FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224  
225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   >>   >|  
on. It would be strange, if we were to find in that instrument anything which deprived of their citizenship any part of the people of the United States who were among those by whom it was established. I can find nothing in the Constitution which, _proprio vigore_, deprives of their citizenship any class of persons who were citizens of the United States at the time of its adoption, or who should be native-born citizens of any State after its adoption; nor any power enabling Congress to disfranchise persons born on the soil of any State, and entitled to citizenship of such State by its Constitution and laws. And my opinion is, that, under the Constitution of the United States, every free person born on the soil of a State, who is a citizen of that State by force of its Constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States. I will proceed to state the grounds of that opinion. The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the colonies were subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of Independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States, except so far as some of them were disfranchised by the legislative power of the States, or availed themselves, seasonably, of the right to adhere to the British Crown in the civil contest, and thus to continue British subjects (McIlvain _v._ Coxe's Lessee, 4 Cranch, 209; Inglis _v._ Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Peters, p. 99; Shanks _v._ Dupont, Ibid, p. 242.) The Constitution having recognised the rule that persons born within the several States are citizens of the United States, one of four things must be true: _First._ That the Constitution itself has described what native-born persons shall or shall not be citizens of the United States; or, _Second._ That it has empowered Congress to do so; or, _Third._ That all free persons, born within the sever
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224  
225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

States

 

Constitution

 

persons

 

United

 
citizenship
 
citizens
 

citizen

 

adoption

 

subjects

 

Congress


Independence

 

British

 

Declaration

 

opinion

 

language

 

native

 

acquisition

 
availed
 

legislative

 

seasonably


consequent
 
adhere
 

disfranchised

 

ceased

 

empowered

 

Second

 

sovereignty

 
things
 

Peters

 

Shanks


recognised

 
Dupont
 

Harbor

 
McIlvain
 

continue

 

Lessee

 
Sailors
 
Inglis
 

Cranch

 

contest


Undoubtedly

 

enabling

 

disfranchise

 

deprives

 

entitled

 

person

 
vigore
 

proprio

 
instrument
 

deprived