“NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”:DEFINED BY 14TH AMENDMENT FRAMERS AND IN TREATISE RELIED ON BY SCALIA

Natural Born Citizen ^ | 12-11-08 | Leo Donofrio

[STARWISE]

PREAMBLE

This week has been quite enlightening as to the blatantly obvious fact that our “Fourth Estate” press corps have been transmogrified into propaganda ponies polly wanna crackering whatever may be handed down to them from “The One Corporation - your source for everything…” (cue eery theme tune). They don’t report the news anymore. No. Now they tell you what they want the news to be. There’s a huge difference.

For the record, my law suit was brought to remove three candidates from the ballots - three candidates who have big Constitutional issues as to their eligibility.

At the time of his birth, Obama was a British/Kenyan citizen by descent of his father. Because I pointed out pesky international laws which governed his citizenship due to the fact that a father has every legal right in the world to have the laws of his nation apply to his son, I have been labeled a conspiracy freakoid of nature.

Never mind that I included demands for Panama John McCain and the Nicaraguan born Roger Calero to also be removed from our ballots. No, they don’t want to talk about that do they - because it would blow the “he’s just another Obama hater” mantra clear out of play.

A citizen (me) raised the Constitutional issue of first impression as to the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article 2, Section 1, of the United States Constitution - that ultimate pesky legal document for those who would rather “be” the law instead of following it.

What are the Fourth Estate propagandists worried about? Thou doth protest too much. Me thinks so. Why? Because the law is against their man - it indicates Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the United States. And most of the media pundits have basically agreed by default. I say this because when yelling and mocking the issue, their main argument is not that the law is on their side (they know it isn’t), but rather that the law shouldn’t be discussed at all.

PRESIDENTIAL PRECEDENT

Other than the fraud perpetrated by Chester Arthur (see prior stories), every post grandfather clause President of this nation was born in the United States to parents who were US Citizens.

In their wisdom, they recognized the danger in having people born under the jurisdiction of another country taking the role of commander in chief.

They did this recognizing that multitudes of loyal men wouldn’t be eligible, but they also knew that they couldn’t see into the soul of all possible candidates, so just to be safe, they put a restriction in the Document which is there to protect us from a sneak attack in the oval office by somebody who might have loyalty to another nation.

The framers themselves were good men, loyal to this infant nation, but they recognized that people like them had to be excluded from future Presidential eligibility as an order of protection.

McCain and Obama know that.

And in my stay application, I never accused either man of disloyalty. Quite the opposite.

*snip*

As to John McCain they would have found this:

Senator John McCain is an American patriot who has valiantly suffered more for this country than most of us ever will.

He has shown bravery beyond that which the country has any right to ask, and it is with very deep and sincere regret that I respectfully request that this Honorable Court order the Secretaries of the several States to remove John McCain’s name from the ballots.

I couldn’t have shown the candidates more respect. But both of them should have known that if either were to become President - despite the loyalty they have for this country - the dam would be broken and the waters of foreign influence would be forever capable of drowning our national sovereignty and placing our military in the hands of enemies from within.

IT’S NOT ABOUT OBAMA OR McCAIN - IT’S ABOUT WHO COMES NEXT. THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT AND FALLEN ON THEIR PRESIDENTIAL SWORDS TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY

~~~

Rest at link

[Non-Sequitur]

Just because a certain clause of the Constitution lacks a certain degree of precedent before the Court does not make the meaning of the words or the context of thm in the times they were used irrelevant

That clause also lacks another thing - a definition of the difference between natural born and citizen at birth. As Justice Gray wrote, "The fourteenth amendment of the constitution...contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only-birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization." That's two forms of citizenship, not three. Two. Citizen at birth and natural born citizen are one and the same, and if Obama and McCain meet the legal definition of citizen at birth - which they do - then they are eligible to be president.

[TheBigIf]

You say in your post:

“we’re governed by laws enacted under the Constitution of the United States.”

Then why do not the meaning of the words at the time they were written mean anything to you. That is when they were “enacted”. Leo’s argument addresses the orginal meaning of the words legally when they were written.

You are trying to claim that these words were not legally defined when they were at that time.

[Non-Sequitur]

Now if the Courts duck even trying to enforcethat law, what other parts of the Constitution are they going to duck?

According to the law any person born in the U.S. and any person born abroad of parents who are both U.S. citizens is a natural born U.S. citizen. So the court isn't ducking the enforcement of the law.

[El Gato]

Is this true? I’m sorry to hear about Jindal. He’s a great conservative.

Not everyone agrees that someone in Jihdal's circumstance is not a natural born citizen. It can be argued, for example, that the 14th amendment changed the definition. Some also argue that even at the time the Constitution was written, under English law, and under the US laws at the time, someone born here *was* considered natural born.

[El Gato]

Is this true? I’m sorry to hear about Jindal. He’s a great conservative.

Not everyone agrees that someone in Jihdal's circumstance is not a natural born citizen. It can be argued, for example, that the 14th amendment changed the definition. Some also argue that even at the time the Constitution was written, under English law, and under the US laws at the time, someone born here *was* considered natural born.

[Non-Sequitur]

Then why do not the meaning of the words at the time they were written mean anything to you. That is when they were “enacted”. Leo’s argument addresses the orginal meaning of the words legally when they were written.

No, Leo addresses what he claims were the original meaning of the words. His opinion is not supported by any law or any words in the Constitution itself, and is contradicted by Supreme Court decisions. So I'll go with federal law and the Supreme Court over Leo's opinion.

[TheBigIf]

“That clause also lacks another thing - a definition of the difference between natural born and citizen at birth. As Justice Gray wrote, “The fourteenth amendment of the constitution...contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only-birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” That’s two forms of citizenship, not three. Two. Citizen at birth and natural born citizen are one and the same, and if Obama and McCain meet the legal definition of citizen at birth - which they do - then they are eligible to be president. “

This justice though was in no way making a ruling on the Constitutional eligibility fo the office of President.

You are mistaking apples for oranges.

[El Gato]

If the Framers had wanted to say “anyone born on U.S. soil” then they would of said that but instead they used a term that was defined just as Leo said.

The founders don't always have the last word, latter amendments can change things.

Amendment XIV, Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

So certainly Jindal was a "Citizen at Birth", it remains to be seen if that is the same as a "natural born" citizen. I think in this case, involving a Constitutional amendment, as opposed to a change in the statute law about the requirements for a person born outside to the US to recieve citizenship via a parent or parents, the answer is probably "Yes".

[STARWISE]

I’m not the author of this article, but
thanks for the snarky comments.

[TheBigIf]

“No, Leo addresses what he claims were the original meaning of the words. His opinion is not supported by any law or any words in the Constitution itself, and is contradicted by Supreme Court decisions. So I’ll go with federal law and the Supreme Court over Leo’s opinion. “

So at least no you admit that he is making a claim. I thought before it was mere ‘blather’.

There are no supreme court decisions that contradict Leo’s way of defining the orginal definition of the term.

Go with whatever you want to but your still wrong. As I said before, in your description the words had no orginal definition at all.

[El Gato]

So? If he was born in Hawaii then he's a natural born U.S. citizen, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the nationality of his father has no impact on that.

But that is a very big IF.

[TheBigIf]

You said?:

“The founders don’t always have the last word, latter amendments can change things.

Amendment XIV, Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

So certainly Jindal was a “Citizen at Birth”, it remains to be seen if that is the same as a “natural born” citizen. I think in this case, involving a Constitutional amendment, as opposed to a change in the statute law about the requirements for a person born outside to the US to recieve citizenship via a parent or parents, the answer is probably “Yes”. “

---

This latter Amendment defines a citizen but not a natural born citizen. It in no way was written either (there is no historical context) in any way that it was intended to change Artile II - Section 1 of the Constitution.

[JustaDumbBlonde]

"As is Obama, assuming he was born in Hawaii. But Donofrio would disagree with us on all three counts."

Whom is the third? trumandogz mentioned Obama and Jindal.

[Non-Sequitur]

This justice though was in no way making a ruling on the Constitutional eligibility fo the office of President.

Yes he was. The whole gist of the case was summed up by Justice Gray when he wrote, "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." The Court confirmed the concept of two classes of citizen - citizen at birth and naturalized. The court confirmed that any person born in the U.S., regardless of the nationality of their parents, is a citizen at birth. Therefore it confirmed that any citizen at birth can be president.

[Non-Sequitur]

Whom is the third? trumandogz mentioned Obama and Jindal

McCain. Donofrio doesn't think he's eligible either since he wasn't born in the U.S.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

I hate to dispute anybody who calls himself an “oldfart” because I can’t type and laugh at the same time (although I can multi-task...at times.)

There was Gorgas Hospital (civilian) located in Ancon, Canal Zone. It was a huge hospital. At the time of WWII, it contained huge wards mostly filled with our wounded military.

There was a HUGE hospital being built at Fort Clayton, on the Pacific side, in preparation for our Pacific island hopping we were going to have to do. It was in preparation for receiving the wounded coming out of the Pacific.

All that became irrelevant when we dropped our atomic bombs on Japan although the hospital was ready by then.

Anybody who argues how awful we were to drop two A-bombs on Japan needs to come here to Panama and see what the U.S. built expecting the worse for our military.

Also, these same idiots forget the death at Pearl Harbor.

[Non-Sequitur]

There are no supreme court decisions that contradict Leo’s way of defining the orginal definition of the term.

There are decision which clearly state that there are two forms of citizenship - citizen at birth and naturalized. The court decisions define who is a citizen at birth.

Go with whatever you want to but your still wrong. As I said before, in your description the words had no orginal definition at all.

Like I said before, given a choice between accepting Donofrio's defintion and accepting the law and the opinions of the Supreme Court then Donofrio loses every time.

[El Gato]

But we aren't governed by the writings of 17th century Dutch lawyers or the opinions of Senators, we're governed by laws enacted under the Constitution of the United States. If there is a difference between natural born citizen and citizen at birth then what is it? Where is it defined in the Constitution? Where is it defined by law, U.S. law? Where is that done? What Supreme Court case has defined the difference? Can you point me to any of that?

Logically there must at least be the possibility of a difference. Congress defines "citizen at birth". But Congress cannot redefine any terms of the Constitution. (Except by amendment of course, but that they cannot do alone). Thus Congress could, and has many times, changed the requirements for "Citizen at Birth". They have only amended the Constitution once to define who is a citizen, and even then did not actually use the term "natural born citizen". With that exception, "Natural Born Citizen" must mean now what it meant when the Constitution was written and ratified. It is after all a contract, and except under conditions specified in that contract, the meanings of it's terms cannot be changed by either/any party to that contract.

Otherwise congress could declare that "right of the people" actually meant "power of the states".

[BP2]

The following reference is by Emer de Vattel (April 25, 1714 - December 28, 1767). He was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political philosophy. He is most famous for his 1758 work, "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns." This work was his claim to fame and won him enough prestige to be appointed as a councilor to the court of King Augustus III of Saxony.

From p. 183 of "The Law of Nations":

NOTE the words "born", "parents" and "citizens".

Hmmmm:

Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton was the key organizer of the movement to hold the Constitutional Convention, that wrote the U.S. Constitution. As the nations's first Secretary of the Treasury, he played a crucual role in shaping the policies that became known as the American System. Here we examine how his thinking was shaped by Emmerich de Vattel's work, "The Law of Nations."

Hamilton, Madison ... and I understand Justice Thomas uses Vattel to define Constitutional meaning.

And if the SCOTUS can use Emer de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” to help define “Arms” in The Second Amendment, bottom of pg 17 in June 2008 ...

Vattel might be good enough to define "Natural Born Citizen."

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

What I have said in the past:

The good news is that McCain lost.

The bad news is that Obama may have won.