Posted on 04/27/2011 7:25:39 PM PDT by westcoastwillieg
Time to turn to the real issue, 'Does Obama qualify as ‘natural-born'?
The issue with Obama’s eligibility not only involves his place of birth but also whether he qualifies as a 'natural-born-citizen'.
After Obama played his 'Trump' card his supporters are trying to divert voters away from the 'natural-born' issue and obfuscate the definition of 'natural-born'.
It is generally believed the Founders considered 'natural-born' to mean born in country to parents who were citizens at the time of the person's birth.
As Holmes said to Watson, "The game is afoot." Attempts have already been made to use 'native-born' interchangeably with 'natural-born' and, as yet, there is no Supreme Court decision nor does the constitution define 'natural-born'.
While Obama has shown his birth certificate it proves that his father was not a citizen but the jury hasn't decided if he qualifies as 'natural-born'.
First, I’m not a dude. Second, Stanley Ann Dunham was born in the US of parents who were, themselves, citizens. Her son was born in Hawaii. Third, it is not ME saying this about so-called anchor babies. It is the laws of the US. It is why pregnant women cross the border illegally to have their babies here. The babies are automatic natural born citizens, and the mother immediately becomes eligible for AFDC and other government programs targeted to dependent children. It’s a screwed up system, but it IS the system.
This matter of Obama’s citizenship is a lose-lose for conservatives from several perspectives. There are issues of vastly greater importance, and there is only so much time, energy and resources available. The smart thing is to focus them on potential wins for our side, not chasing a fool’s game.
You are correct - Jay was asserting that the "natural born citizen" requirement was the foremost measure that should be taken to prevent foreigners playing a managerial, ministerial, or executive role in the administration of the national government. As I read it, the concern about foreigners led Jay to suggest the "natural born citizen" requirement, as a means of preventing a foreigner from immigrating to the U.S., becoming naturalized, and running for President.
We may disagree about whether a person born in the United States to foreign parents (or, to one U.S. parent and one foreign parent), is a "natural born citizen," but it is quite a stretch to say that such a person is a foreigner. If Jay was concerned about foreigners playing a managerial or executive role in the national government, then prohibiting the U.S.-born child of foreign parents (or, again, one foreign parent and one U.S. parent) seems to be a bit beyond the scope of his concern.
Again, you lack intellectual honesty.
Firstly, Madison did not say (as you strongly imply) that only the place of birth matters, and that that parentage is irrelevant. What he said was that "place is the more certain criterion," and that place applies in the United States. He did not add "and parentage does not."
Secondly, there are only two legally-supportable meanings of "natural born citizen." One would have it as being the same as the meaning of "natural born subject" as defined in British common law (except for the differences in meaning between 'subject' and 'citizen'), and the other would have it as being what de Vattel defined and then labeled with the words "les naturels, ou indigenes." If its meaning is the same as "natural born subject," then parentage also confers citizenship, not just place alone.
And under British common law, even naturalized citizens had the status of "natural born subjects." "The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is "to all intents and purposes a natural born subject." Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. 785, 790 (1866)).
Thirdly, US law and court precedents have without exception, from the beginning of the country, recognized anyone born anywhere to US-citizen parents as US citizens from birth, although the person is required, once he becomes an adult, to eventually become a resident of the US and make formal declaration that he accepts US citizenship.
Just from the above alone, the evidence is strongly against Madison having meant what you seem to think he meant. But wait, there's more.
Fourthly, there is also strong evidence against your interpretation from the full text of what Madison said, and the context in which he said it.
He was speaking in favor of the right a man, one Mr. Smith, to be seated in Congress, against accusations that he was not entitled to be a Representative because he was not a citizen. The issue had nothing to do with whether or not Mr. Smith was eligibile to be President, or was a natural born citizen. Madison essentually argued that Mr. Smith was a citizen because of where he was born, and because he was a minor when his parents sided with the British loyalists against the American Revolutionaries. He focused on that point, because he obviously felt that any adult who sided with the British loyalists would not qualify as citizens. Bear in mind the the Constitution allows naturalized citizens to serve in Congress, there is no requirement that one have "birthright citizenship" (whose normative definition means either "jus soli" OR "just sanguinis" citzenship (OR, not AND.))
Give that, to imply that Madison's statement has anything to do with the semantics of "natural born citizen" is not just intellectually dishonest, but highly so.
Then why does Article II, section 1, pa. 5 add an exception to the requirement that the President be a "natural born citizen," so that anyone who was a citizen (of any sort) when the Constitution was adopted was eligible to be President? If "natural born citizen" just means "anyone born in the US," THEN THE EXCEPTION IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. Read the entire argument Madison makes in which you found that quote to see beyond doubt that that's true.
My apologies for the dude.
Now, are you really trying to say that children born to illegal immigrants are natural born citizens? If so you are inexcusably ignorant.
This is NOT an issue for conservatives in 2012. It is an issue for educated Americans RIGHT NOW.
Children born to Mexican illegals are MEXICAN as well as American, because they inherit the citizenship of their parents.
Barack Obama’s father was British, and so to was Obama, at his birth. This means he was not and never could have been a Natural Born citizen.
That is an AMERICAN issue and I am ashamed that a fellow conservative would mistake this issue as a partisan one. It isn’t. The man is an usurper. That goes WAY past party lines.
No, it is not. If "natural born citizen" means "anyone born in the US," then the exception was TOTALLY NECESSARY, because, in 1789, there was NOT A SINGLE PERSON who was 35 years of age AND had been "born in the US," because the US did not exist 35 years prior to 1789.
Please don't confuse me disagreeing with your position as "intellectual dishonesty." I understand your position, and I think it's an interesting argument to make; however, I think you're incorrect. I also believe that your position is contrary to most (but not all) of the available evidence, and the vast majority of the (admittedly scant) legal scholarship on the subject. For example, see Charles Gordon, Who can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1 (1968) ("It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not. The recurring doubts relate to those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents.").
But in that speech Madison made before Congress, he argues that everyone born in the territory of the States that formed the US were citizens of the US by place of birth, and so eligible to serve in Congress.
So the reason the exception was needed is because no one born before the country was formed had parents who were citizens of the US at their time of birth.
Again, you are refuted by your own reference.
Natural born citizen probably means in the Constitution what it meant to the states who sent delegates, and who then ratified it: the American version of natural born subject.
People act as if the Constitution was the first time the phrase had ever been written. It wasn’t.
More can be found from an 1844 case on inheriting property:
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities
Regarding the natural-born citizen requirement itself, Storey writes:
But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office
To explain this, you have two alternatives. Either you must defend the view that people in 1880 were incrediably stupid compared to modern voter or, more logically, they didn't think that that fact made him ineligible. If you can find someone, anyone, who asked Arthur about this during this term OR if you find a case when Arthur falsey claimed his fatehrwas a citizen, I'll pay you 200 dollars. BTW, one of the dumbest of the dumb, if your theory is right, would be Mr. George D. Collins who despite his amazing intellect was too clueless to look into the issue!
To explain this, you have two alternatives. Either you must defend the view that people in 1880 were incredibly stupid compared to modern voters or, more logically, they didn't think that that fact made him ineligible. If you can find someone, anyone, who asked Arthur about this during this term OR if you find a case when Arthur falsey claimed his fatehrwas a citizen, I'll pay you 200 dollars. BTW, one of the dumbest of the dumb, if your theory is right, would be Mr. George D. Collins who despite his amazing intellect was too clueless to look into the issue!
Storey’s words make it plain he does not have certain knowledge, and is merely speculating.
Sorry Danae, but like everyone who has bought into this phony issue, you are mistaken. As mentioned earlier, I’m at work responding on my cell phone, so can’t give you the expansive (and readily available) information to prove the point. You may be “ashamed” to find a conservative who doesn’t march in lockstep with the crowd. So be it. I am appalled that conservatives are wasting so much time, energy and resources on a loser nonissue.
In the Wong Kim Ark case, the appellant, Mr Wong, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, Justice Gray cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
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's dicta, of course. But it proves that Justice Gray could not possibly have thought the decision he was rendering could have defined "natural born citizen" differently than as specified above. How can this be? It's because the precedent the court was setting had nothing to do with the meaning of "natural born citizen," and only concerned itself with whether a person born in the US to non-citizen parents was a native citizen of the US (note: "native citizen" is not the same thing as "natural born citizen.") To prove me wrong, you need to find language in the Wong Kim Ark decision that specifically defines "natural born citizen" as meaning "anyone born in the US" (with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats, of course.)
You won't be able to do that, because the decision says no such thing.
Nor did the decision say that those born in the US would be eligible to be President. It does say they have the same rights as other citizens, but serving as US President is not a right, it's a privilege reserved by the Constitution to those who meet specific requirements: A President must be 35 years of age, must have resided in the US for 14 years, and must be a natural born citizen. So clearly, not all citizens qualify for the privilege of serving as President.
The evidence I have provided regarding Chester Arthur is irrefutable. That no one asked Arthur about the citizenshp status of his father proves that few knew the essential facts, and those that did know decided to keep quiet for reasons that should be obvious. The fact that no one bothered to ask could have many explanations, not one of them setting any legal or de facto precedents. The fact that article I referenced was written and published at that time, in that journal, proves irrefutably that a) the idea that "natural born citizen" must be born in the US of US-citizen parents was a well-founded and well-accepted legal position (the quote from the Wong Kim Ark case does the same,) and it proves that few, if any, readers would have realized, when reading the article, that Chester Arthur's Presidency was called into question by what the article said.
Thus, you are refuted.
On your head be it.
I have seen enough historical research to recognize that today’s Americans have forgotten the basic meaning of the term Natural born Citizen. I know what it means. Clearly you deny it. Ok that’s your choice. I know you are wrong, and I will frankly and sincerely blame anyone who does not defend the constitution. I dont care what the party affiliation is. You support a point of view which literally says the son of someone like Osaba Bin Ladin can be POTUS if he is born here. Eff that, I will fight to the death against that.
You have made your point and taken your stance. I respectfully stand against your position and all that it implies.
Anyone reading this and holding the same opinion as this person I am replying to, I stand against you as well.
With respect, I ask that you spare your time and effort in responding wolfstar. We really have nothing further to discuss. I respectfully offer to save you the effort and time. I will never relinquish my position. I stand on the side of history. I am not going to move.
You mean native born citizen, not Natural Born Citizen.
You apparently missed this line (see highlight):
"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. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘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.’"
Let me repeat it for you and highlight it again in case you missed it a third time "if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
As to Arthur, according to this theory, the voters in 1880 were much, much dumber than voters in 2011. That is the only possible explanation given what we know about the political environment in 1880: Arthur had many enemies who had ample motivation to bring him down. He was widely regarded as politically corrupt and his enemies as early as 1880, doubted that he born in the was U.S. Voters in 1880 also knew in 1880 that his father was Irish born and that his father had lived in the country long enough to become naturalized prior to Arthur's birth.
Yet, despite intensely strong motives and reasons to be skeptical of anything Arthur said, these same Americans were too stupid and clueless to even ask, or challenge, him about his father and, equally, were too stupid and clueless, to investigate same.
I have much more respect for the voters of 1880 than you apparently do. IMHO, they were on average better informed and more politically skeptical of their leaders than they are today.
The more obvious explanation is that asking the question didn't enter their minds because they, including his many, many enemies, didn't think the status of his father was an issue.
Yikes!!! There is no difference between these word games, and Bill Clinton's "it depends on what the meaning of the word IS, is."
The Constitution clearly defines who is a citizen:
U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, 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 less a person than JAMES MADISON, principal author of the U.S. Constitution (who wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers), said the following in a speech to the U.S. House of Representatives, May 1789:
It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.
So, can anchor babies become POTUS?
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.