Defining Natural-Born Citizen

Federalist Blog ^ | November 18, 2008 | P.A. Madison

[EDINVA]

The only entity that can interpret the Framers’ intent in drafting the Constitution with any authority is the Supreme Court. So far, they have refused to do that. Their job is only to interpret what was meant at the time of its framing, not what’s popular today.

IF the SCOTUS were to interpret ‘natural born’ in its strictest meaning, as was likely the Framers’ intent, and it isn’t popular in the USA today, we have a mechanism called Amendments to change it to something more acceptable in the 21st Century. But the SCOTUS can’t just run a poll on what is or isn’t popular.

[faucetman]

Not chasing theories, but the FACTS. His LEGAL father is who it says on his long form BC. We don’t care who the sperm doner was.

If it turns out Obama indeed is a natural born citizen, then so be it. The truth will set you free.

[StonyBurk]

Agreed with this only added— Neither the 0’s mother— nor his father were citizens of the US at the time of his birth. The only way he can claim to even be native born is if he was actually born in the USA that he HATES so much (or hated until he became President)

[StonyBurk]

I hear the plan is to have Major Malik Hasan run for the Office instead of th eO that we could have our first anti-American PResident followed by our first Islamic Terrorist President—and th e) can go on to be that head honcho for the global caliphate.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Neither the 0’s mother— nor his father were citizens of the US

Barack Obama’s mother was Stanley Ann Dunham (who would name a girl, Stanley?, but I digress ). She was born in Wichita, Kansas. Why would she not be a citizen of the US (unless of course, she ACTIVELY and LEGALLY renounced her US citizenship ).

[SeekAndFind]

RE: This is bs

Kindly elaborate.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: McCain was born at the public hospital in Colon, Panama

You seem to be saying that someone born of AMERICAN PARENTS overseas is not a natural born citizen....

Here’s a theoretical example -— If Benjamin Franklin married an American woman, then went to France with her to be our Ambassador ( which he did ) and had a male child by her, born in Paris named Ben Jr. Is Ben Jr. a Natural Born Citizen?

[bjorn14]

That is my current understanding of NBC because Ben Jr. would not meet the Jus Soli (Born of Soil) requirement. Just saying...

[kabar]

Yes, yes, I’ve heard the speculation and theories that perhaps his dad is Frank Marshall Davis or maybe it’s Malcolm X, or maybe it’s his grandfather, Stanley Dunham! Do you even realize that you’re arguing for his natural born status? If either of these men are his dad, and he is born in Hawaii, he’s natural born and he’s eligible.

I'm not arguing for anything except the truth. Let the chips fall where they may.

I tend to take him at his word; that his dad is the foreign-born and non-U.S.-citizen Obama Sr. From Obama’s own mouth, he has already told us that he is not eligible.

Sorry, but his word is not good enough. Even the Pope's word wouldn't be good enough. You need to verify it using the primary source. We need real proof availble to the public, not assurances from government officials who have seen the documents. We already have former Hawaii officials stating that they have seen the long form birth certificate and that Obama was born in Hawaii.

The Hawaiian state health official who personally reviewed Barack Obama's original birth certificate has affirmed again that the document is "real" and denounced "conspiracy theorists" in the so-called "birther" movement for continuing to spread bogus claims about the issue. "It’s kind of ludicrous at this point," Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the former director of Hawaii's Department of Health, said in a rare telephone interview with NBC.

"The first is that the original so-called "long form" birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a "record of live birth" — absolutely exists, located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health. Fukimo said she has personally inspected it — twice. The first time was in late October 2008, during the closing days of the presidential campaign, when the communications director for the state's then Republican governor, Linda Lingle (who appointed Fukino) asked if she could make a public statement in response to claims then circulating on the Internet that Obama was actually born in Kenya.

"Before she would do so, Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files. She then put out a public statement asserting to the document's validity. She later put out another public statement in July 2009 — after reviewing the original birth record a second time."

[kabar]

What in the world makes you think a BC contains such information, particularly in the case of a married woman?

We have the mother's divorce papers, but there is no proof that I am aware of that they were married. Here is a copy of the alleged COLB. Notice it names a father.

Here is a copy of a 1963 long form birth certificate from Hawaii. Don't you think it would be interesting to see these data on Obama and his father?

Assuming the BC does list the birth father, as opposed to the legal father, which it doesn't in any state, AFAIK, where could they possibly get such information except from the mother? And what makes you think she would tell the truth? Or possibly that she even knew who the "real father" was?

I am not assuming anything. I want to see the primary document and what is in it. Here is what Fukino said,

Before she would do so, Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files. She then put out a public statement asserting to the document's validity. She later put out another public statement in July 2009 — after reviewing the original birth record a second time.

I am curious as to what was handwritten and what was typed. Perhaps the part about the father was amended or some other portion. And obviously, the handwritten part could be done after the fact, i.e., many years after the fact.

As far as the real father is concerned, that is not the issue. I am only interested in who is listed legally and when it was done.

[kabar]

This has never been tested in the courts. My daughter was born overseas. My wife and I were Amcits and I was serving as a diplomat. My daughter was automatically given American citizenship under the law. The only real question is would she be eligible to be President under the definition of natural born citizen under the Constitution. IMO, the courts would have to decide should it be challenged. I am confident that she would be eligible given our status overseas and the fact that both of us are US citizens.

[bjorn14]

This was part of the Naturalization Act of 1790 which was in part repealed in 1796 and the rest in 1802.

“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,”

You’re right I believe the USSC needs to succintly define NBC status so we don’t have to go through this again.

Ever since my 8th grade civics class I always believed NBC status meant 1. Born in the US. 2. Born of citizen parents.

BTW, I see the DoS is redisigning the foreign birth certificates. Maybe too many were counterfeit.

[Sherman Logan]

You don’t consider divorce papers proof of a marriage? Don’t you have to show proof of marriage to the court when starting divorce proceedings?

[bjorn14]

They were divorced but page 11 is missing from the divorce cree. I am also interested to know where the newspaper announcments for their wedded bliss are?. At least what the vital records sent.

[kabar]

I was upbraided a few months ago because I thought that divorce proceedings were proof of marriage. Someone who at least claimed that she had a legal background and experience in such matters said that a marriage license was not necessary to get a divorce. I am not a lawyer so someone else will have to opine on it.

[kabar]

Or where they were married.

[TheOldLady]

Soar With the Eagles
Sign up to donate monthly
and a sponsoring FReeper will donate $10

Urgent: Save Lazamataz! Donate today

[Mr Rogers]

“Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?

It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of “natural-born subject.”

-— SeekAndFind

“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution...

...The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:

Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

-— US Supreme Court

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

---

You can argue for anything you want, but the US Supreme Court has already disagreed with you. And the courts will follow the US Supreme Court, not you.

[FreedomPoster]

As a citizen adopted as an infant by an American military family, I took keen interest in citizenship issues in grade school in the 60s and 70s. This was an era when “anyone could become President”, but I knew I could not. There is no doubt that the Civics classes in that era taught that NBC meant A) born in the U.S. and B) of two people who were American citizens.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: There is no doubt that the Civics classes in that era taught that NBC meant A) born in the U.S. and B) of two people who were American citizens.

---

Well, if that definition is correct, John McCain should not have been the GOP candidate because he did not meet criteria A.