Skip to comments.OBAMA HAS SHOWN THE WORLD THAT HE WAS NOT BORN TO A U.S. CITIZEN FATHER, SO WHY IS HE IN THE WH?
Posted on 04/30/2011 10:59:37 AM PDT by Hotlanta Mike
Obama has now personally and publicly acknowledged, albeit with the silliness of an eight-year-old with a crayon and a piece of security paper*, that he is not a natural born Citizen as defined by the Constitution:
1. Article II, Section 1:5 says that only a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President; 2. Article I, Section 8 says that Congress (under the authority granted by the People) shall have the power to define and punish Offenses against the Law of Nations; 3. The Law of Nations says that:
1.The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens; 2.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; 3.The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; 4.To be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. Now that Congress has been made fully (and publicly) aware that an ineligible non-natural born Citizen is occupying the Office of President and Commander in Chief (they could not be so stupid as to not know see Something Stupid This Way Comes), it becomes incumbent upon them to begin impeachment proceedings immediately, lest their failure to act previously or especially now that they and the whole world knows makes them chargeable with Misprision of Treason.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
>>it troubles me greatly to see that you and other members of FR are willing to throw birthers under the bus. it seems to me that if the founders used the phrase natural born citizen then it was meant to mean something, and a continuing discussion of what it means must come before abandoning the issue. making light of people who want a serious discussion of its relevance is the easy way out. see my tagline.<<
You don’t understand. This is not the time nor the place for that discussion. Like it or not, the release of the COLB ends the discussion.
I am not making light — I am EMPHASIZING — you birthers are factually wrong and should let it drop.
If you want to start a “discussion” of citizenship, then link it to anchor babies and immigration reform as it should be.
In the meantime you just like you are putting tin-foil on the entire Tea Party movement’s collective head.
LET IT GO. There is no “there” there.
The law THEN was different than the law NOW. He is not a natural born citizen.
So if Kadaffy's daughter, or Bin Laden's, or IamAnutJob, or the head of the ChiCom party.... comes to the US, gets an American (or say a 1st generation Mexican anchor baby) to plop a kid out with....
.... He can be President?
And you're cool with that?
If it's the law, it's the law. Since when does the USA visit the sins of the father on the son? You want to open debtors prisons too? They made sure kids paid for their bad parents.
You want to change the laws? Great! Take it up with the legislature.
But the TOTUS-reader is a natural born citizen by all current law (and jurisprudence) and you birthers are making us all look like nut-cases.
The "Fact" that he cannot be removed means we are already beyond saving.
But it DID at the TIME.
That being the point.
Excuse my ignorance — what part of that section of US code define’s “Natural-Born” citizens? I see where it speaks to citizenship. Schwarzenegger is a citizen. So what?
Obviously, there is *no* U.S. code that defines “Natural-Born” as stated in the Constitution regarding qualifications for the office of President. Vattel’s Law of Nations defined it as being born in country by two citizen parents. ie - having no birth-allegiance to any other nation-state (the reason for the term “natural-born” I would surmise). Vattel even mentioned that citizenship flows from the father.
That other presidents may or may not have had “natural-born” issues does not invalidate the US Constitution nor does it set a valid, court-defensible precedent. The current issue would need to be resolved by the SCOTUS; but that likely won’t happen before Obama’s term is up. Even so, that does not mean it shouldn’t be pursued, if only to establish a SCOTUS precedent for future presidential candidates.
>>Obviously, there is *no* U.S. code that defines Natural-Born as stated in the Constitution regarding qualifications for the office of President. Vattels Law of Nations defined it as being born in country by two citizen parents. ie - having no birth-allegiance to any other nation-state (the reason for the term natural-born I would surmise).<<
Show me a single court case where Vattel has been used as a basis. Show where in the USC it says Vattel applies.
By your reasoning NO ONE can be a “Natural Born citizen.”
You are splitting hairs you aren’t even qualified to address.
I say again: STOP!
Birthers asked for the COLB — we got it, issue over.
If we can prove the new LFBC is a fake then we have something. Otherwise... we have better places than this to put our energies for 2012.
Hitler wasn’t German.
If "natural born citizen" is a synonym for "citizen," then there is no reason for adding the exception "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." None at all. Being a citizen is not sufficient, unless you happened to be alive when the Constitution was adopted.
So what, then, is a "natural born citizen"?
The argument is made that "natural born citizen" means the same thing that "natural born subject" means in English common law, except for the differences in meaning between a subject and a citizen. That idea is easily falsified:
The English common law did not distinguish between a "natural born subject" and a naturalized subject. "The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is "to all intents and purposes a natural born subject." Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. 785, 790 (1866).). Under English common law, once a person became naturalized, he or she was deemed to be a "natural born subject." Hence, under English common law a naturalized citizen was considered a "natural born subject."
Hence, giving the "natural born Citizen" clause the same meaning as a "natural born subject" would have allowed a naturalized citizen to be eligible to be President of the new Republic. But Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 mandates that only a "natural born Citizen" is eligible to be President. The clause is written as "No person except . . . shall be eligible . . ." which means that one must be a "natural born Citizen" in order to be eligible to be President, with no exceptions other than for those who were citizens when the Constitution was adopted.
The way we have interpreted the "natural born Citizen" clause since the beginning of the Republic, a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. But assuming the "natural born Citizen" clause had the same meaning as a "natural born subject," with the Constitution as written it would not have conveyed in any manner that a naturalized citizen was not eligible to be President. No where do we find in the Constitution any statement that a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. To reach this conclusion, we have always relied upon the "natural born Citizen" clause itself which we have compared with the fact that the Framers prescribed in Article I that naturalized citizens were eligible to be Senators ("nine Years a Citizen of the United States") and Representatives (seven Years a Citizen of the United States") . The manner in which the Framers provided that Senators and Representatives needed to be "Citizen of the United States" for only a certain amount of years shows that the naturalized citizen class was included within "Citizens of the United States" and not within "natural born Citizens." This shows that naturalized citizens were not part of "natural born Citizens."
So equating the meaning of a "natural born Citizen" to a "natural born subject" would have allowed naturalized persons to be President, a result that we have rejected from the beginning of the Constitutional Republic. Such a meaning would have created an exception to the "natural born Citizen" clause which would have eviscerated the clause itself. Additionally, since Congress has the power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 to make uniform the naturalization laws, such a meaning would have given Congress the power to decide who could be President by simply changing the naturalization requirements. The Framers, fearing that Congress would allow foreign influence to creep into the office of President if it were given the power to select the President, did not give Congress such power.
But the argument is also made that "natural born citizen" differs from "natural born subject" in only 2 ways: 1) The difference in meaning between a subject and a citizen, and 2) "natural born citizen," unlike "natural born subject," excludes naturalized citizens. But this also is easily falsified:
Firstly, as soon as a second difference is posited, the entire rationale for the argument collapses utterly. That rationale is based on the premise that US citizenship law derives directly from English common law regarding who is or is not a British subject. But if "natural born citizen" differs in meaning from "natural born subject" in any way other than is required by the fact that the US has citizens and Britain has subjects, that invalidates the only premise and justification for defining the US term based on the definition of the British term. It breaks the symmetry, and sets the precedent that the meaning can differ in other ways as well. In other words, if the meaning of the two terms differ in at least one respect other than the difference between subject and citizen, what prevents them from being different in yet a third way? Or a fourth? And so on, ad infinitum.
Secondly, the historical facts are clear and undeniable, and are strongly supported by Supreme Court rulings: English common law was the basis for the common law of the original British colonies, and then of the original States of the Union, but was not the basis for the common law of the United States Federal government.
The framers rejected the notion that the United States was under English Common Law, The common law of England is not the common law of these States. George Mason one of Virginias delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
One reason such is the case is because the US was founded as a Constitutional Republic, not as a monarchy. The founding principles were different, and in fact were an explicit rejection of key foundational principles of English law and English government. Another issue was simply that each colony was founded at a different time, adopted English common law as its own at the moment of its founding, but then evolved its own common law going forward, independently of Great Britain and the other colonies. So there was no common "common law" among the founding States!
Finally, words and terms of art have the meanings they do because of their utility in the culture and society that uses them. New words and phrases are created with particular meanings, and existing words and phrases are given new meanings, because those new meaning serve the purposes of those who use them, and old meanings no longer do. So that raises the question of the purpose or intent of the purely American term "natural born citizen," especially in the context of the new Constitutional Republic being created by those at the Constitutional Convention.
The reason for the "natural born subject" requirement is established by John Jays letter to Washington in his role as chairman of the Constitutional Convention: Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.
Those words irrefutably establish the fact that the Framers were worried about the undivided loyalty of the President, and thought that the requirement that he be a natural born citizen would be sufficient to prevent anyone with foreign allegiance (anyone who could be claimed as a subject or citizen of a foreign sovereign) from serving as President. But how could that be, if "natural born citizen" differs from "natural born subject" solely in the difference between a subject and a citizen? A British "natural born subject" could have multiple nationalities, and owe allegiance to multiple sovereigns. And many nations claim anyone with at least one parent (sometimes it must be the father, sometimes it must be the mother, sometimes both) who is a citizen or subject of that nation as a citizen/subject also.
Therefore, it is beyond any possibility of dispute that the only way the "natural born citizen" requirement can prevent a person from having allegiance to a foreign sovereign is if its meaning is the same as the one de Vattel defined and labelled "les naturel, ou indigenes," and which a professional translator translated into English as "natural born citizen" just a few short years after the "natural born citizen" requirement was written and ratified in the new US Constitution. Literally and normatively, the words "les naturel, ou indigenes" mean "the natural ones, the natives." So why did the translator render them into English as "natural born citizen," unless it was his expert opinion that the meaning of "natural born citizen" in the Constitution matched the meaning of the concept defined by de Vattel, where de Vattel specifies the purest form of citizenship as requiring both jus soli and jus sanguiniswith BOTH parents being citizens?
Clearly, if both your parents are citizens (or subjects) of the same sovereign, and you were born in that same sovereign's territory, then and only then is it impossible for any foreign sovereign to have a claim to your allegiance under the law of nations as commonly understood. John Jay's request to Washington makes no sense otherwise. If that reasoning is sound, then "natural born citizen" must have been intended to have the same meaning as de Vattel defined for his term-of-art phrases "les naturels, ou les indigenes."
Irrefutable point: Consider again Article II, section 1, pa. 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." That limits who may be President to persons who meet the following requirements:
Why did the Constitutional Convention include that last exception, allowing those who were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted to be President? The ONLY POSSIBLE REASON FOR THAT EXCEPTION IS THAT WITHOUT IT, NO ONE COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY BECOME PRESIDENT, BECAUSE NO ONE COULD SATISFY THE CONSTRAINT OF BEING A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Before answering that question, consider the case of Congressman Smith. He was born in South Carolina before the American Revolution. At the time of the Revolution, he was not yet an adult. His parents were British loyalists, and fought against the Revolution. But after the Revolution and the adoption of the Constitution in 1787, he was elected to Congress. But his right to be seated was challenged on the basis that he was not a citizen, due to the actions of his parents.
James Madison himself spoke in defense of the fact that Mr. Smith was a citizen. The reasoning he used is decisive with respect to understanding the reason for the exception in the Constitution to the "natural born citizen" requirement.
Madison essentially argued that Mr. Smith was a citizen because of where he was born, and because he was a minor when his parents sided with the British loyalists against the American Revolutionaries. He focused on that point, because he obviously felt that any adult who sided with the British loyalists would not qualify as citizens, regardless of where they were born (he explains the reason for that.) Bear in mind that the Constitution allows naturalized citizens to serve in Congress, there is no requirement that one have "birthright citizenship" (whose normative definition means either "jus soli" OR "jus sanguinis" citzenship (OR, not AND.)) But Madison nevertheless argued that Mr. Smith was a citizen from birth, by reason of his place of birth alone, and explicitly not due to his parentage, because (as Madison argues) his parents never were US citizens at all.
Madison's argument prevailed, and Mr. Smith was seated as a Congressman. The Congress accepted Madison's argument that Mr. Smith had birthright citizenship solely due to the location of his birth in South Carolina—when South Carolina was British Colony, and not yet a State of the United States. By that same logic, most residents of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted were native citizens of the US by their place of birth alone.
If "natural born citizen" means "born on US soil, with parents who were US citizens when their child was born," then it would in fact be true that no one alive at the time could have satisfied the "natural born citizen" requirement, in which case there is a good reason for the exception.
But if "natural born citizen" means essentially the same as "natural born subject" (differing only to the extent that a citizen differs from a subject, and also excluding those whose citizenship was acquired by naturilization) then any citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted would satisfy the "natural born citizen" requirement, so there would be no need for the exception, and its inclusion in the Constitution makes no sense. No sense at all.
His mother was NOT 18 when he was born, so couldn’t confer citizenship on him. So even if his mother wasn’t legally married, he still couldn’t be a citizen
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.
But of course, there are no SCOTUS decisions that actually set any legal precedents regarding what "natural born citizen" means, because no case has ever come before the court where that was one of the issues to be decided. Courts don't decide issues not brought before them by the litigants, and whatever they say on such matters is dicta, and sets no precedents.
>>Show me a single court case where Vattel has been used as a basis. Show where in the USC it says Vattel applies.<<
I never claimed to be qualified to address it and I even said it would need to be resolved by the SCOTUS.
Perhaps you can show us a single court case where the *natural-born* citizenship qualifications for a President/candidate was resolved? I doubt you would find one. You might find where mere “citizenship” was determined, but not, specifically, “natural-born” citizenship. Not saying it doesn’t exist, but I’d be really surprised. Perhaps you aren’t qualified to address the issue either, but I won’t take offense like some appear to.
Where have you been? There have been so many threads about this. Please look for them.
“0bama was born in Hawaii to a woman who was a US citizen. He is a natural-born citizen. We don’t like that, but it is the truth. Case closed.”
The House of Representatives definition for “natural born Citizen” was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!
every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”
Parent’s is PLURAL, not one BOTH. Obama’s father was NOT a US citizen, so no, Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. Obama’s father’s allegience was to a foreign country.
The last time I checked, the House of Representatives was just half of one branch of government. It cannot make laws without the Senate and President concurring. Did this definition make it into a law? Was this law superseded by future court cases and newer laws?
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.