Skip to comments.The best definition of natural born I've seen
Posted on 12/07/2008 10:47:56 PM PST by The Watcher
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at federalistblog.us ...
The author has researched well. Although not based on case law, the logic and reasoning are clear and easy to follow and seem flawless.
An interesting read but I disagree. Natural Born Citizen means anyone who receives citizenship by birth, and not through a naturalization process.
I get this from two documents by John Jay and Hamilton provided on pg 888-889 of this paper, I think they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone born a US citizen who didn’t renounce that citizenship, can be US president.
Welcome to Free Republic.....
I think the case is compelling that it requires a person be a citizen without reliance upon any law.
That is, both parents being citizens, and birth where no other jurisdiction exists.
Those born in the US are citizens not by a law or statute, but by 14th amendment. Hence natural born citizens.
I concur, Natural born is the opposite of Naturalized. There are citizens and non-citizens. Of the citizens, you are either natural born or naturalized. This is not rocket science people.
Follow this: Obama was a dual citizen at birth by his own admission, so when his British/Kenyan citizenship expired he became solely U.S. thus naturalized not natural born ... cannot be natural born citizen if born with dividied citizenship.
Wrong, but nice try. Reach back tot he days of the founders and see what it was they were trying to acvoid in a POTUS ... divided loyalties. Having citizenship in two countries at birth is divided loyalties. If born on a ship at sea under no nation’s flag, what would determine if natural born or not? ... Both parents being American citizens would make the child a natural born citizen.
Well, at least we know if something happens and Obama does not get sworn in, he could go torture the Brits by trying to be Prime Minister!
I believe my link (pg 888-889) show the founders did not share your view of natural born citizenship. Furthermore, there is evidence that at least one former US president (Chester Arthur) was born of one non-US citizen.
The U.S. has never recognized dual citizenship. One is either a citizen or not a citizen. If one is a citizen, one is a citizen by birth (i.e., a natural born citizen), or by naturalization. There is not, nor has there ever been, a third “type” of citizenship.
Yes, the founders wanted to ensure that a President was wholly loyal to the United States, but they sought to do so by requiring that the President be a citizen from birth, not through naturalization.
Your argument sounds nice, but, frankly, it lacks Constitutional, statutory, historical, and case-law support of any kind.
I don’t no who this Jill Pryor is; her conclusions are nothing but Bull Crap. I doubt anyone has taken her writing in the Yale Law Journal seriously. It appears to me you pick a Loon to cite.
Why do you say that? Why not respond to Pryor’s argument instead of attacking the messenger by calling her a loon? Ad hominem attacks are rarely productive.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, inserted the phrase:
... All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. That means subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means ... Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldnt make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens ...
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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...
Read pg 888-889. I don’t care what this guy says. I care what Hamilton and John Jay said.
That is in fact the point of the lesson ... because Barack Obama by his own admission had British citizenship at birth that his father registered for him, Barack Obama could not be an American citizen naturalized until his British citizenship expired. You tell me the U.S. has never recognized dual citizenship (false, I have a cousin who is now naturalized here and still holds her Mexican citizenship) yet you expect that Barack Obama can claim British and American citizenship? Is that what you’re trying to tell me?
no = know
Also, that is a quote that deals with the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within the Fourteenth amendment. It says nothing about the interpretation of the phrase "natural born citizen" in Article 2. Unless, again, you are arguing that the children of non-citizens are not citizens, in which case you'd be ignoring 100+ years of consistent caselaw & statutes.
Well, I'll be interested in what John Jay did say (not much, Hamilton) but you will find in this article, apparent sources and resources relevant to the framers, which require both components (birth in state and birth by citizen father).
They include John A. Bingham (framer of 14th Amendment), St. George Tucker (foremost commentary on Blackstone vis a vis U.S. Law) and Emmerich de Vatel (The Law of Nations).
Zarodinu why don't you do us the favor of excerpting and posting what you deem most relevant from John Jay? And yes, welcome to FR.
Pryor makes the argument that naturalized citizens are actually natural born citizens and therefore eligible for the presidency. She’s probable a loon on the left.
Look at it this way - if Britain enacted a law stating that any person who has at least one British grandparent is a British citizen, would that mean that the grandchild of a British citizen, born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents would not be a "natural born citizen"? After all, under British law, that child would be a British citizen.
The point, of course, is this: It is absurd (and in fact dangerous) to think that an American's citizenship - or eligibility to be President - can depend on the operation of foreign law. I do not want any foreign country to have any say, even incidentally, over who can or cannot be my President.
OK, I read those two pages. They say that they don't say.
I.e., they say that neither Jay's nor Hamilton's correspondence are specific about the matter of what exactly constitutes a "natural born citizen." And they say that correctly, because the excerpts this book lists are not definitive on the matter.
Therefore, one must look at the contempraneous sources that these founder and framer folk frequented -- and the documentation of others. That is what I have just given you. ;-)
Now, the significant point is that Jay sought to exclude foreign allegiances for the Commander in Chief, in requiring a "natural born citizen" -- something that Donofrio is explicit about in his suit.
Hardly, when it comes to being born by a father who passes one's citizenship to the child. That competing allegiance is exactly and explicitly what the framers and founders sought to avoid.
You can cite ridiculous examples of someone in the PRC calling Sarah Palin a Citizen of China all night long, but that is hardly the same thing.
If the eligibility of a presidential candidate born outside the territorial United States were challenged under the natural-born citizen clause today, the outcome, based on traditional methods of approaching the clause, would be unpredictable and unsatisfactory. This Note's approach removes the confusion caused by Supreme Court dicta asserting that there are only two classes of citizens, native-born and naturalized. As historical and textual analysis has shown, a citizen may be both "naturalized" and "natural born." Under the naturalized born approach, any person with a right to American citizenship under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States at the time of his or her birth is a natural-born citizen for purposes of presidential eligibility.
And what about my other point/question - is the child of a non-citizen, born in the U.S., a citizen at all?
Once again: Yes, they sought to avoid competing allegiances, but they did so by ensuring that the President was born a citizen of this country.
You have still yet to cite anything suggesting that there has ever been a third "type" of citizen.
I believe it was customary at the founding, to allow the state the child was born in, to say so, or not. I've recently read that James Madison complained about that (he complained a lot, but I agree).
That is the "anchor baby" dilemma that remains a point of contention. Under current law, he's a Citizen. He, however was not a "natural born Citizen," to the framers, by all we know about them.
They used those two modifying words for good reason. They were our highly educated founders/framers and they were writing our Constitution, after all.
And why use extra words, anyway? The sheet of vellum is only so big.
Why use extra words? Simply to distinguish between naturalized citizens and natural born citizens.
It’s what they get the big bucks for.
You mean words meant things to the framers?
Rush Limbaugh would be proud.
So... somebody should tell Rush Limbaugh....
You have not read what I have cited. Read what BP2 posted, then read Tucker said -- and Bingham in the article which starts this thread.
They are both utterly clear: 1. born in the nation and, 2. born of an American citizen father.
I’m no lawyer but even I understood most of the arguments here.
To the writers you quote, an individual who met your qualification (1), but not (2) would not be a citizen. This is a concept of citizenship that has been rejected in this country - via statute, case-law, and understanding of the Fourteenth amendment - for well over 100 years.
To cite Donofrio's own words from his blog:...in http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2008/12/donofrio-dual-citizenship-natural-born.htmlThe Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn't want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. [I.O. ed., letter by John Jay] The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.
From the article:
One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.
Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her fathers citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth.
Bookmarked it... Thanks for the link!
That has no bearing upon the meaning of the United States Constitution. It is always to stand as written. The only way to change the meaning and intentions of the Consitution is via amendment.
The HYPHEN also makes for DUAL Loyalties.
I’ll ask again - based on this interpretation of the 14th amendment, is Obama even a citizen (assuming he was born in Hawaii)?
My point, once again, remains the same: the writers you quote speak only to the definition of “citizens” as opposed to “non-citizen.” They do not, as you have presented them, draw any distinction between “natural-born citizen” and “citizen by birth, but not natural born.” To them, the latter category simply did not exist.
Considering that the latter category does exist under the 14th Amendment (as it is currently interpreted) - that is, considering that individuals born in the United States to non-citizen parents - please explain how these writers/writings support any distinction between natural-born citizens and citizens by birth who are not natural-born citizens.
Quite frankly, you are using these writers to attempt to prove a point (that there can be citizens by birth who are not natural-born citizens) that the writers themselves would consider absurd.
ping for later.
Barack Hussein OBAMA, Sr., Ph.D.
Stanley Ann DUNHAM
|Husband: Barack Hussein OBAMA, Sr.
Birth: 1936, Alego, Kisumu Dist., Nyanza Prov., KEN
Death (car crash): 1982, Nairobi, KEN
Education: University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI; Ph.D. in Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
Occupation: Senior Economist, Kenyan Ministry of Finance
Religion (according to son): "raised a Muslim," but a "confirmed atheist"
Other Spouses: m1. Helima (no issue); m3. Sarah, who is the woman Barack Jr. refers to as his (paternal) grandmother
Father: Onyango11, a.k.a., Hussein OBAMA (1895-1979) Obama10, Obiyo9, Okoth8, Obongo7, Otondi6, Ogelo5, Kisodhi4, Owiny3, Sigoma2, Miwiru1
Mother: Akuma / Akumu
|Marriage: 1960; Divorce: 1963|
|Wife: [Stanley] Ann DUNHAM
Birth: 29 Nov 1942, Fort Leavenworth, Leavenworth Co., KS
Death: 7 Nov 1995, Honolulu, Oahu, HI
Education: University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Oahu, HI; B.A., M.A., Ph.D.
Occupation: cultural anthropologist
Religion (according to son): raised by non-religious parents and "detached" from religion
Transhumance: 1967, from Honolulu, HI, to Jakarta, IDN; 1971, son back to Honolulu, HI
Other Spouse: m2. aft. 1963, Lolo SOETORO (2 Jan 1930 - Jan 1987); divorced late 1970s
Other Child: Maya SOETORO, b. 15 Aug 1970, Jakarta, IDN; m. Konrad NG
Father: Stanley Armour DUNHAM
Mother: Madelyn Lee PAYNE
|1. Barack Hussein "Barry" OBAMA, Jr., b. 4 Aug 1961, Kapiolani Medical Center, Honolulu, HI
[At the time of Barack's birth, both of his parents were students at the East-West Center of the University of Hawaii at Manoa; Barack's stepfather, Lolo SOETORO, was also a student at the East-West Center.]
|Keywords for search engines: Kenya, Indonesia, Java; USA, US, United States, Hawaii, Kansas, Massachusetts|
2. William Addams Reitwiesner, compilier. Ancestry of Barack Obama.
3. Anon. 9 Sep 2007. "The Obama Family Tree." Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago, IL (PDF file online at suntimes.com).
4. Photograph: Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro, Maya and Barack (online at kansasprairie.net).
5. Photograph: Barack Obama and Half Sister, Maya (online at kansasprairie.net).
6. Miscellaneous sites on the web, including Wikipedia.
DOES Barack Obama Sr's status as "Kenyan Ministry of Finance" affect his status and his son's status as they traveled together? Would both Baracks's citizenship be affected if they were operating as a diplomatic envoys, minister plenipotentiary, or resident representative with the rank of Ambassador or minister plenipotentiary?
Again, let me be clear...
You said: “Quite frankly, you are using these writers to attempt to prove a point (that there can be citizens by birth who are not natural-born citizens) that the writers themselves would consider absurd.”
No, the current operative interpretation of the 14th Amendment is is absurd, not the point being made about the meaning of “natural born”.
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.