Something I dug up over the weekend on "natural born".

"During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan -- the author of the citizenship clause -- described the clause as excluding not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Howard also stated the word jurisdiction meant the United States possessed a “full and complete jurisdiction” over the person described in the amendment. Such meaning precluded citizenship to any person who was beholden, in even the slightest respect, to any sovereignty other than a U.S. state or the federal government.

Thus, the status of natural born citizen is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States -- a condition not required under the common law. This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance. "

If you look at the Wong Kim Ark case, they based the ruling on common law. Same goes for U.S. v Rhodes , again decision based on common law. Which the 14th Amendment was clearly written to avoid.

From this site: http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/fea....

There's a legitimate controversy over exactly what "natural born" is.

My research has led me to conclude a particular thing. Others may reasonably disagree. This is a judicable controversy and should be heard in the appropriate venue (a court!), not arrogated by someone HIDING the documentation until AFTER they're in office.

But now that's happened, and it STILL needs to be adjudicated.

That makes sense - to someone who can grasp this concept. But, given that most people don't know the difference between a file and folder on a PC (including so-called journalists), I don't think this will grab any traction.

Heck, for that matter, the LFCLB may as well have "THIS IS A FORGERY" stenciled across it in rainbow colors, and the media would still report, "Hopefully this will shut those stupid birthers up!"

I have little doubt that Obama and those that helped him come to power have both the resources and the motive to pull something like this off. Just the fact that there are so many technical questions about the document they released shows they have zero concern about the main stream (public or media) confronting or challenging it.

Would be awesome to have some forensic document expert a Adobe chime in to explain in laymen's terms "yes, this document has been altered - and is clearly not a scan"... But I suspect that 'expert' probably has real legitimate concerns about making such a statement - namely how well the brake lines in his car hold up to wire cutters.

It probably does, but I don't think you remove a sitting President over it, or disallow a sitting President from running for re-election (though not technically, it smacks of ex-post-facto to do otherwise).

It is not the people's job to interpret the Constitution through voting. It is not Congress' job to interpret the Constitution by amendment. It is the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution.

I'm not advocating that we remove a sitting president. However, if a state or states decide to block Obama from the 2012 ballot, and it ends up in the Supreme Court to be determined what a natural born citizen is, then I say that would be appropriate. If the SCOTUS decided that natural born means two citizen parents, then Congress can attempt to get an amendment passed to remove natural born from the Constitution. They can amend it, not interpret it.

We have a legitimate Constitutional question here, like it or not. We can't be sure that the SCOTUS would interpret the Constitution the way the framers intended, but that's where the question should go.

Jeffrey-thomason, I will read the Ark case and get back to you. I can't give an opinion on it by reading an excerpt.

Add:

I'm not saying it would be easy. I'm not saying it wouldn't start a civil war. I'm not even saying the SCOTUS would get it right (they've gotten tons of **** wrong). I am saying it's a legitimate Constitutional question, and it belongs to the SCOTUS to answer.

For your info:

http://community.myvoa.com/_The-Seventh-....

Quote:

The Seventh U.S. President with a Foreign-Born Parent

With Barack Obama's election, immigrant parents from all over the world can now honestly tell their American-born children that they, too, can dream of one day becoming president. It's a cultural as much as as a racial barrier that's fallen: As the son of a Kenyan man, Barack Obama will be the first U.S. president with a parent born outside the British Isles or Canada.

Only six other U.S. presidents had a foreign-born parent. Mr. Obama will be the first in nearly ninety years, since President Herbert Hoover was inaugurated in 1929.

Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish. Presidents with one immigrant parent are Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England, James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers, and Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), whose mothers were born respectively in England and Canada.

Note that the USA went to war twice with England (1776 and 1812). I do kind of doubt we'll be going to war with Kenya, though perhaps I'm mistaken.

Maybe not relevant but interesting nonetheless, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (who famously led his nation to victory over the Nazis) had an American mother.

Quote:

Sir Winston Spencer-Churchill (1874-1965) was the son of Lord Randolph Henry Spencer-Churchill and the American heiress Jennie Jerome who were married on April 15th, 1874

I don't believe the birthplace of the parent matters. It is the citizenship of the parents.

Mortgagedude--You know what, trying to shut up the "other side" is not cool. This says you just want your own little click here to converse about it and don't WANT to hear another take on it.

As far as I am concerned, you guys can have this and I am not even going to engage anymore in this discussion.

Karl will lose all credibility outside of this forum...you know..WHERE IT MAY HAVE BEEN IMPORTANT. Really, where are you gaining any credibility if you are trying to muzzle everyone else?

Again, I certainly was open to what Karls findings are. Now..not so much. You've all become far too ridiculous. Now we have threads where Bin Ladens assassination was all done to throw his B/C off the tracks. You guys have done nothing more than slap the Military in the face for something we've waited near 10 years for.

YOU GUYS SUCK.

Karl, you're starting to jump the shark:

"Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military "

When it says children born to Americans, it doesn't mention whether the children have one or two American parents. Americans is pluralized because "children" is pluralized.

That resolution is specific to John McCain, which is why it mentions exactly the facts it does. Just because John McCain has two American citizens as parents doesn't make someone who has one American citizen as a parent ineligable, anymore than the fact that that resolution says "on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936" doesn't make someone not born in Panama in 1936 a natural born citizen.

You're grasping at straws here.

It's the citizenship of the parents. Doesn't matter where they are born, though there are some limitations about time in country, time as citizen, etc.

It's also where you're born. It has to be a US territory and both parents must meet the citizenship requirements.

That's the definition I agree with.

With regards to the legal definition of "natural born" vs "native born", there have been several US Supreme Court decisions which have precisely defined those terms.

See : http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4....

Quote:

4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"

IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN
by John Charlton

(Oct. 18, 2009) — The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to undertsand what this term means.

Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.

First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.

Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .

The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:
Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . .

The terms “natives” and “natural born citizens” are obviously English terms; used to render the idea conveyed by the French phrase “les naturels, ou indigenes”: but both referred to the same category of citizen: one born in the country, of parents who were citizens of that country.

In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term “naturels” refers to citizens who are such by the Law of Nature, that is by the natural cirumstances of their birth — which they did not choose; the term “indigenes” is from the Latin, indigenes, which like the English, “indigenous”, means “begotten from within” (inde-genes), as in the phrase “the indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and lived there for generations.” Hence the meaning the the term, “natural born citizen”, or “naturels ou indigenes” is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of that country.

Vattel did not invent the notion “natural born citizen”; he was merely applying the Law of Nature to questions of citizenship. In fact the term first appears in a letter of the future Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention, where the Framers were consulting 3 copies Vattel’s book to complete their work (according to the testimony of Benjamin Franklin).

Let take a brief look, now, at each case. For each case I include the link to the full text of the ruling.

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution. In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court:

Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 til Nov. 26, 1829.

John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 til July 6, 1835.

William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, til Aug. 4, 1834.

Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 til March 18, 1823

Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 til Feb. 7, 1826.

Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 til Jany 14, 1835.

Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 til Sept. 10, 1845

Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph Story’s father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the British. William Johnson’s father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutement of Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly. Bushrod Washington was George Washington’s nephew and heir.
Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.

The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.

WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP

In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

In 16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:

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 parents.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
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.

On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

CONCLUSION

Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfill his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.

Please note that in all cases the conditional term "parents" - plural - is made a requirement for "natural born" vs "native born" which merely requires one citizen parent and a geographically specific place of birth.

champ wrote..

Again, I certainly was open to what Karls findings are. Now..not so much. You've all become far too ridiculous

So you are now not open to where this leads because someone was mean to you on a message board ? And you call others rediculous?

Wow. That's a way

"Mortgagedude--You know what, trying to shut up the "other side" is not cool. This says you just want your own little click here to converse about it and don't WANT to hear another take on it.

As far as I am concerned, you guys can have this and I am not even going to engage anymore in this discussion.

Karl will lose all credibility outside of this forum...you know..WHERE IT MAY HAVE BEEN IMPORTANT. "

Yep. I posted polite rebuttals to Mr. Denninger's videos on youtube. For that he called me a oBot, and banned me from posting again.

I've been a semi-regular reader of his Blog for several years, very rarely commenting, but he's entirely lost me on this. Mr. Denninger is a very intelligent man with what I think is an admirable, non-partisan cause: that of corruption. Now he's looking for every silly excuse he can think of for why Obama's birth certificate is fake, and now he seems to be backing off that and looking for every silly excuse he can find for why Obama is ineligible to be president.

I quite certain Mr. Denninger will ban me for posting this, and probably even delete this comment. So be it.

Brody, I will buy into the De Vattel definition, as i know the founding father consulted that book in regard to what the law of nations was. The Wong Kim Ark case though does go into numerous British cases. I believe we have all heard about the UN diplomats that steal stuff and commit crimes and have to realize these people are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, thus have diplomatic immunity. Their children, according to English law, wouldn't be citizens of the US regardless of being born here, as their presence was clearly alien. The British cases go on to exclude children of parents that were from countries that Britain was at war with. I believe the strongest case could be made that Obama had become a citizen of Indonesia and it has been said that he represented himself as a foreign student when he came back to the United States. That would destroy his natural born citizen status if it could be proved. The Law of Nations and Natural Law is one of the most important books of its time for relating to the intent of the Constitution. It is as good a source as any.

The distinctions between people living at the time of the founding of the US and those born later were written into the law. It was clear that many people had moved to the US during the years preceding 1789 and thus the document, being organic, intended to let some of those people into the picture. I believe the term natural citizen is opposed to naturalized. I will finish reading the Wong case to digest what it says. I may also ask a friend who knows these matters better than all but a few lawyers and judges, if I can locate him. He is familiar with Blackstones and De Vattel and how they apply to nations of freemen.

Quote:

At 58, I find it extremely annoying that, even though I went to American schools, played baseball and football, and have stood by the Constitution, there are people out there who consider me a 2nd class citizen, ineligible for the presidency.

There is a rule set, if the Constitution lays out that rule that you are ineligible for president so be it. You consider yourself a second class citizen, grab between your legs and squeeze your balls. If it hurts great... if not ask the wifey for the real ones back.

@ Mannfm11,

My mama was born on the caprock in a one dog town SE of Lubbock. According to some of the arguments, guess that makes me a "natural born" Texan.

So even though my father was born in the US, I reckon I too am not eligible to be President.

Brody, the Wong Kim Ark case is pretty damn clear. De Vattel was using the European definition of natural born as defined under ancient Roman Law, which was different than the law in Britain. Americans went from being British subjects to Americans and thus used British law as defined over the prior centuries. I am a slow reader and the entire case took me over 2 hours to read. The attempt to deny Ark citizenship was because he was Chinese, hence the 14th amendment notation. It had been made against the law to naturalize Chinese, but because Ark was born in the US he was a citizen of the United States as a natural born citizen. The case is probably 40 pages out of the Supreme Court reporter.

I am sure todays court wouldn't get into the father or mother stuff that is discussed in this matter. The laws of 1802 and 1855 deal in part with children born outside the US to native born American parents. It basically grants citizenship to any child born of a native born father out of the country, but not a foreign born father. Born in the USA and natural born citizen have the same connotation in hundreds of years of British law. It doesn't make any difference if your parents are south American monkeys, as long as you come out human and are born here.

Though I could look it up, I saw reference to the Constitution was minimum years in the country as 4 for rep, 9 for senator and 14 for President. I assume this relates to the age of majority, thus not according one not of age to make the decision to be British instead of American citizenship. It would thus put all people that failed the born in the colonies test the same time test, 4, 9 and 14 years. Because everyone went from British to American, they placed that limitation or exclusion in the document.

In reading Wong Kim Ark, there are only 2 ways I see Obama would not qualify as President. Either he wasn't born within the country subject to the jurisdiction (not subject to the laws of the country through diplomatic immunity) or he chose citizenship in another country once he was old enough to do so. I would venture a third way, in that any other citizenship he might have possessed, he would have had to have outwardly taken action to have given that citizenship up. The issue of his father not being American is a non-issue.

This is the entire opinion of the Supreme Court with deeply documented reasoning and the acceptance or objection to the cases of the Justice that wrote the opinion. Natural born is clearly addressed in the top portion of the decision and much beyond the top 1/3 of the case is not an issue in the decision.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hi....

gen wrote..

There's a legitimate controversy over exactly what "natural born" is.

Karl, you read the first 5000 or so words of the case I posted above that Jeffrey Thomasson started this thread with, you won't have much doubt.

To me, the really serious issue is this. You cannot allow the principle or precedent to be established, that it would be perfectly fine for an individual with divided loyalties, to become President or Vice President of the Nation.

That direction points straight to a World of hurt, and your Nation will most assuredly arrive there. It would only be a question of when, not if.

To exclude the potential for division of loyalties as far as is possible (from this source, at least), 'Natural Born' has to mean a citizen born of a mother and a father that are BOTH citizens. Think about it.

There is another source of danger with divided loyalties, other than by birth, and that is by religion (eta:and another, where loyalty is 'purchased', and another, where loyalty is given to something 'external' - e.g. Soviet Communism, etc).

In Britain, we had terrible probems for centuries with leaders abandoning their obligations to the Nation, in favour of the Vatican and the Popes.

Popes were issuing fatwah's, that's contracts to kill, people that were trying to put the wellbeing of the Nation and its citizens ahead of the wellbeing of the Popes and their attempted interference in every walk of life (our Courts, Education, Property, our Rights and Liberties, you name it).

This issue is not about Obama or the Democrats or the Republicans.

Think on this. If this is allowed to be a precedent into the future, imagine if the very worst nightmare divided loyalty President imagineable, achieved Office, and was a REPUBLICAN.

Do you Democrats seriously want to inflict that possibility upon yourselves?

To me, there is a way around this that should accommodate everybody reasonably well, and that is for the current Presidential term to be made a marked and noted exception, with all future elections being strictly with the qualification criteria of Natural Born being as it should properly be interpreted, a citizen born of two citizens.

For sure Natural Born isn't everything. But it IS one of the few (and unfortunately very necessary) safeguards that is available, and it was made a requirement for extremely good reasons.

It saves lives, and it can save an incredible amount of lives. The lives of your children and their children.

That is worth defending.

For some perspective, here is a list of grievances caused by divided loyalties, as listed in our 1688 Bill of Rights (and something like this would have been included in America's first Bill of Rights, granted circa AD 1700):

"Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome.

Dispensing and Suspending Power.
By Assumeing and Exerciseing a Power of Dispensing with and Suspending of Lawes and the Execution of Lawes without Consent of Parlyament.

Committing Prelates.
By Committing and Prosecuting diverse Worthy Prelates for humbly Petitioning to be excused from Concurring to the said Assumed Power.

Ecclesiastical Commission.
By issueing and causeing to be executed a Commission under the Great Seale for Erecting a Court called The Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall Causes.

Levying Money.
By Levying Money for and to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative for other time and in other manner then the same was granted by Parlyament.

Standing Army.
By raising and keeping a Standing Army within this Kingdome in time of Peace without Consent of Parlyament and Quartering Soldiers contrary to Law.

Disarming Protestants, &c.
By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.

Violating Elections.
By Violating the Freedome of Election of Members to serve in Parlyament.

Illegal Prosecutions.
By Prosecutions in the Court of Kings Bench for Matters and Causes cognizable onely in Parlyament and by diverse other Arbitrary and Illegall Courses.

Juries.
And whereas of late yeares Partiall Corrupt and Unqualifyed Persons have beene returned and served on Juryes in Tryalls and particularly diverse Jurors in Tryalls for High Treason which were not Freeholders,

Excessive Bail.
And excessive Baile hath beene required of Persons committed in Criminall Cases to elude the Benefitt of the Lawes made for the Liberty of the Subjects.

Fines.
And excessive Fines have beene imposed.

Punishments.
And illegall and cruell Punishments inflicted.

Grants of Fines, &c. before Conviction, &c.
And severall Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction or Judgement against the Persons upon whome the same were to be levyed. All which are utterly directly contrary to the knowne Lawes and Statutes and Freedome of this Realme."
......................................

And yeah, we are right back at square one over here too, with all this stuff coming back in via the back door from Brussels, as we now have leaders here with divided loyalties again. :/

Quote:

Mls: You wouldn't use the definition of "natural-born citizens" to determine the status "citizenship at birth" if the two weren't equivalent.

You might if you were using the wrong definition of "natural-born citizens."

(For other readers): We're talking about US v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 US 649 (1898)

Issue: Whether a child born in the US, to two Chinese parents living in the US, becomes a citizen at birth by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment.

Holding: Yes.

Jeff, I'm a textualist and and an original-intent-er when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. The ARK opinion appears to use more of a historical interpretation at the beginning, when they go into English common law. IMHO, that part was just plain wrong.

First, the writers of the Constitution specifically made a distinction between "natural born citizen" and just regular "citizen." English common law doesn't have a distinction between natural born subject and regular subject. The opinion ignores that.

Second, the opinion doesn't say one word about the framers' intent, which we've read in other writings. To interpret the Constitution using common law over original intent is wrong, IMHO. True, most of our laws are derived from common law, but the framers were trying to get away from England's rule....therefore, their intent should be highly regarded when interpreting the Constitution.

Even if you disagree with that, the issue before the Court was about the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment was put in place to make the civil rights act permanent. It declares that all persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens. It's purpose was to include everyone in basic citizenship rights, not to define natural born or lower the citizenship requirement for a president. The issue in the ARK case was easy: if children born to freed slaves (non-citizens) are citizens, then certainly a child born to Chinese parents (non-citizens) is a citizen. The rest of the diatribe about common law was a waste of time. However, the Supreme Court always does that. The opinions are written by clerks, not the Justices, and they have a tendency to get carried away and run off on some tangent.

As for the dissent, I mostly agree with it:
- Children born to American parents outside the US should be US citizens;
- English common law is not the way to interpret our Constitution;
- Original intent should be taken into account (i.e., writings of Vattel)

Long story short (too late, I know):

Anything the SCOTUS has written about natural born citizenship is just commentary, not precedent. The natural born requirement ONLY applies to the president, and the SC has never heard a case regarding that. The question remains to be settled.

(Karl, thanks to your comment about Rubio today, I see why the Republicans are ignoring this issue.)

Quote:

Believe it or not, I could probably not document that I am eligible to be POTUS.

I'd never thought about that before, namely that anyone who has been adopted and can't produce proof that both of his/her biological parents were American citizens can't be President. I know my kids can't, because they came from Russian-born parents, but I'd never thought about domestic adoptions, or international adoptions in which both biological parents may have been American citizens (unlikely, but possible).

And, yes, my first reaction to the announcement of OBL's "death" was, "yet another distraction." Perhaps some of this skepticism re. the BC is gaining some traction after all.

As I see it you are correct Mlshawaii.

From Mannfm11's link:

"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of *resident* [my *] aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, *domiciled* [my *] within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while *domiciled* [my *] here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ***"if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."*** [my ***]

A Natural Born Citizen (a child whose parents are both Citizens) is not a Native Born Citizen (born within the Territory via parents not Citizens) is not a Naturalised Citizen (acquiring Citizenship via a period of qualified domiciled residence).

However they are ALL Citizens. But there are distinct and acknowledged differences, confirmed in that quoted Supreme Court decision.

Now onto something else.

Obama's father was neither a 'resident', nor 'domiciled'.

He was a short stay foreign student, that outstayed his welcome as a guest of your Country.

To me, that raises very strong questions as to whether Obama is even qualifiable as 'Native Born' (and he is most certainly not 'Natural Born' and that's for sure).

eta: By the way I have no axe to grind, being neither a Republicn nor a Democrat (or even an American, for that matter). The legal and constitutional aspects however, are really fascinating.

U.S. Supreme Court,

MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874):

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ge....

Quote:

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.

Supreme Court. It's not a "decision" but, there you have it. It's a real issue.

That is also taken nearly word for word from Vattel's Law of Nations. That is important to note because it says the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar. This (inadvertantly I presume) draws a distinction between Blackstone's "natural born subjects" and Vattel's "naturels" which the founding fathers DID TRANSLATE as "natural born" prior to the writing of the Constitution, as you can see here:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?am....

Don't ignore the extra dimension that Allegiance plays/played for British subjects Riposte.

From what I have seen, that aspect has been touched upon too lightly.

Citizenship depended upon Allegiance to such an extent, that if anyone's Allegiance was in doubt, they could (still can, legally) be summoned to swear an Oath of Allegiance before a Justice of the Peace.

If they did not turn up, they lost their Citizenship.

If they refused to swear the Oath of Allegiance before the JP, they lost their Citizenship.

eta: also, this :"These were natives, or natural-born citizens" clearly confirms distinct, separate, Citizenships.

It did not say natives AND natural-born citizens.

eta2; The language could be clearer, even if the principles are clear enough. I think the Supreme Court needs to clarify the principles and the position, which fundamentally, are clear enough and straighforward enough. Natural Born - two citizen parents; Native Born - domiciled, resident parents; Naturalised - qualified period of lawful domiciled residency.