Ethel Mackenzie v. John Hare
Decision Date | 06 December 1915 |
Docket Number | No. 79,79 |
Citation | 60 L.Ed. 297,239 U.S. 299,36 S.Ct. 106 |
Parties | ETHEL C. MACKENZIE, Plff. in Err., v. JOHN P. HARE, Thomas V. Cater, Charles L. Queen, William McDevitt, and John Herman, as and Composing the Board of Election Commissioners of the City and County of San Francisco |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Milton T. U'Ren for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 300-301 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Thomas V. Cator, William McDevitt, and Percy V. Long for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 302-304 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:
Mandamus prosecuted by plaintiff in error as petitioner against defendants in error, respondents, as and composing the board of election commissioners of the city and county of San Francisco, to compel her registration as a qualified voter of the city and county, in the appropriate precinct therein.
An alternative writ was issued, but a permanent writ was denied upon demurrer to the petition.
The facts are not in dispute and are stated by Mr. Justice Shaw, who delivered the opinion of the court, as follows:
[165 Cal. 778, L.R.A.——, ——, 134 Pac. 713, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 261.]
Plaintiff in error claims a right as a voter of the state under its Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution of the state gives the privilege of suffrage to 'every native citizen of the United States,' and it is contended that under the Constitution of the United States every person born in the United States is a citizen thereof. The latter must be conceded, and if plaintiff has not lost her citizenship by her marriage, she has the qualification of a voter prescribed by the Constitution of the state of California. The question then is. Did she cease to be a citizen by her marriage?
On March 2, 1907, that is, prior to the marriage of plaintiff in error, Congress enacted a statute the 3d section of which provides: [34 Stat. at L. 1228, chap. 2534, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 3960.]
Plaintiff contends that 'such legislation, if intended to apply to her, is beyond the authority of Congress.'
Questions of construction and power are, therefore, presented. Upon the construction of the act it is urged that it was not the intention to deprive an American-born woman, remaining within the jurisdiction of the United States, of her citizenship by reason of her marriage to a resident foreigner. The contention is attempted to be based upon the history of the act and upon the report of the committee, upon which, it is said, the legislation was enacted. Both history and report show, it is asserted, 'that the intention of Congress was solely to legislate concerning the status of citizens abroad and the questions arising by reason thereof.'
Does the act invite or permit such assistance? Its declaration is general, 'that any American woman who marries a foreigner shall take the nationality of her husband.' There is no limitation of place; there is no limitation of effect, the marital relation having been constituted and continuing. For its termination there is provision, and explicit provision. At its termination she may resume her American citizenship if in the United States by simply remaining therein; if abroad, by returning to the United States, or, within one year, registering as an American citizen. The act is therefore explicit and circumstantial. It would transcend judicial power to insert limitations or conditions upon disputable considerations of reasons which impelled the law, or of conditions to which it might be conjectured it was addressed and intended to accommodate.
Whatever was said in the debates on the bill or in the reports concerning it, preceding its enactment or during its enactment, must give way to its language; or, rather, all the reasons that induced its enactment and all of its purposes must be supposed to be satisfied and expressed by its words, and it makes no difference that in discussion some may have been given more prominence than others, seemed more urgent and insistent than others, presented the mischief intended to be remedied more conspicuously than others.
The application of the law thus being determined, we pass to a consideration of its validity.
An earnest argument is presented to demonstrate its invalidity. Its basis is that the citizenship of plaintiff was an incident to her birth in the United States, and, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, it became a right, privilege, and immunity which could not be taken away from her except as a punishment for crime or by her voluntary expatriation.
The argument to support the contention and the argument to oppose it take a wide range through the principles of the common law and international law and their development and change. Both plaintiff and defendants agree that under the common law originally allegiance was immutable. They do not agree as to when the rigidity of the principle was relaxed. Plaintiff in error contests the proposition which she attributes to defendants in error 'that the doctrine of perpetual allegiance maintained by England was accepted by the United States,' but contends 'that the prevalent doctrine of this country always has been that a citizen had a right to expatriate himself,' and cites cases to show that expatriation is a natural and inherent right.
Whether this was originally the law of this country or became such by inevitable evolution...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Estrada
...Constitution (U.S.Const., art. VI, cl. 2; Mackenzie v. Hare (1913) 165 Cal. 776, 779, 134 P. 713, L.R.A.1916D, 127, affirmed 239 U.S. 299, 36 S.Ct. 106, 60 L.Ed. 297; Moon v. Martin (1921) 185 Cal. 361, 366, 197 P. 77; Perkins Mfg. Co. v. Jordan (1927) 200 Cal. 667, 678-679, 254 P. 551; Tur......
-
People v. Bradley
...(Moon v. Martin, 185 Cal. 361, 366, 197 P. 77; Mackenzie v. Hare, 165 Cal. 776, 779, 134 P. 713, L.R.A.1916D, 127, affd. 239 U.S. 299, 36 S.Ct. 106, 60 L.Ed. 297), we are not bound by the decisions of the lower federal courts even on federal questions. However, they are persuasive and entit......
-
People v. Willard
...the federal Constitution (U.S.Const., art. VI, § 2; Mackenzie v. Hare (1913) 165 Cal. 776, 779, 134 P. 713, L.R.A.1916D, 127, affirmed 239 U.S. 299; Moon v. Martin (1921) 185 Cal. 361, 366, 197 P. 77; Perkins Mfg. Co. v. Jordan (1927) 200 Cal. 667, 678-679, 254 P. 551; Turkington v. Municip......
-
In re Schlesinger
...... Pa. 587] Richard B Tucker, Jr., Charles F. C. Arensberg, John. K. Tabor, John G. Buchanan, Thomas N. Griggs, Louis C. Glasso, James ... U.S. 304, 315-322, 57 S.Ct. 216, 218-221, 81 L.Ed. 255;. Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 311, 36 S.Ct. 106,. 108, 60 L.Ed. 297; Fong Yue ......
-
REPUGNANT PRECEDENTS AND THE COURT OF HISTORY.
...later confirmed that Hoyt had been "overrul[ed] in effect." Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828 n.1 (1991). (284.) Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299 (1915). The Court later rejected the constitutionality of nonelective expatriation, see Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 267 (1967), but gave no......
-
Abolishing citizenship: resolving the irreconcilability between 'soil' and 'blood' political membership and anti-racist democracy
...WOMEN’S L.J. 142, 148 (1996). 330. HANEY LÓPEZ, supra note 45, at 11. 331. Johnson, supra note 329, at 144; s ee Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 311–12 (1915) (finding that a woman born in the United States was no longer a U.S. citizen because she married a citizen of the United Kingdom u......
-
JUDICIAL MORAL PROPHECY.
...who labors on Sunday, given that, "[f]rom the earliest period," such "was the policy of many of the original States"); Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 311 (1915) (upholding a law that expatriated women marrying non-citizens, given that "[t]he identity of husband and wife is an ancient prin......
-
Doctrines without borders: territorial jurisdiction and the force of international law in the wake of Rasul v. Bush.
...... would be [an] unconstitutional infringement of due process. (internal quotations omitted). (276.) See, e.g., Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 311 (1915) ("As a government, the United States is invested with all the attributes of sovereignty. As it has the character of nationality it has......