Posted on 12/06/2008 10:16:07 AM PST by centurion316
What might the phrase “natural-born citizen” of the United States imply under the U.S. Constitution? The phrase has always been obscure due to the lack of any single authoritative source to confer in order to understand the condition of citizenship the phrase recognizes. Learning what the phrase might have meant following the Declaration of Independence, and following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires detective work. As with all detective work, eliminating the usual suspects from the beginning goes a long way in quickly solving a case.
What Natural-Born Citizen Could Not Mean
Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth?
(Excerpt) Read more at federalistblog.us ...
I've always maintained that there is a COLB, and that the Obama team was dangling it as a rope-a-dope that no one picked up on. However, now that he's been elected why is he not releasing it? That is quite suspicious if you ask me. Secondly, I've also been wondering why people in the GOP are not making an issue of it. Some FReepers have said it's because they don't want to be labeled racist (I say 'so what' to that, since as a citizen ...particularly one that was elected to serve the nation ...you should be willing to lay down your life in the service of the nation, and you should not let someone who is not eligible to take the most powerful seat in that nation just because you don't want to be 'called names'). However, we've hashed that out with other FReepers many times, and there is no need to bring that into this thread (although I do fervently believe that, in the same way 19 year old soldiers are willing to lay down their lives for their country, 60 year old politicians should also be willing to lay down their POLITICAL CAREERS for their country. One should not expect people who cannot legally drink to make the ultimate sacrifice, yet politicians are not willing to risk being called names).
Anyways ....no need to drag that here.
The main thing, as far as I am concerned, in regards to this thread is this: reading it I noticed that a lot of the cases and scenarios are from the late 1800s. Is that not an Achiles heel that any adept lawyer on the Obama side can pick on? All the cases regarding citizenship only being confered by the father alone, and those statements being made in the 1800s, does not seem like it would stick in modern-day America.
Is that movie as bad as Junior? That one was a train wreck, horrible but couldn’t stop watching. I never heard of Rabbit Test.
I am interested in the issue, but have no doubt of the outcome: Barack Hussein Obama will be duly elected by the Electoral College and inaugarated as the President of the United States. This will become just another bit of the Constitution consigned to the waste bin of history because its incovenient for politicians.
Republicans will do nothing about this, of that you can be sure. However, if the shoe was on the other foot, the Democrats would be raising unmitigated hell about it.
Ping!
Not, IMHO, if he's a bastard.
Because of the recent drive toward equal rights for men and women, I believe the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of the union between Stanley Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama will have some bearing on this.
As is well known at this time, Barack Hussein Obama "Sr." was already married to at least one woman in Kenya, and already the father of one or more children, when 17-year-old Stanley became pregnant.
However, Kenya, being British Territory at the time, that earlier marriage may have been unrecognized by the Crown as a so-called "Tribal Marriage."
Logically, if Stanley Dunham were not legally married at the time of the Chosen One's birth, wouldn't that tend to make the bastard a citizen? And if indeed, it happened in Hawaii, wouldn't he automatically be a "Natural born" citizen, no matter what his mother's status at the time? Somewhat tangentially, children born in California to single ... or married ... Mexican citizens in this country illegally, are counted as "Natural Born American Citizens," are they not? OTOH, if they were born anywhere else in the world, they would be Mexican Citizens. This seems to be entirely "unconstitutional," and hallowed by some sort of immigration rules tradition, rather than strict law.
If Stanley Dunham was a natural-born American Citizen legally visiting Kenya (one assumes), wouldn't that make any illegitimate offspring solely hers, and passing to them her American citizenship? Whether the bastard could then be considered a "natural born citizen," if born in another country, is certainly an entirely appropriate question!
If Stanley were legally married to BHO, Sr., their child would be a dual citizen, no matter where it happened, right? BHO, Sr. never accepted American citizenship, and so would pass his rights as a British Subject, and then a Kenyan Citizen, onto his legitimate son.
Since all of this is enough to make anyone's head hurt, I shall not go into the Indonesian Chapters. Let SCOTUS clerks field that foul ball.
So many questions. So little time. And I believe perhaps giving new life to that off-color expression, "Lucky Bastard."
Not, IMHO, if he's a bastard.
Because of the recent drive toward equal rights for men and women, I believe the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of the union between Stanley Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama will have some bearing on this.
As is well known at this time, Barack Hussein Obama "Sr." was already married to at least one woman in Kenya, and already the father of one or more children, when 17-year-old Stanley became pregnant.
However, Kenya, being British Territory at the time, that earlier marriage may have been unrecognized by the Crown as a so-called "Tribal Marriage."
Logically, if Stanley Dunham were not legally married at the time of the Chosen One's birth, wouldn't that tend to make the bastard a citizen? And if indeed, it happened in Hawaii, wouldn't he automatically be a "Natural born" citizen, no matter what his mother's status at the time? Somewhat tangentially, children born in California to single ... or married ... Mexican citizens in this country illegally, are counted as "Natural Born American Citizens," are they not? OTOH, if they were born anywhere else in the world, they would be Mexican Citizens. This seems to be entirely "unconstitutional," and hallowed by some sort of immigration rules tradition, rather than strict law.
If Stanley Dunham was a natural-born American Citizen legally visiting Kenya (one assumes), wouldn't that make any illegitimate offspring solely hers, and passing to them her American citizenship? Whether the bastard could then be considered a "natural born citizen," if born in another country, is certainly an entirely appropriate question!
If Stanley were legally married to BHO, Sr., their child would be a dual citizen, no matter where it happened, right? BHO, Sr. never accepted American citizenship, and so would pass his rights as a British Subject, and then a Kenyan Citizen, onto his legitimate son.
Since all of this is enough to make anyone's head hurt, I shall not go into the Indonesian Chapters. Let SCOTUS clerks field that foul ball.
So many questions. So little time. And I believe perhaps giving new life to that off-color expression, "Lucky Bastard."
I also think it's odd that no actual record of marriage between Stanley and the polygamous, drunken, violent Harvard man, and Luo intellectual has been made public.
We could be seeing ground-breaking new legal tactics here ... The Bastard Gambit!
Well, we’ve already been down that road, and it didn’t make a bit of difference.
Bill Clinton’s real father was a documented bigamist, making Bill a bastard by law to match his well earned right to that title by word and deed. The Kansas City Star did an excellent investigation of this matter at the time and published the relevent documents that proved the point.
As I recall, Mr. Clinton served two terms as President. Mr. Obama will serve at least one term no matter what evidence is presented that he is not elibilbe. Politicians do not observe the Consitution anymore, except when it is in their political interests to do so.
Obviously after Obama gets elected and its been proven that he got there by ignoring the explicit requirements of the Constitution AND endorsed by the SCOTUS it then sets a president that future Presidential nominees need not be US citizens.
Schwarzenegger can be elected, a former head of the USSR can be elected, an Italian porn star can be elected, by not enforcing it NOW it opens the door for every clown dog and pony show on earth to take turns sitting in the Oval Office.
This is a very well thought out argument and I tip my hat to the author. Except for a couple of points it seems irrefutable. The argument says you must be a citizen by nature and not by law, and explains this as descending from the citizenship or allegiance of ones father. As an example he states that if my father were a British citizen, my mother an American citizen and I was born in the United States, then I would be a British citizen. It sounds very logical including the part that says by law my father could repatriate me to the UK at his will. He says this makes me a British citizen by nature.
If that is true then many of our founders were not eligible for the presidency. One can say that laws were passed specifically giving exception to those living in the United States at it's inception. But isn't that citizenship by law, not nature and does it not contradict the authors whole argument.
Secondly, there is no such thing as a citizen by nature. Citizenship is not a biological function whereas birth is a natural biological function. It takes a law to say you are a citizen of the country of your biological father. If it were natural, why not the mother? It is simply obfuscation to say that citizenship has anything to do with nature. Citizenship is purely a construct created by law, not nature.
That is not how I read the article. It contends that the original U.S. Citizens were citizens of the various States by virtue of their births in those states and became natural born citizens of the U.S. when those states joined the union, natural connoting their birth right of citizenship and not requiring the invocation of any law. Therefore, those born in the several colonies that subsequently joined the union were natural born.
You are entirely correct, and all politicians, both Democrat and Republican do not wish any limits put on their ability to hold elective office. Since its now proven that anyone can buy an election, politicans will be the last that will wish to have eligibility obstacles placed in their way.
"Therefore, those born in the several colonies that subsequently joined the union were natural born." I certainly agree with your intent and I agree that these men were eligible, but the constitution didn't make them natural born citizens. It just says "a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President" along with natural born citizens. The constitution clearly allowed British citizens living in the colonies to become president. French, Dutch, German, Portuguese & Persian too for that matter. My disagreement with his argument is his definition of natural born, not what the constitution says. He claims natural born means you are by nature born a citizen of the country of your father. How? Is it in the ten commandments? Is it in anything Darwin wrote later? Can a student majoring in biology point to any text book that shows this to be natural. If this is the definition of natural born, then it was defined by law, not nature. Hence, his argument falls apart as he says "If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen."
I'm just saying the definition of natural born simply has to be one defined by law not nature.
On a tangent, Article II, Section 1 does leave a bit of wonderment. How can one be a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution? Weren't they all citizens of Britain, or the British colonies at that time, and then conveyed citizenship in the United States after it's adoption? I say the author wants the term natural born to mean the elimination of foreign allegiance as it supports his conclusion. But didn't this allow for some very pro-British, very anti-US people the chance to be president? This fellow also argues that natural born eliminates anyone with any allegiance to another nation from becoming president, while the second half of the very same sentence allows for this very thing to happen.
Keep in mind that this is simply my argument, with as much validity as any argument. Any law can be argued to mean anything you want, depending upon a person's persuasiveness on a given day and which side of the bed a judge awakens. In the end judicial law is all opinion and should be name judicial opinion instead of judicial law.
Personally I think Obama is qualified but it would sure be interesting watching a genuine constitutional crisis unfold in the immediate future. Not to mention all the fireworks that would be involved. A fortune will be made in newsprint and ink if it comes to pass.
I take your point.
On the matter of the words about being a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, I believe that the United States had been an independent country for some years prior to the adoption of the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation having proven to be an inadequate framework for the Republic.
On a side note, I am a graduate of the University of Missouri. Three of my children are Mizzou graduates. The fourth, a poor lost soul, is a graduate of the University of Kansas. I tried telling her just last Saturday, while sitting at Arrowhead stadium in Kansas City that she is a natural born Tiger and not a Jayhawk. When the Hawks beat the tigers on the last play of the game her antics, celebrations, hooting and general taunting of her siblings and I didn't indicate much love or allegiance to her natural born ala mater.
University of Arkansas - myself, my wife
University of Colorado - myself
Kansas State University - my wife, my son
Did KU and Mizzou play last weekend? Must have missed it.
Thanks for the ping!
I actually posted this article a week or so ago as a thread myself-—but I am very happy to have it back up again. It needs as much visibility as possible.
More discussion here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2137253/posts
There was never any question that Clinton’s father was an American citizen at the time of Billy’s birth.
There was never any question that Obama’s father was NOT an American citizen at any time.
Therefore, Obama did not receive citizenship by descent from his father (i.e., “natural born”). If that is what the law requires, as opposed to receiving citizenship by descent from his mother or from both parents, then Obama is not a natural born citizen and, therefore, is not eligible to serve as President of the United States.
I am so sorry I missed it then. Thank you.
Believe me, no problem! I just wanted to marry up the two discussions. I am getting busy on the new thread myself right now. And I’m glad you saw the article this time. It’s a very, very good one.
Thanks again.
This is not a complete statement. In this example, you would be a British citizen (IF so under British law) and you would be an American citizen by operation of law based on the place of your birth.
You would not, however, be a "natural born citizen," because you did not attain American citizenship by operation of nature (by descent from your father or from your father and mother).
What is confusing is that that there are no differences between being a citizen BY birth (that is, by operation of nature) and a citizen AT birth (that is, by operation of law) EXCEPT in one highly unusual, specific and important respect: only those who are citizens BY birth---that is, by descent---(as opposed to AT birth--that is, by law) are eligible to serve as president.
The practical reason for this seems to be to limit the presidency (and the office of Commander in Chief) to those individuals who were at least second-generation Americans.
More here if you're interested:
Citizen by birth ("natural born"), citizen by operation of law, naturalized citizens. [ #22 ]
Limiting the presidency to those who are at least second-generation Americans. [ #108 ]
Like these words from Justice Gray?:
"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 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 within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."
This idea may be recognized at law, but it was not defined by law.
No country in the history of the world has ever denied citizenship by birth to the children of its citizens. This was considered a "natural" right, a characteristic that descended from one's father naturally, meaning on its own, without any help from or approval needed from a sovereign.
As I've posted elsewhere on this point:
When two robins mate, they produce robins. When two Americans mate, they produce Americans.
That is the “nature” of things, pure and simple. One could say that is the “law of nature.” It "naturally" happens by the act of birthing. It has never been countenanced that a man, apart, perhaps, from legal fictions such as slavery, could be born without a country.
No one needs a preacher (or a lawyer, for that matter) to reveal that robins birth robins and Americans birth Americans.
That is all.
Everything beyond that is made up by man and, thus, is not by operation of nature, but by operation of law.
How can you determine who are citizens by act of law if you do not first define by law who are not? In otherwords, how can you legally define a naturalized citizen without first defining who is a natural born citizen? And that is what Congress has done over the years, defining citizens at birth as opposed to naturalized citizens. So why shouldn't their definition apply to presidential candidates?
Hmmm. Pretty much sounds like. Now.
My answer to your question is here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2144085/posts?page=26#26
They are native born citizens, not natural born citizens.
They are citizens AT birth, not citizens BY birth.
They attained citizenship because our laws deem persons born in the U.S. to be U.S. citizens.
A natural born citizenship attains citizenship by descent from his American parents, regardless of his birthplace.
Boo, sorry for the italics. MB.
Your earlier thread and your comments therein are very interesting, sorry that I missed it first time around.
Agree, required reading.
So to continue your analogy a bit further, you can by law turn a robin into an eagle? Or that the offspring of a beagle and a poodle is not a dog?
We're talking citizenship not species. Citizenship is an act of man, not nature, and man defines what constitutes citizenship. And you can go back far before this country was established and find that the accepted rule was that a person born in the country was a citizen of that country. You can go back to Edward Coke in the 17th century who's writings influenced much of England's common law that everyone seems so fond of, and who wrote "...if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm..." And since the ratification of the 14th Amendment, even before then, the accepted principle was that children born in the country were citizens at birth.
With respect to your comment as why GOP did not make Natural Born Citizen an Issue. GOP knew that its nominee, Senator McCain, under the same definition of NBC was not eligible. There were several lawsuits challenging Senator McCain eligibility long before the first lawsuit was filed against Obama.
With regard to your second point that how 1800 law sticks in modern day: In the absence of any amendment or any case law, the 1800 law applies
Yes, it is a very good article. I’ve just finished perusing the comments at the source article — excellent, as well.
lol. Ah-yes, but then there is the term "Native American Indians". I recall a time when these were referred to as "Indians" in all public ed textbooks. PCisms wrought about "Native American".
Just had to throw this into the mix. And yes, I do understand the distinction between "native" and "natural law" being discussed here. I once heard a leftwing discussion forum on perpetrating the notion that under American laws, the only ones who really were qualified to run for POTUS in this sovereign nation would be "Native American" Indians. This, however, is a function of liberalism, and not law.
Back to your post: the robin then is also Native (pre establishment of governing laws). Therefore, an American Indian can be both "native" and "natural born" provided his/her father is natural born American.
ruminating aloud...
Then the Federal government will be illegitimate and so will be anything it asks its citizens to do. Presumably, we can stop paying Federal Income.
Legal union (Marriage) of Stanly Ann Dunham to the sperm donor is irrelevant. In other word sperm donor counts and not the legality of the union. On 12/4, two attorneys discussed this topic on Plains Radio.
If Barack sr. is not the sperm donor, then Mr. Obama needs to disclose who his father is.
Just my opinion, but I don’t think that Stanley Ann and Barack Sr’s being married, or not married would make any difference in Obama Jr’s citizenship.
Obama Sr was his father. He would have passed British citizenship to his son, whether he was married to the kid’s mother, or not.
Similarly with Stanley Ann, the fact that she was unmarried at the birth of her son would not have stopped her conveyance of US citizenship to her child (though not Natural Born citizenship).
Another fact to be aware of, is that Barack Obama has freely admitted that he held British citizenship at birth. It’s on his website, and the quote has been posted here many times.
What you say is true, and the Framers made allowance for the fact that they were born in what was essentially British territory before the formation of the Union.
I refer to the famous "grandfather clause" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5:
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;"
This one line in the paragraph allowed them to hold the office of President, but no one thereafter, who was not a "Natural Born Citizen" of the US.
Sure, when talking citizenship, you can turn a “robin” into a “eagle.” Happens every day when a citizen of (fill in the blank) naturalizes into a citizen of (fill in the blank). Germans become Australians, Canadians become Americans, VietNamese become French and so on.
This analogy went to rebut the argument that there was no “natural” citizenship, ONLY citizenship by operation of law. Wrong.
I’m certainly not suggesting, as your discussion seems to indicate, that someone born in America is not an American citizen. They are. The question is whether they are a “natural born citizen” and, on that point, I would say it depends on the citizenship they received by descent (from their parents).
I have posted many times that birthplace determines citizenship (as you cite) because the law says so. That is precisely why birthplace might not be relevant to whether one is a “natural born” citizen-—because that status seems to be one that is attained *apart from* the operation of law.
So you argument that being born in America makes one an American AT birth, while true, in no way refutes the argument that being born in America does not make one an American BY birth.
And, again, there is *no difference* between the citizenship attained AT birth and the citizenship attained BY birth, except the former is not eligible to serve as president and the latter is.
No problem at all. I was very happy to see this posted again. There are always people-—me, included-—who are just tuning in at any given time.
A concept unsupported by law or any section of the Constitution I'm aware of. Nor by a considerable body of foreign precedent.
So you argument that being born in America makes one an American AT birth, while true, in no way refutes the argument that being born in America does not make one an American BY birth.
I'm suggesting that it does. We recognize two types of citizenship; citizenship at birth and naturalized. If citizenship at birth and natural born citizen are not synonymous then you'll have to point out where that is detailed.
Do you acknowledge that Obama held dual citizenship at birth, if he was born in the U.S.? Do you realize that he became a naturalized citizen when his British citizenship expired, according to his own assertion on his website? [BTW, aren’t those obamanoid worship kneepads too tight for you?]
In short:— a natural born citizen would be one who, by operation of nature (descent) was born American, regardless of birthplace;
— a citizen would be one who, by operation of positive law, was deemed an American at birth, regardless of parents’ citizenship; and
— a naturalized citizen who, by operation of positive law and volition, becomes an American sometime subsequent to birth.
That's a good argument and the best definition I've ever heard argued concerning natural born citizen. The next step is convincing a few key judges. I haven't read any decisions that would rate as precedence agreeing with you, but there's always a first time.
Yes I do.
Do you realize that he became a naturalized citizen when his British citizenship expired, according to his own assertion on his website?
No I don't, because he didn't. If he was born in Hawaii then he's been a natural born U.S. citizen from that day to this.
[BTW, aren’t those obamanoid worship kneepads too tight for you?]
Not Obama worship, though it's easy for you to mistake it as such with your raging paranoia.
One last piece of data for your obsequious position before the obamanation: the Child Naturalization Act of 2000 states that any child born before 1983 has their nationality determined by their father. Have a nice evening ...
Thanks.
Feel free to link to the posts to get the ideas circulating.
The guy writing this article is making the argument that “natural born citizen” must be a status that is attained by descent, not birthplace. So I hope his analysis is getting lots of airplay. I am sure there are many attorneys furiously trying to pull together amicus briefs should the opportunity arise.
The framers’ were most concerned about a person with ties to the old country becoming Conmmander in Chief. The point of limiting eligibility was to limit the possibility of foreign allegiance.
The interpretation I set out here is the best one for accomplishing what the framers wanted to accomplish. Essentially it ensures that the presidency is limited to those who are at least second-generation Americans.
It would have made no sense for them to accept that merely being born in the U.S. made one eligible to be Commander in Chief. Imagine a palace intrigue in which an heir to the French or English throne was birthed in the new nation and thereby eligible to run for president when he came of age. They were seriously worried about usurpers who would have a foreign allegiance becoming president.
What is still unclear to me is if these anchor babies are considered natural-born or not. It is clear that we are granting them citizenship, even though there is no constitutional provision for doing so, no matter who, or where, the father is, and who's their Mama.
Of course, the Mexican government, for example, is also happy to grant them full citizenship in the home country of the Mom, or Mom and Dad, making them, I suppose, Dual Citizens. So if I understand what I am being told here (my problem, not yours), the granting of that foreign citizenship means little Jose and Maria are American citizens, but would not be "natural born?" Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.