Skip to comments.Judge Malihi Rules Against Plaintiffs: Says Obama Born In Hawaii Therefore Natural Born Citizen
Posted on 02/03/2012 2:19:38 PM PST by GregNH
click here to read article
I am glad you said that! You are acknowledging that the 14th amendment created the "born on the soil" standard for the nation. Putting aside for the moment the fact that "subject to the Jurisdiction thereof" means something very different from what the Wong Kim Ark court alleged, the 14th amendment established that a "citizen" would be someone born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The problem for you is this. The meaning of "natural born citizen" Pre-Existed the 14th amendment, and therefore could not be a derivative of it. Whatever was the meaning of "natural born citizen" prior to the 14th amendment, it remained so after. Indeed, whatever the meaning was of "natural born citizen" in 1787, is the meaning that it still possesses today. The 14th amendment did not repeal article II's eligibility requirements.
But that is just MY opinion. Let us see what the Supreme Court had to say regarding this question. In 1875, (Minor v Happersett) while discussing the 14th amendment Chief Justice Waite said this:
[The 14th Amendment] does not 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.
That is about as clear as it gets. The 14th amendment "does not say" who shall be "natural born citizens"!
So I will grant you, the 14th amendment (created to bestow citizenship upon former slaves who had no birthright by blood) made anyone born in the United States and Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, (such as a former slave, but not an illegal immigrant) a "citizen" of the United States.That this is the same thing as a "natural born citizen" I explicitly reject.
The Congress discussed the term "natural born citizen" during the debates on the 14th amendment, yet the finished amendment conspicuously omitted the words "natural born." So did the Wong Kim Ark court.
I think you need to move beyond Minor v Happersett - the justice system certainly has and all you are doing is falling further behind. Yours is a losing argument.
Thanks. I claim no legal expertise, and am more interested in discovering the historical truth about what the authors of the Constitution actually intended (if this turned out to be in Obama’s favor, so be it). The interpretations and traditions of courts are definitely not immune to error or manipulation. My point ultimately is that the Founders would have most likely regarded Obama, Jr. as precisely what you have written: the child of a British citizen overseas, and thus a British nbs, thus not an American nbc. A post not far above that cites Madison’s comments on exactly such a case in 1811, corroborates this view.
Actually, I think they would have regarded him as an American NBC as well because he was born in this country, regardless of whether Britain would have claimed him as a citizen as well.
I do not believe that any nation can have workable rules of citizenship based upon whether other nations consider that person a citizen. If someone qualifies as a U.S. citizen, then they are a U.S. citizen regardless of whether any other nations claim them or not. There is nothing in either British Nationality law or U.S. law that says claims of citizenship by other nations, under their laws, matter in the least.
Just as an example, the 14th Amendment clearly makes anyone born in this country a citizen under U.S. law. But under British law, a person born in this country of two British parents would be considered a British citizen. This hypothetical is always looked at from the perspective of the U.S. when discussing this issue, but try flipping it around.
Let's say two Britons are in the U.S., and give birth to a child. Under American law, that child is a U.S. citizen. But under British law, the baby is a British citizen. Does Britain then decide, "well, if you claim him as a citizen, he's not really a British citizen despite what our own laws say?" No, of course not. That child's citizenship status under the laws of Britain is determined by the laws of Britain, regardless of whether we consider him a U.S. citizen or not. Likewise, whether some other country claims someone as a citizen under their laws is irrelevant as to their citizenship status under U.S. law.
Oooh. Another internet virtual toughguy. I’m so impressed. Not.
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.