This is from late February, but I don’t think I have seen it reported elsewhere (although I may have just missed it):
Laurence Tribe ’66, the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard, has been named Senior Counselor for Access to Justice in the Department of Justice, and he will lead a newly launched initiative aimed at improving access to civil and criminal legal services.. . . Tribe will be a primary liaison to the federal judiciary, and will work with federal, state, and tribal judiciaries in strengthening fair, impartial, and independent adjudication. He will also exchange information with foreign ministries of justice and judicial systems regarding efforts to provide access to justice, as part of the DOJ’s existing international efforts to promote fair and impartial law enforcement and adjudication. . . .
Tribe will begin his tenure at the DOJ on March 1 and will officially report to Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli ’91.
Allan says:
There is only one appropriate response to this:
Wow.
The only person who would have been a more spectacular choice might have been Ken Starr, but he likely would have declined.
Alan Dershowittz would have been interesting, too.
Good luck Prof. Tribe.
March 17, 2010, 9:34 pmhieronymous says:
Hmm, Tribe does have a history of involvement in international legal affairs. I seem to remember that he helped author the South African Constitution that has turned that nation into a beacon of equality and justice.
March 17, 2010, 11:46 pmAnon says:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022505697.html?hpid=sec-education
March 17, 2010, 11:47 pmDNJ says:
The South African Constitution is, in my opinion, outstanding as a beacon of equality and justice.
March 18, 2010, 1:29 amMick says:
Tribe working for the DOJ? You mean the Obama administration hired another Harvard flunky? Imagine that. You mean the same DOJ that is stifling all attempts to find out if Barack Obama is eligible for the POTUS as a Natural Born Citizen (which by the founder’s understanding of Vattel and Natural Law would mean born in a country of citizen parents) by claiming the BS legal fiction of lack of standing? He should fit right in!!!!
March 18, 2010, 4:39 amI know that you and Volokh don’t know what a Natural Born Citizen is (maybe out of self interest?),
and I bet that out of “fairness” Tribe thinks it means born in country, maybe he even thinks those born OUT of country (like McCain, born in Colon, Panama) are NBCs also. Maybe he thinks that the Secretaries of State have no authority to Vet the candidates on their ballots (yet the Socialist candidate Valero was kicked off 8 state ballots by SOSs because he was born in Nicaraugua, but I guess it’s only selective vetting).
Yeah he should fit right in with the rest of the Ivy League “Constitutionalists”.
Mick says:
You mean the same Tribe that lost Bush v. Gore? That obvious Equal Protection Case? I guess his idea of the Constitution is that means whatever he wants it to mean.
March 18, 2010, 4:54 amMick says:
Tribe and Olsen made a report about Natural Born Citizens during the Resolution 511 hearings (which were a farce). Here is what he said a Natural Born Citizen is.
“Birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and ALLEGIANCE”.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=s3645&dbname=2008_record
Did you catch that? First of al he was wrong on the first part (the Naturalization Act of 1795 said the children of military parents born abroad were CITIZENS, repealing the Naturalization Act of 1790 which unconstitutionally said they were Natural Born.).
Did you catch the second part? Born w/in a nation’s territory AND ALLEGIANCE. So a person born here of illegal aliens is born with allegiance to the US? How about these children born of Turkish “Birth Tourists”.
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=birth-tourism-to-the-usa-explodes-2010-03-12
You mean their parents come here solely to have a child, then scurry back to Turkey and they have allegiance? And how many allegiances are these children allowed to have at birth. If the reason for the NBC requirement was to ensure attachment and allegiance and to prevent foreign influence (as verified in the Federalist Papers) how can there be more than one allegiance? Isn’t the very definition of allegiance a Singular attachment. How can you owe allegiance to 2 countries and be a Natural Born Citizen?
March 18, 2010, 5:40 amHow does Tribe overlook the ADMITTED fact that Obama owed allegiance to Britain at birth (his father was Kenyan). I mean, he himself said born “within the allegiance of a nation”. How can someone born within the allegiance of TWO nations be a Natural Born Citizen? Did he overlook it because he’s a fellow Hahvahd Man?
Here’s what John Bingham said a Natural Born Citizen was during the hearings for the 14th Amendment:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
So Tribe got HALF of his DEFINITION right (he did go to Hahvahd afterall), but didn’t apply the part he got right to the right candidate. He applied the part he got wrong to McCain (he’s not a Natural Born Citizen if born in Colon, Panama by the NA 1795), and he didn’t apply the part he got right to Obama (he was born with subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power).
I would give him a D in my class.
Joe T. Guest says:
But Tribe had a hand in drafting the South African Constitution which is, in my opinion, outstanding as a beacon of equality and justice.
March 18, 2010, 7:25 ammikeyes says:
It was mentioned on NPR several weeks ago. Old news.
March 18, 2010, 8:00 amerp says:
A consolation prize for never being nominated to the Supreme Court. Poor Larry, if only he hadn’t lied about about Bork on camera during his nomination aka kangaroo court hearing, he would be Justice Tribe, even Chief Justice Tribe, by now. Obama once again, showing his concern for truth, justice and the American way.
March 18, 2010, 10:09 amPer Son says:
Mick da Birfer. Interesting – I am going to assume that he has nothing but contempt for all those conservative Harvard types since Harvard, to him, is so yucky (Roberts, Scalia, and Miguel Estrada to name a few. Or liberal hippy Berkeley types such as Olsen.
Mick – don’t you have anything better to do? I heard Orly is running for California Secretary of State.
March 18, 2010, 10:12 amPer Son says:
erp,
I am not being snarky here – what did Tribe lie about during the Bork hearings? Are there citations?
March 18, 2010, 10:14 amMick says:
So why did he ignore the “allegiance” part of his own definition w/ regard to Obama?
March 18, 2010, 10:17 amMick says:
I don’t care WHERE he was born. His father was not a citizen, and Obama was born a dual citizen of britain. That disqualifies him, even if he was born in the Oval office in JFK’s lap.
March 18, 2010, 10:19 amPer Son says:
Mick-
As Obama admitted, he is from Jor El and his middle name is really Steve. Duh!
March 18, 2010, 10:19 amPer Son says:
Mick-
This is all I will say on the birfistan issue. Show me where in the Constitution “natural born citizen” is defined as having two citizen parents. If you can do that – I’ll continue the dialogue. Otherwise, I’ll await an answer to my question posed to erp, since he brought something up that I consider interesting and an actual issue.
March 18, 2010, 10:22 amerp says:
Per Son, citations? Sure, lots of them — unfortunately that was pre-internet and my own notes taken during the hearings are long lost. The media in their frenzy to tank Bork, didn’t take note of facts and I doubt you’d find anything on line about it.
CSPAN has released all their tapes, so go ahead and search through them (if they haven’t been cleansed). Leahy told some whoppers too and Teddy, but Tribe’s recall of Bork’s history was the faultiest and he had the most to gain (or lose) and he lost.
He’s a little too long in the tooth now for Obama to waste a nomination on. All’s the pity, I was looking forward to Tribe’s hearings, but I wasn’t to have that pleasure.
Sorry about that old boy.
March 18, 2010, 11:19 amneimoller says:
shorter erp. i got no citations, you just gotta believe me.
March 18, 2010, 11:24 amPer Son says:
Tribe is too old to nominate now. I did some research via google, and only found that he performed a hit job on Bork and that cost him a future nomination. That being said, I saw nothing indicating that Tribe lied or otherwise misled anyone.
I just think if someone calls another person a lier, it is only fair to have some backup.
March 18, 2010, 11:30 amMick says:
As Minor v. Happersett (1873) said and Wong Kim Ark (1898)repeated,
March 18, 2010, 11:31 amThe definition is “not in the USC, so resort must be made elsewhere. But it was never doubted that those born in a country of citizen parents were themselves the natural born citizens” (sic). Then it proceeded to doubt whether the children of non citizen parents were EVEN CITIZENS.
Being that the year was 1873, that means it is certainly not the “born” citizen of the 14th Amendment (1866).
The term of art was well understood by the founders from the Natural Law treatise Law of Nations (1753)— Indigenous Natives, or Natives from within, or those born in a country of citizens parents. Natural Law was what Jefferson taught at the U. of Va. The Textbook? Vattel’s Law of Nations. The most quoted text by the Supreme Court in the 1800s? Vattel’s Law of Nations. Natural Law is also embedded in our constitution in A1S8C10 (law of nations) as the template for our relations between countries. Natural Law is the basis for the Bill of rights.
So you think that since it is not defined in the USC that you can make it whatever you want? The qualifications for POTUS should be taken that lightly?
You want more?
Vattel’s definition of NBC is also quoted in
-The Venus (1814) By Marshall, just 25 years after ratification.
-Perkins v. Elg (1939) clearly delineated between 3 subsets of citizens. Natural Born, Native born and Naturalized, w/ the Natural Borns, born in the country of citizen parents as the only ones eligible to be POTUS.
-John Bingham’s definition (see above post)in 1866 (writer of the 14A)
-Trout’s definition (Born w/in a nation’s territory and ALLEGIANCE, see above post)
-200 years of precedent.
-A2S1C5 distinguishes between NBC and Citizen as separate entities.
-Obama has NEVER claimed to be a Natural Born Citizen, only “Native Citizen”, and “Citizen by birth”. He never, even though he is a USC scholar, uses the correct term, and the Director of health of Hi. said he was a natural-born American citizen (which means he was born vaginally).
Oh I know, I have no idea what I’m talking about. So tell me, what SCOTUS case says that a Natural born citizen is anything less than born in a country of Citizen PARENTSSSSS? And don’t say WKA. Wong was only deemed a “Citizen”, read the case.
Per Son says:
Nope, Mick, you are wrong. Keep hanging out with Orly, Kreep, Lucas Smith, and the Freepers.
I’ll focus on issues that actually matter.
March 18, 2010, 11:38 amPer Son says:
Mick -
You just hate the idea that jus soli wins the day.
March 18, 2010, 11:39 amRealistLiberal says:
Per Son~
While I respect your attempts to engage birthers in actual dialogue, it won’t work. Birthers are just like any other conspiracy nut, facts and realities mean nothing. Taitz is a good example, when you prove her wrong on a fact, she either flat out ignores it or says “you’re missing the bigger picture, he is a fraud.” Conspiracy nuts will shift arguments repeatedly to avoid facing the fact that they are wrong. This new ridiculous theory about needing two citizen parents is what they will cling to because no court has actually ruled on the meaning of “natural born citizen.” I will note that SCOTUS has ruled that all individuals born in the United States are full citizens under the 14th Amendment which likely would be the meaning of “natural born citizen.” Also, it is interesting to note that Salon.com had an article about refuting birthers that included the interesting tidbit that Chester A. Arthur’s father was an Irish citizen.
Edit:
The link http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/05/birther_faq/
March 18, 2010, 11:44 amSarcastro says:
[Mick, check out when this issue was debated back in 2008:
http://volokh.com/posts/1204246912.shtml
http://volokh.com/posts/1204655862.shtml
Enjoy!]
March 18, 2010, 11:48 amPer Son says:
Realist-
I know. I just have fun engaging birthers. I am home sick, so it is a big break from real lawyering. I am anxiously awaiting for Orly to call Lamberth a coward/traitor when he denies her Quo Warranto claim, as she seems to call all judges who disagree with her.
Maybe he’ll even by convicted by a citizen grand jury, you know, the super duper one.
March 18, 2010, 11:49 amThales says:
What I want to know is, why has no one vetted Mick’s birth certificate? Who is covering up that investigation?
March 18, 2010, 11:55 amRealistLiberal says:
PerSon~
I agree that it can be fun, but it can also be mindnumbing. In addition to her attacking Lambert, I’m also awaiting Orly to call the entire 11th Circuit (or will she just target the 3 judges on the panel?) treasonous, traitors and/ or cowards for affirming the $20,000 sanction against her issued by Judge Land. The 11th Circuit issued a 3 sentence affirmation order:
She’s also been notably quiet since Judge Carter in California dismissed the case. She was all over the news bragging that Judge David O. Carter “said this case has merit and is going to trial on the merits.” Of course she ignored that it was a routine scheduling conference and that no decisions on the merits were being made. Judge Carter dismissed the entire case about a month later.
March 18, 2010, 12:00 pmPer Son says:
Realist-
She is currently going after Damon Dunn. Orly just has a big beef with non-white politicians it seems. Always questioning their eligibility.
March 18, 2010, 12:12 pmMick says:
Says who? I give citations, which is how you usually prove a legal point. Which SCOTUS case says that just being born in the US makes one a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS? You can throw the Alinskyan insults all you want, doesn’t bother me, but you are only showing your ignorance.
March 18, 2010, 12:37 pmMick says:
I don’t care WHERE he was born. His admission that he was a dual citizen at birth disqualifies him. How can the citizenship of a Natural Born Citizen be “governed” (his word) by Britain at birth?
March 18, 2010, 12:49 pmerp says:
Per son, if Tribe was telling the truth, why did your reference call it a hit job?
neimoller, you don’t have to believe me, you can do as I suggested and find the testimony in the CSPAN archives now on-line.
March 18, 2010, 1:04 pmMick says:
Check out my posts. I give all citations. The SCOTUS has defined Natural Born Citizen in the Dicta of several cases, which i have noted. I am guiving facts, you–guesses.
March 18, 2010, 1:05 pmPer Son says:
Hmmm. Showing my ignorance, Mick. Considering that all of the Constitutional mechanisms (electoral college, Congress, and Chief Justice) were followed, neither any Democratic Party primary challengers, nor McCain could show (or attempted to show) he was not nbc, and no legal scholar of ANY repute has even given one scintilla of support regarding Obama’s eligibility – I’d say it is you who are the ignorant one.
How is another country’s citizenship laws helpful or harmful to determining NBC status? Cuba can easily pass a law saying that all Americans born as of this date are Cuban citizens. Would that prevent every American from this point on from being President? Hell no – as foreign citizenship is irrellevant. Every immigration knows there are two types of US citizens – natural born and naturalized. Pulling out tomes by Swiss Philosophers without any evidence they were relied upon during the Constitutional Convention (not to mention the fact that the version most relied upon by birfers was published after the Constitution was ratified) does little for your cause. Indeed, the quote in translation relied upon by birfers, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens” was not printed until 1797. Previous translations of Vattel (1760 and 1787) did not even have the term natural born citizen.
I thought the founding fathers heavily relied upon Blackstone, Coke, the Federalist Papers, and others. Funny thing about Vattel is that I never heard of him (as many, many people agree) until Donofrio started quoting him. Why? Was it part of the conspiracy to put Obama in office, dating back decades? Did Chester Arthur hide this truth?
I’ll gladly throw around Alinskyin insults at birfers, because it is fun.
Oh yeah, and I forgot, the birfers are wrong on just about everything. What do you think about Orly’s attempts to get the UN to come and take over the US Courts, or define birfers as a persecuted minority (relying on the 9th Amendment).
March 18, 2010, 1:10 pmSarcastro says:
He also gives all (correct) interpretations! He’s like a lawyer AND the Supreme Court, all in one!
Mick‘s infallibility must be why he didn’t bother the read the archived debate the folks who run this blog started back in the day.
March 18, 2010, 1:11 pmPer Son says:
erp,
A hit job does not connote a lie? A character assassination does not connote a lie. All it may mean is someone condensing a whole lot of bad facts about someone to prevent them from obtaining something. Since I found nothing saying that Tribe actually lied – I’ll be waiting.
March 18, 2010, 1:12 pmMick says:
RealistLiberal said,
“Also, it is interesting to note that Salon.com had an article about refuting birthers that included the interesting tidbit that Chester A. Arthur’s father was an Irish citizen.”
Funny you mention that. Chester Arthur was the only other Usurper. He was the VP of Garfield and assumed office when Garfield was assasinated. There was a big scandal, just like today about where CA was born, which many thought was Canada (he was actually born in Vt.). The scandal was a misdirection, just like today to hide the fact that CA’s father was not a Naturalized US Citizen. CA went to great lengths to hide this fact, by giving an earlier date of birth and hiding his family records, even burning them before he died. It has only been recently discovered that CA’s father was not a US Citizen until CA was 13, and the public was not aware of that fact 130 years ago. Fraud is not precedent. As a matter of fact Horace Gray (Wong Kim Ark 1898)was nominated for the SCOTUS by CA, and probably blurred the jurisdictional phrase in order to try to repair the Natural Born Citizen status of his benefactor. As a matter of fact his ruling in 1884 (Elk v. Wilkins) was an opposite ruling of the phrase (that it meant subject to the jurisdiction of the US and no other foreign power). Remember though that CA became pPOTUS in 1881, and WKA wasn’t until 1898.
March 18, 2010, 1:22 pmAgain, I give facts, you? not so much.
Mick says:
I’ve already read that thread. Volokh or Somin don’t know what a Natural Born Citizen is either (amazingly). WHERE is the SCOTUS case that says a Natural Born Citizen is anything less than Born in the US of Citizen Parents? I’m waiting.
March 18, 2010, 1:25 pmPer Son says:
Mick – we know he is from Jor El and his middle name is Steven. Gosh – you will never get it.
March 18, 2010, 1:27 pmJeff Black says:
If anyone is interested in what statements, lies or otherwise, Tribe (and others) made in the Bork hearings, I would recommend reading the relevant chapters of Bork’s book, The Tempting of America. Even if you disagree with Bork’s interpretation of the hearings, the book includes many lengthy quotations. In any event, I’m not sure why Tribe’s statements would prevent him from future political life. Tribe’s statements at the Bork hearings were mild compared to Ted Kennedy’s rhetoric and he still became Saint Teddy to the left.
March 18, 2010, 1:29 pmPer Son says:
Jeff,
He is actually known as Saint Teddy of Cuddlekins. Get it straight!
March 18, 2010, 1:31 pmPer Son says:
Jeff, and thank you for supplying a cite. I happen to not like Bork for many reasons (e.g. not a fan of cry babies, not a fan of people who ignore the 9th Amendment, not a fan of people who have extremely limited views of the 1st Amendment).
To be fair, the first and third dislike appeared to come after Bork did not get the job.
March 18, 2010, 1:33 pmSteve P. says:
And here I thought Mick was the only conspiracy theorist in this thread.
March 18, 2010, 1:36 pmMick says:
I don’t care what Orly says, but you bring up the same ridiculous arguments of the Obfuscators of truth. Even if Cuba made a law as you said, it would not trump the Natural Law concept of born in the country of citizen parents. That Natural Law would trump any statute. So your argument is silly.
March 18, 2010, 1:42 pmIf American citizens had a child in a foreign country, that child would be an American Citizen and a citizen of that country where born, just like it would be the other way around, that’s Natural Law. That child would owe allegiance to both foreign powers and would gain citizenship by election at the age of majority. Natural law is our common law as specified in A1S8C10 (law of nations, look it up). The FACT that that child would owe allegiance to a foreign power is what disqualifies Obama. At birth, by his admission, he owed allegiance to Britain, and didn’t have the closed circle of citizenship and unification of Blood and Soil that form a Natural Born citizen.
Many if not all of the Framers spoke French, and the French translation was Indigenous Natives (Natives from within, ergo Natural Born Citizen, born in a country of it’s own citizens). Again a desperate argument, especially since Thomas Jefferson taught Natural Law at UVA. in the 1770s, and Vattel was the text of the class. I don’t doubt that you don’t know who Vattel is, so what does that prove? You use the usual terms of the Obfuscators, like “many people say, or everyone says, or all the experts say”, they all mean nothing.
Mick says:
So what SCOTUS case says that a natural Born citizen is any less than born in the country of parent who are it’s citizens? You still haven’t answered. I give cites, you? Alinsky, and no facts.
March 18, 2010, 1:44 pmerp says:
Steve P … and here I thought there couldn’t be anyone still extant who denied the complicity of the media in promoting, by all and any means necessary, the whole left wing agenda which perforce included borking Bork.
March 18, 2010, 1:49 pmjames says:
Mouthbreather Mick – “I don’t care WHERE he was born. His admission that he was a dual citizen at birth disqualifies him. How can the citizenship of a Natural Born Citizen be “governed” (his word) by Britain at birth?”
Wickedpedia – The US allows dual citizenship. Britain allows dual citizenship. Some countries do not allow dual citizenship which would force the parents to choose one or the other in this instance… So your point is wrong here.
And the WKA and other related cases deal with the location of the birth, including that 1939 Marie Elg case – both the WKA and Swiss woman were born in the US and thus considered natural born citizens. And so those are the Supreme Court cases you asked about that would prove the location matters.
Was Barack’s mother a citizen of the US? Is Hawaii still in dispute? I can’t figure out where you even stand on the facts, let alone your incorrect analysis of the relevant Supreme Court cases. If I assume both of those facts are Yes, then due to the majority rulings we see that Barack would be a natural-born citizen. Marie Elg was born in the US to naturalized parents then got moved but was ruled to be natural-born. Is your only bone here just that the dad was not a us citizen? That’s the only thing I can figure out from your vomit of postings here today.
The dual citizenship issue is a non-issue as both US and Britain allow for dual citizenship. The two parents issue has not been addressed by the USC or by the Supreme Court cases, so maybe that’s the only open item. The location of birth has been settled to include territories of the US, so that’s a non-issue here for Hawaii.
The fake Kenyan cert was cribbed from an Australian pensioner’s geneology website, so that’s a non-issue for location. What is left here? What new goalposts are to be dragged out from storage, invented from whole cloth, and planted a 1000 yards away from the game?
The problem with trying to outshout a loudmouth is that there’s always another goalpost to be moved once you “score”.
March 18, 2010, 1:55 pmPer Son says:
Mick,
Franch, you say. The oft-quoted line from birfers is: “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.” It is cited as saying: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Ok, I don’t know French very well, but I see Citoyens only once in the French.
You seem to have the burdens flip flopped. Obama is in the Whitehouse, as was Chester Arthur. You have pointed to nothing showing neither is qualified to be an NBC other than pontificating about natural law.
You want quotes:
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)
“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795)
“that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826)
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign….That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,654 (1898)
“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,671,673 (1898)
“the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,693 (1898)
“It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations….There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there as any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion….Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty…..So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649, 666, 668, 673, 674 (1898).
“Every person born -within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen, within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity. Town of New Hartford v. Town of Canaan, 5 Atl. SCO, 3(!4, 54 Conn. 39 (citing Rawle, Const. U. S. p. 86). See also. Lynch v. Clarke (N. Y.) 1 Sandf. Ch. 584, 2 Kent, Comni. (9th Ed.): McKay v. Campbell (U. S.) 16 Fed. Cas. 157; Field, Int Code, 132; Morse, Citizenship, 203).”
Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born in the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen. ?
Letter by Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe, reported in 154 Cong. Rec. S3645-46 (Apr. 30, 2008).
“United States citizens born to parents subject to United States jurisdiction in one of the fifty states are unquestionably natural born citizens. Even the narrowest reading of the Fourteenth Amendment dictates that all current states are in the United States. This is true regardless of parental citizenship, unless a child’s parents are protected by the full immunity extended to foreign diplomats and their families, or they are enemy combatants.”
March 18, 2010, 1:58 pmPer Son says:
I guess James Madison was just another Obot obsfucator.
March 18, 2010, 1:59 pmJeff Black says:
I definately disagree with Bork’s views on several issues but I think the way he was treated by the left during his confirmation hearings illustrates their general willingness to damage national political discourse with demonstrably false and inflamatory dialogue if it helps their cause. It’s the, “anything’s fair game when fighting the devil” routine.
March 18, 2010, 2:32 pmPer Son says:
Jeff,
You do make a good point – when dealing with nominees. I think both sides have hostorically tarred and feathered each other with outright lies and obfuscation when dealing debating statutes. How many times have we heard from both sides that the sky is falling?
March 18, 2010, 2:55 pmSarcastro says:
[Bork's nomination was a bit too long ago for me to have witnessed it. Thus I cannot speak to any outright lies being told. Not a fan of lying to Congress, no matter what the political inclinations of purposes of the person doing it.
But Bork is an example of why I think ideology shouldn't be off limits in nomination battles. In law school, I read some of Slouching Towards Gomorrah. Holy Crap! Dude doesn't believe in freedom of speech!
Seems to me we dodged a bullet.]
March 18, 2010, 3:06 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Have other readers found strange capitalization to be a marker for intense and bizarre views? Capitalization such as “the People must this or that the Enemies of the Nation, and the Usurper is this or that under Natural Law” invariably accompanies goofy content. Encountering such writing is a relatively recent development, in my experience, but the practice seems to be becoming somewhat popular in certain circles. Gang signal?
March 18, 2010, 3:51 pmRich Rostrom says:
Did anyone else notice this: “Tribe will be a primary liaison to the federal judiciary, and will work with federal, state, and tribal judiciaries…”
So Tribe will be working with tribes!
March 18, 2010, 4:08 pmJeff Black says:
I like to think that Slouching was written in Bork’s senile years after he had been brainwashed by AEIPPR. His views on origanlism were refreshing but he didn’t apply them consistently.
March 18, 2010, 4:53 pmDotar Sojat says:
Tribe, huh? Figures.
March 18, 2010, 5:13 pmHerb Spencer says:
Tribe in the Admin? I hear a civil Gideon trumpeting.
No, thank you: the criminal one is bad enough!
March 18, 2010, 5:27 pm