Calvin's case
| Calvin's Case | |
|---|---|
.svg) |
|
| Court | King's Bench |
| Decided | Trinity Term, 1608 |
| Citation(s) | (1608) Co Rep 1a 77 ER 377 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | all the Judges of England |
| Keywords | |
| Citizenship | |
Calvin's Case (1608) 7 Co Rep 1a, also known as the Case of the Postnati, was a 1608 English legal decision establishing that a child born in Scotland, after the Union of the Crowns under James VI and I in 1603, was considered under the common law to be an English subject and entitled to the benefits of English law. Calvin's Case was eventually adopted by courts in the United States, and the case played an important role in shaping the American rule of birthright citizenship via jus soli ("law of the soil", or citizenship by virtue of birth within the territory of a sovereign state). However, the case has also been cited as providing legal justification for the restriction of legal rights to Native Americans following their conquest by the English.
Under the feudal system, the allegiance owed to a king by his subjects—connected as it was to the holding of interests in land—ruled out the possibility of any given individual holding land in two different kingdoms. Robert Calvin, born in Scotland around 1606, inherited estates in England, but his rights thereto were challenged on the grounds that, as a Scot, he could not legally own English land.
As it happened, the child "Robert Calvin" was actually named James Colville; he was the son of Robert Colville, Master of Culross, and grandson of the courtier James Colville, 1st Lord Colville of Culross.
The Court of King's Bench ruled in Calvin's favour, finding that he was not an alien and did have the right to hold land in England.
Although not directly relevant to the case, Edward Coke used the occasion to discuss the position of "Perpetual enemies", specifying "All Infidels are in Law perpetui inimici (perpetual enemies)" (166). Having accepted that a King who conquers a Christian Kingdom is constrained by the continuance of such laws as exist until new laws are put in place, he continues, however "if a Christian King should conquer a kingdom of an Infidel, and bring them under his subjection, there ipso facto the Laws of the Infidel are abrogated, for that they be not only against Christianity, but against the Law of God and of Nature." (170). Robert A. Williams, Jr. argues that Coke used this occasion to quietly provide a legal sanction for the London Virginia Company to dispense with affording Native Americans any rights as they settled in Virginia. In the Eendracht case, King Charles reconfigured the ruling for New England.
...
Wikipedia