. Should some of them tell you that a declarative sentence is something a judge gives you for car jacking or slapping your ho, don't show alarm. Just calmly nod your head and slowly back away.

Today, five out of ten high-school graduates cannot name their nation's capital, its first president (for crying out loud!) or the three branches of its government. Half of them cannot read at an eighth-grade level or solve a quadratic equation.

But not only are far too many of our young people woefully ignorant about their nation's history, confused about its cultural influences, functionally illiterate and mathematically incompetent—they cannot think for themselves either.

We should not be surprised by the inarticulate gibberish that flies from so many young lips these days when in the name of "diversity" an entire generation has been deprived of the world's truly great ideas. But our young scholars haven't starved . . . well, not entirely. Instead they've been fed the tripe of the restylized ideas—or is it the delusions?—of old that have buried many a nation and have mired the rest in tyranny. The fact that so many young people these days are under the impression that their generation is especially free and open-minded is both tragic and comical. As the illogic of "inclusionism" has rendered so many of them incapable of distinguishing the difference between concepts like self-identity and self-determination or between tolerance and acceptance, today's youth comprise the most robotically conformist and spitefully narrow-minded generation that America has ever produced. Despite the multifarious clothing fashions and hairstyles sported by them, an alarming number are unwittingly marching in lock-step unison toward the illusions sported by totalitarianism. Regardless of the stated reasoning behind the arguments of their antagonists, epithets like bigot, homophobe or fascist fly from their lips as thoughtlessly as a dog licks its genitals.

We should not be surprised that so many young people these days regard Judeo-Christianity's commonsensical mores with derision when they are constantly fed the claptrap of pseudo-intellectuals who airily postulate that the observance of such courtesies only serves to undermine one's self-esteem and inhibit the free expression of one's true inner self. Whatever happened to the understanding that the ideals of Judeo-Christianity led the way toward the democratization of the Western world?

Finally, why should anyone be shocked by the kinds of outrages that have been launched against our society by post-pubescent psychopaths like Dylan Klebold when the theories of intellectual barbarians, their breath reeking of hopelessness and despair, are incessantly whispered in the ears of our children as they are bombarded, without benefit of context or consequence, by filth and violence from every quarter of our society?

Why are the babies burning? Why is there silence in heaven?