Skip to comments.The Fourteenth Amendment and a “natural born citizen” (Obama NOT nbc even if born in Hawaii)
Posted on 07/23/2009 2:37:34 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
The Fourteenth Amendment and a natural born citizen
A common misunderstanding of natural born citizenship comes from the Fourteenth Amendment, but a strict reading of the fourteenth amendment is quite clear that this only conveys an at birth naturalized citizenship. Those born in the United States at the time of adoption and afterwards were only citizens. Those who wrote the amendment knew exactly what they were doing. Because of the distinctive use of natural born citizen and citizen, in Article II, Section 1 the simple fact that being born in the United States does not make one a natural born citizen, it only makes one a citizen.
The Fourteenth amendment states in Section 1,
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Obviously missing is the conveyance of natural born status to these citizens. In fact what is obviously included in the text is the term naturalized. This section has several clauses, the first deals with citizenship.
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.
The second deals with prohibiting the states from passing laws denying the protection of citizenship from any citizen, natural born or naturalized.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The fifth section details something very important, it reads
Section 5 The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Article 1, Section 8 enumerated the powers Congress has. The only power Congress has over citizenship is found here. It reads,
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To make the freed slaves citizens, naturalization was the only power the 14th Amendment granted Congress to use. Look it up in the Constitution. Congress had no intention and no authority to making everyone born under the 14th Amendment a natural born citizen. This is born out by Congressional records regarding the debate of the Fourteenth Amendment. By the chief architect of Section 1 of this amendment.
I find no fault with the introductory clause, 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; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.
There is no doubt that anyone born under the 14th Amendment who is not subject is a naturalized citizen, or just a citizen, as the Amendment states. They are not natural born citizens.
To further understand why this is so, is to look at the first clause carefully.
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.
The words born or naturalized are joined with the conjunction or, and logically an or implies either of the two are equal. What they are equal in is being a citizen. Not a natural born citizen. This expressly negates the idea that simple birth of a person who is subject to the jurisdiction confers the coveted natural born status. If the term citizen did in fact convey a natural born status, then who were naturalized would be considered natural born.
Obviously, this is not the case, as it would mean that people like Kissinger, Albright and Schwarzenegger could run for office. Clearly, the Fourteenth Amendment is not conferring natural born status on anyone, it only confers simple citizenship and the universal rights given to all citizens, native born and naturalized. In fact, several Supreme Court Cases since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment restrict citizenship claims based on being born geographically within the United States, and bestows the coveted natural born citizen title to the children of citizens, while affirming simple citizenship to the children born to aliens.
1. The Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873) The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
2. Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. 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.
3. Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
4. Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) Affirms that natural born citizen, is the child of an existing citizen. The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.
5. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325 (1939) In citing a long series of cases, involving minors removed from their US domicile by their foreign born parents, the Supreme Court distinguishes the difference of a native born person of two naturalized citizens can become President. This distinction of citizenship is not made to the others, only that their Jus soli citizenship is intact if at the age of majority they reclaim it.
As you can see from the intent of the Founding Fathers to the Supreme Court decision that a natural born is the child of citizens. A natural born citizen is not the child of an alien. In this there is no doubt. The question now that we seek answered is that Barack Hussein Obama, II is both the child of an alien who never had any intention on becoming a naturalized citizen and the child of a citizen minor. If Barack Hussein Obama, II was in fact born in Hawaii, he is a citizen under Jus soli and afforded all rights any citizen has. But he is not a citizen under Jus sanguinis, because we have laws that dictate how Jus sanguinis citizenship can be transferred. If Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot claim citizenship under Jus sanguinis then he is not a natural born citizen.
While many patriots will argue with clear conviction natural born should be narrowly interpreted as to mean both parents must be citizens, giving birth to that child under the jurisdiction of the United States of America, they do accept that Jus sanguinis citizenship can be passed from one parent in accordance to the law of the land at the time of birth. So what was the law of the land at the time for giving a person Jus sanguinis citizenship?
There three ways for a person claim citizenship, what most of us think of first is called Jus soli, the right of the soil, which is the physical location your place of birth. The second is what is called Jus sanguinis, the right of blood, which you inherit from your parents. The third is a combination of Jus soli and Jus sanguinis, and it is this combination that determines if one is a natural born citizen. Since any citizenship under Jus solis is codified by the Fourteenth Amendment, we only find laws for passing citizenship via Jus sanguinis on August 4th, 1961 in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act). This act states that in order for Obamas right of blood citizenship to be passed to him, that since he only had one parent who was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 14. Barack Hussein Obama, II fails the test for the right to claim natural born citizen status.
Common sense tells us that both Jus soli and Jus sanguinis are what the Founding Fathers intended when they penned the phrase a natural born citizen. For imagine foreigners owing allegiance to a foreign power, arriving in America, giving birth to a child and immediately returning home to their country with their child. This child is reared for 21 years in a culture that hates America and that wants to see America destroyed. On the childs 21st birthday this child returns to the United States of America, claiming their citizenship based Jus soli. For fourteen years they live in the United States, supported covertly by these foreign powers, growing in wealth and stature until they reach the age of 35 years. This scenario cumulates with this child of the soil, not having one drop of American blood in their veins, becoming President and destroying this country. Considering that countries are a creation of mankind, and non-existent in nature, natural loyalties are too blood.
To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation. 'In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney
The Constitution directly specified 3 types of citizens, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment as those who are citizens, those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and natural born citizens. The architects of the Fourteenth Amendment had two to choose from in granting citizenship under this amendment, they choose just a citizen, and rejected a natural born citizen.
Excerpt- As you can see from the intent of the Founding Fathers to the Supreme Court decision that a natural born is the child of citizens. A natural born citizen is not the child of an alien. In this there is no doubt. The question now that we seek answered is that Barack Hussein Obama, II is both the child of an alien who never had any intention on becoming a naturalized citizen and the child of a citizen minor. If Barack Hussein Obama, II was in fact born in Hawaii, he is a citizen under Jus soli and afforded all rights any citizen has. But he is not a citizen under Jus sanguinis, because we have laws that dictate how Jus sanguinis citizenship can be transferred. If Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot claim citizenship under Jus sanguinis then he is not a natural born citizen.
Obama is not a natural born citizen which is defined in the 14th Amendment.
Obama not natural born citizen even if born in Hawaii (natural born citizen described in the 14th Ammendment).
“As you can see from the intent of the Founding Fathers to the Supreme Court decision that a natural born is the child of citizens. A natural born citizen is not the child of an alien. In this there is no doubt. The question now that we seek answered is that Barack Hussein Obama, II is both the child of an alien who never had any intention on becoming a naturalized citizen and the child of a citizen minor. If Barack Hussein Obama, II was in fact born in Hawaii, he is a citizen under Jus soli and afforded all rights any citizen has. But he is not a citizen under Jus sanguinis, because we have laws that dictate how Jus sanguinis citizenship can be transferred. If Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot claim citizenship under Jus sanguinis then he is not a natural born citizen.”
I don’t buy this argument. He is his mother’s son. She is a US citizen.
This is why the birthers give conservatism a bad name....by clear omissions of facts that do not help their cause.
I am taking a different stand on this. Everything Obama is doing is anti American and unConstitutional.
Maybe we need to look at it as this. What Obama is doing is actually treason if he were a natural born citizen, if he is not... well.
Maybe that is what we are missing. Obama is willing to do what he is doing, but he does not want to ever say he was committing treason or be held accountable for it.
If he was never a citizen, is what he is doing treason?
Note that Obama is using attorneys and nearly a million dollars in legal fees to keep his original birth certificate hidden. Speaks for itself. When someone is hiding something, they have something to hide.
This is the kind of crap that gives conservatives a bad name. The term “natural born citizen” is a legal definition. Until the late 19th century, a person was a natural born citizen if born in the U.S., in a U.S. territory to a citizen father, to a citizen father who was not a permanent resident of another country, or to a citizen father who was under the authority of the U.S. (i.e. a diplomat).
In the late 19th century it was changed to a citizen parent.
If Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a natural born citizen. If he was born in Kenya, he is a natural born citizen (his mother was not a permanent resident of Kenya and a citizen).
At this point, I am very curious to see his birth certificate, but there has been no plausible scenario put forward to make me doubt he is a natural born citizen.
She was not old enough at the time of giving birth to convey NB status.
EXCELLENT wrap up. How do we get this to everyone? I’m going to write Hannity to convene a 1 hour panel discussion of this with both sides represented. Don’t hold breath, but maybe with enough effort, this might breakthrough: even the left has some with brains.
The 14th Amendment says "born or naturalized." The two are mutually exclusive. If you're born an citizen, you don't need to be naturalized.
Hence the absurdity of the very idea that someone born in the US is a naturalized citizen.
That restriction(the time spent living in the U.S. after 18 clause) only applied to a naturalized citizen and not to a natural born citizen as his mother was.
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.
Does "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution' go right along with 'or a citizen of the United States' and only applied 200+ years ago? That bolded part might be why he mentioned that he was a citizen of the United States last night in his speech....
Careful. It is not a question of citizenship.
It is of being natural born.
I thought it meant that the mother didn’t have a C-section. :)
“Note that Obama is using attorneys and nearly a million dollars in legal fees to keep his original birth certificate hidden.”
Speaking of which, is there any way to cite that claim of millions of dollars? Where did that number come from?
This is the real question: shall we be ruled by a man whose loyalty is divided?
The Framers intended the answer to be "no". Monarchial Europe was full of "Royalty" who were foreigners, put on the thrones of different countries in a bid to subjugate them or to bind them. Men like Madison and Jefferson intended to stop that from ever happening, and the Natural Born Citizen restriction was their method.
Now we have just such a case as they intended to prevent. The issue should be brought up and the Usurper removed.
USofA “United States of Acorn”
How do we get out of this?
I think the argument here technically was that his mother being a minor could not convey natural citizenship to her new born child, since the father was an alien.
It’s very clear that there is some controversy here, and worth being put to rest once and for all.
You would think OBAMA would welcome this diversion, and if he truly has nothing to hide let people investigate.
I think there is something more sinister involved with his birth.
I think he’s listed as Muslim or perhaps the father is someone else... who knows...
But, my God, this man is our president. We know NOTHING about his upbringing. NOTHING.
Well, I’d like to see the source for how much O has spent on this, and from what funds he is spending it.
Didn't the O at some point in his youth "declare" his U.S. citizenship? If he were a "natural born citizen" this would not have been necessary. When you are a "natural born citizen" your U.S. citizenship comes as easy as falling out of bed in the morning.
I’d appreciate you sending me a link to that if you could. thanks
Treason is clearly defined in the Constitution with a limited and precise definition and this running for office with, or without, proper qualifications doesn't fit the crime of Treason.
I am more concerned where he will subvert his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution once elected and how he will trash our nation for a socialist agenda than what his parents did. He may not know the actual events as his parents and grandparents were marxist nut jobs that told him his birth story.
Hell, my mother near ninety with dementia felt it was a good story to tell me where and how my little sister was conceived and who the hell knows if that was true. But I told her, Mom I don't need to hear this story!
It's always the coverup that makes it germaine (is that the word?) and not just th eevent. Why live a lifelong lie if you don't have plans as to what you plan to do as an extension of that lie.
If Ayers wrote his book is just as damning, or more so, than whether his Mom made up a story or he made up a story about his parents conduct.
The guy may not just be a socialist, but may be an actual fiction and a tool of others.
“But, my God, this man is our president. We know NOTHING about his upbringing. NOTHING.”
You have to read what the law stated at the time of Obama's birth. Stanley Ann Dunham was 18 years of age at the moment of Barack's birth. She would have needed to have been at least 19 years of age to confer US citizenship upon him.
Read it for yourself:
"There three ways for a person claim citizenship, what most of us think of first is called Jus soli, the right of the soil, which is the physical location your place of birth. The second is what is called Jus sanguinis, the right of blood, which you inherit from your parents. The third is a combination of Jus soli and Jus sanguinis, and it is this combination that determines if one is a natural born citizen.
Since any citizenship under Jus solis is codified by the Fourteenth Amendment, we only find laws for passing citizenship via Jus sanguinis on August 4th, 1961 in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act). This act states that in order for Obamas right of blood citizenship to be passed to him, that since he only had one parent who was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 14. Barack Hussein Obama, II fails the test for the right to claim natural born citizen status."
“Stanley Ann Dunham was 18 years of age at the moment of Barack’s birth. She would have needed to have been at least 19 years of age to confer US citizenship upon him.”
If he has US citizenship at all, it is either from being born here or being born of a citizen.
He has not been naturalized, so if he has any citizenship at all, it attached at birth.
So those to contend he is not a citizen based on the circumstances of his birth is, in effect, saying he isn't a citizen at all - which would mean a lot more has slipped through the cracks than the recent election.
Other than the use of a plural in a floor speech, I'd like to see some legal authority drawing a distinction between "natural born citizens" and other "citizens" who attained citizenship status at birth, rather than through naturalization. The "three kinds of citizenship" argument, by its very nature, means that there would be citizens who attained that status at birth but were not "natural born citizens" - I'd like to see some legal definition of who these people are and what exactly their status would be.
Now that is the clearest statement I have seen so far.
And the rest of your post puts it on solid legal ground.
What you say may be. I was just looking at all angles here.
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person
who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a naturalborn
citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and,
therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that No
Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of
c. The Constitution does not define natural born. The Act to establish an
Uniform Rule of Naturalization, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.
103,104) provided that, ...the children of citizens of the United States,
that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be
considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship
shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in
the United States.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 103
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not
included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that
someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not
necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional
How is a citizen at birth not a natural born citizen?
Natural born is a term used in the Constitution so you must
look at the meaning and intent of the law when it was made.
A person can be native born or a citizen at birth but not necessarily a Natural Born Citizen.
....What U.S. law defines a citizen at birth as being anything other than a natural born citizen?
What law defines a citizen at birth as being Natural Born Citizen? answer -common law!
The 14th amendment does not declare who is a natural born citizen
The 14 Amendment clearly states that one might be a citizen, but not a natural born citizen. Since Obama had an “alien” father, he would not be classified as a natural born citizen even if he were actually born in Hawaii. The bottomline is that he’s ineligible to serve as President.
Sorry I’m not that ODS.
IF he was actually born in Hawaii and proven via vault copy then yes he’s a Natural Born Citizen as his mother was a US Citizen. His father wasn’t but his mother was, that’s good enough for me.
Of course that still hangs on a vault BC showing he was in fact born in Hawaii.
Children of naturalized U.S. citizens generally become citizens automatically, though they will also not be considered natural-born. Hmmmm....
Not considered natural born even though both parents are naturalized citizens.
Also, why would Obama be able to use a foreign aid scholarship for Occidental if he hadn’t willingly given up his right to be an American citizen. I don’t believe my kids could apply for such a scholarship being American citizens.
Still reading, but thought I’d post my thoughts at the moment!
If you’re going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.
Oh by the way, Title 8 was rushed through Congress during this whole dilemma of what a natural born citizen actually was. Specifically it is read that it is a child born of parents that are citizens of the United States. But as you see in my previous post Children of naturalized U.S. citizens will not be considered natural born.
That is in reference to children born before the naturalization process. I.e., when a family immigrates and the parents are naturalized, their five year old boy doesn’t have to take the naturalization test.
This is the CHester Arthur case. His father wasn’t naturalized until Chester was 14 or so, meaning Chester was a natural-born citizen; and he, like Obama, was a usurper.
.... but forgery of a goverment document is a felony (i.e. forging a COLB).
Yes, and Obama himself may not be a natural born citizen in several ways.
“One of these days we’ll be able to present these facts in such a way that even a liberal can comprehend it. I’m not sure this summation is it, but maybe through repetition they’ll begin to understand. Agreed ... citizens of foreign governments can not bear and raise “natural born citizens” of the United States unless they *first* renounce their former citizenship and become naturalized here, or they were living at the time our Constitution was adopted. Mr. Obama’s father meets neither of these criteria.”
Write the media! They may hate us, but our numbers will speak for themselves. Remember, they first need good ratings to survive- they’ll listen.
“EXCELLENT wrap up. How do we get this to everyone? Im going to write Hannity to convene a 1 hour panel discussion of this with both sides represented. Dont hold breath, but maybe with enough effort, this might breakthrough: even the left has some with brains.”
In other words, Obama wasn’t born then!
“..... at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”
See post 28
They might when they learn that the Constitution is what gives them their power!
“.... Unfortunately our Supreme Court doesn’t seem to care about what the Constitution stands for anymore!”
Sorry, RPA, I meant to ping VJ to post #43 instead of you. But I think you’ll appreciate the course of logic contained therein as well :-)
You just crossed into "emanations of penumbras" territory wih that statement. You are trying to get the Constitution to say what you want it to say, instead of what the plain language means. That kind of thinking is what gave us In re Dred Scott, Plessy vs. Ferguson, and Roe vs. Wade and all the attendant nightmares those three cases caused.
No thanks, I'll take my Constitution straight up, not bent and twisted because people don't like a particular President.
Both parents must be citizens in order for their child to be a "natural born citizen." Why do people have such a hard time understanding that?
So, are you saying that any US-born girl who gets pregnant at age 18 from a man who is not a US citizen does not confer citizenship to the offspring?
That would render many tens of thousands of American ineligible for higher office.
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.