Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Private Attorney General COMMENTS Re: Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874): "all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens"

Expand Messages
  • Supreme Law Firm
    Subject: Private Attorney General COMMENTS Re: Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874): all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 11, 2011
      Subject: Private Attorney General COMMENTS Re: Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874):
      "all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens"

      Private Attorney General's preliminary comments:

      (1)  please note carefully that the U.S. Supreme Court
      failed to spell "Citizen" correctly with an upper-case "C";
      the Constitution as published in the Statutes at Large
      spells it correctly:


      (2)  the decision below does not elaborate the "jurisdiction"
      of which all such "native" or "natural-born" children become citizens;
      as we have confirmed below, in America that "jurisdiction" is ONE OF
      the (now 50) States of the Union:


      (3)  there is the phrase "children born in a country"
      implying that the Qualifications Clauses refer to
      Citizenship in America the "country";  but, in America
      there has never been any citizenship in the Nation:

      (2 classes:  State Citizenship and federal citizenship)

      (4)  the latter implication is directly contradicted by cases
      which have held that citizenship is a term of municipal law
      see "The Federal Zone" and Roe v. Collector of Customs:


      Citizenship, says Moore on International Law, strictly speaking, is a term of municipal law and denotes the possession within the particular state of full civil and political rights subject to special disqualifications, such as minority, sex, etc.  The conditions on which citizenship are [sic] acquired are regulated by municipal law.  There is no such thing as international citizenship nor international law (aside from that which might be contained in treaties) by which citizenship is acquired.
      [Roa v. Collector of Customs, 23 Philippine 315, 332 (1912)]
      [emphasis added]

      (5)  moreover, directly on point is the holding in
      Pannill v. Roanoke, which held that federal citizenship
      was not even contemplated when the organic Constitution
      was first being drafted:


      ... citizens  of the  District of  Columbia were  not granted the
      privilege of  litigating in  the federal  courts on the ground of
      diversity of  citizenship.   Possibly no  better reason  for this
      fact exists  than  such citizens were  not  thought of  when  the
      judiciary article  [III] of the federal Constitution was drafted.
      ... citizens of the United States** ... were also not thought of;
      but in  any event  a citizen of the United States**, who is not a
      citizen of any state, is not within the language of the [federal]
                                  [Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914]
                                                       [emphasis added]
      (6)  Judge Pablo De La Guerra provides the conclusive clarification here:


      The United States in these provisions, means the States united.

      (7)  We elaborate the full historical setting in these documents:



      The key excerpt from Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) now follows:


      The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.  Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.  At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.  These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.  Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168]   parents.  As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.  It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.  The words 'all children' are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as 'all persons,' and if females are included in the last they must be in the first.  That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

      [end quote]

      Sincerely yours,
      /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
      Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
      http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

      All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.