Ben Keener

Grateful for the citation @jedshug.bsky.social and @evanbernick.bsky.social !

WAY too many tabs!

Although my own paper with the Penn Law Review focuses on the English common law exclusively, @kewhittington.bsky.social and I agree on the original rule. Glad to see this out in print!

My paper: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

My paper on the original meaning of birthright citizenship is now published

But it's better in the original Law French.

Also, go Selden Society!

From Baker’s edition of Coke’s notes vol. vi at pp 1436-37

“Note that whoever is born upon the king's land is the king's subject, and whoever is [present] upon any part of the land, even if he is an alien, owes obedience to the king” Edward Coke

Here’s the clincher. Another set of Coke’s private notes on the subject

Per John Baker’s publications of Coke’s Notebooks, vol vii at 1621

Critically, Coke says: “by the law of nature and nations he is the subject of the king of the realm where he was born. Thus if a Spaniard has issue in England or an Englishman has issue in Spain, such issue is the subject of the king where he is born and not the king where his parents are subject.”

Below are Edward Cokes’s notes on the Postnati problem before Calvin’s Case. Clear evidence that the traditional view of birthright subjecthood is correct:

It's true that more cases would not likely have modified the general rule (nor the central example of a captured fort)! I would especially enjoy clarity about the status of ambassadors and so-called "perpetual enemies." But I am heartened that so many manuscripts remain unstudied and unedited!

Some reading given the Court’s docket

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Now online with the Penn Law Review!

SSRN: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

I’ll continue to direct interested readers to my paper “Calvin’s Case and Birthright Citizenship” (with Penn Law Review) that explains the origins of the rule in detail. “Jus soli” might not have been used in 1608, but it didn’t appear out of thin air

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Thank you, @gauthamrao.bsky.social !

Now online with the Penn Law Review!

SSRN: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

legaltheoryblog.com

Both Legal Theory Blog and the Legal Theory Lexicon are moving to Wordpress and new web addresses:

Legal Theory Blog: Legal Theory Blog: Legal Theory Blog: legaltheoryblog.com

Legal Theory Lexicon: https:/legaltheorylexicon.com/

Another important piece about birthright citizenship and the common law. Grateful for the cite, @kewhittington.bsky.social!

No problem!

I’ll continue to direct interested readers to my paper “Calvin’s Case and Birthright Citizenship” (with Penn Law Review) that explains the origins of the rule in detail. “Jus soli” might not have been used in 1608, but it didn’t appear out of thin air

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

... and national security in Hong Kong). Articles are from Jeffrey Goldsworthy (on Dr Bonham's Case); @anuragdeb.bsky.social and @colinmurray.bsky.social (on Art 2 of the Winsor Framework the Legacy Act and the IMA); Lisa Burton Crawford and Janina Boughey (on Automated Information about Law); ...

My Paper: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Public Law journal | Sweet & Maxwell Since 1956, the Public Law journal has been the leading forum for information and debate in the constantly evolving area of law and government.

His Paper: www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/en-gb/produc...

It is a huge honor to be cited by Jeffrey Goldsworthy, a titan of public law and legal philosophy. Everyone should read his latest synopsis of the literature on Bonham's Case.

Thanks very much, @evanbernick.bsky.social! Still waiting on a rebuttal 🤷🏻‍♂️

Thank you for the share @lsolum.bsky.social !

When CJ John Marshall ruled that PA was obliged to return a prize of war in US v. Peters (1809), governor Snyder raised a militia army to resist enforcement. When asked to support PA and defy the Supreme Court, President Madison wrote: (1/3)

From the Papers of John Marshall, vol. 7. Read more here (3/3) rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/def...

"It is sufficient...to remark that the executive of the United States is not only unauthorized to prevent the execution of a decree sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States, but is expressly enjoined by statute to carry into effect any such decree..." (2/3)