Posted on 11/19/2012 2:11:58 PM PST by KheSanh
A petition asking the Supreme Court to give a clear concise definition of the term "Natural Born Citizen".
Whitehouse.gov url to obtain the first 150 signatures:
http://wh.gov/9dpd
How could that matter? The RULE is that they were "born here." Any other consideration is irrelevant. That's what I keep hearing from your side.
I just don't understand how you people can believe a theory with such obvious holes in it.
Slaves were the property of citizens, they were not citizens.
After the 14th amendment they were. The question is whether or not these non-citizens became retroactively "natural born citizens." I think it's a pretty good trick to pass a law making someone "natural born" retroactively. It seems to me like the very opposite of "natural."
That is what you want to hear in order to make your argument. Born here is not the criteria. Born a citizen is. One must either be born a citizen or naturalized as a citizen. There is currently no other category.
Now why don’t you go back to arguing that Malcolm X is really the father? That should make people FINALLY take you seriously! Lol!
They keep saying the only requirement is being born here, and I just want to see how they try to square their theory with the facts that actually contradict it.
Their citizenship required law so they where naturalized.
I agree. This position is further reinforced by the Statement of Chief Justice Waite in the Minor v Happersett case in which he says:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
Well, the 14th amendment says this:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
So apparently this does not say who shall be "natural born citizens". As the words "natural born" are conspicuously absent, Justice Waite's statement sounds correct to me.
Well, what is the criteria for being "born a citizen"? Hmm... let's check the 14th amendment.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
Where is the part that distinguishes between being born here and being born a citizen? I don't see it. could you point it out to me?
Now why don’t you go back to arguing that Malcolm X is really the father? That should make people FINALLY take you seriously! Lol!
You are tarring me with a broad brush. I have consistently and adamantly argued that the Malcolm X theory of paternity is utter nonsense and I wish people would stop repeating it.
>> “Where is the part that distinguishes between being born here and being born a citizen?” <<
.
“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Clandestine births here, to criminal invaders, are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
English Common Law was never adopted by the United States; they chose instead, the Roman model, which was suited to sovereigns, rather than commoners as in the English model.
We had no royalty, nor had we any commoners, so Common Law could never apply.
English common law provided the LEGAL LANGUAGE of US law. That is universally recognized. It formed the legal language used at the time the Constitution was written, and the Constitution cannot be understood - per original intent - without knowing what the legal terms meant to the folks doing the writing.
“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. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Of course, I’ve pointed this out to you at least 100 times in the past, and you keep making false posts to suggest that English common law has nothing to do with the US Constitution.
It is also damn silly to pretend our legal system is based on Roman law. There is a reason why you cannot convince a single court, a single state or a single member of Congress - because YOU are WRONG.
Here is what the US Supreme Court has ruled concerning your discussion:
“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.”
In the full decision, they also discuss the case of blacks. Slaves were considered property, and as long as they were property, they could not be citizens. Once they ceased to be slaves, they became citizens, and the 14th Amendment overturned the ridiculous Dred Scott decision. And Indians were considered nations embedded within the borders of the USA.
But Obama isn’t a Sioux, and he wasn’t born to a slave, was he...
There are only two classes of “citizens” under the Constitution, a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States.” Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States provides: “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.” With “citizen of the United States” having long expired as a permissible national character for presidential eligibility, the only focus when determining presidential eligibility is “natural born Citizen,” not “citizen of the United States.”
The Constitution at Article V calls for any changes to the Constitution to be made by constitutional amendment which requires a prescribed procedure to accomplish. We do not amend the Constitution and the “natural born Citizen” clause by confirming or amending through Congressional Acts the class of persons who may become “citizens of the United States” either at birth or after birth. Nor did Congress do so through the Fourteenth Amendment which only defines refers to and defines a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen.” Again, who our nation decides to make a “citizen of the United States,” either at birth or after birth, never has nor does it amend the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which “[a]t common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar” were “all children, born in a country, of parents who were its citizens.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898) (citing and quoting Minor).
McCain for example was born in Panama, but was a U.S. citizen at birth.
George Romney was born in Mexico, but he was a U.S. citizen at birth.
According to birther nuttery - the last two candidates for President who were natural born citizens was when George Bush won against John Kerry in 2004.
As to Malcolm X - you construct a ‘your side says’ argument - so can I.
In the early part of this country’s history, Indians were considered members of their own nation, not Americans. That’s why Indian treaties were viewed as engagements with another nation. (Not that we usually paid much attention to the treaties for long.)
Various Indians became American citizens as a result of these various treaties, because they were born off the reservations, or for other reasons. By 1924 about 2/3 were citizens, and the law of that year made the remainder citizens.
On second thought, I agree with you. An amendment or law recognizing new groups as citizens could not retroactively add natural-born status to them. So I guess they came in as a variant of naturalized citizen.
Although if the Dred Scott decision could decide, in defiance of history and logic, that African-Americans were not and never could be citizens, then it would be no less illogical to have a ruling that they always had been citizens and if born here NBC. Their citizen and NBC status had just been illegally denied for a long time.
There were three at the time the Constitution was written, now there are two. Natural born or naturalized. Either one is born with natural allegiance or one must be naturalized into that state of natural allegiance.
Of the two remaining classes of citizens only naturalized citizens are, via the nature of their citizenship, not eligible for the Presidency.
So all you need to do is convince people that people who are born citizens are somehow naturalized, despite every U.S. law saying “born or naturalized” as a citizen, and not one saying “born and thus naturalized” or “naturalized at birth”.
It is a Sisyphean fools task - but no doubt you are up to the challenge!
Thanks for the quote.
Which decision is it from?
It goes right along with a conclusion I reached some time ago, that citizenship in the Constitution followed common law, which is, with the two exceptions listed by the court, jus solis.
I also think it is interesting that the 14th Amendment does not claim that it is changing the Constitution, other than by making illegal previous exclusions by race.
IOW, it is extending to all racial groups the same definition of citizenship previously applied, by some states, only to white people. Which is jus solis, with minor exceptions as outlined in common law.
I know that, I just didn't want to get onto that side track. I want THEM to explain how this works.
Most of the quotes I’ve made were from the WKA decision:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
The whole meaning of NBC was discussed at great length, and that is why the birther cases won’t go anywhere. The US Supreme Court has already ruled on the meaning of NBC, and if Obama was born in the USA, he qualifies.
I think it is how one looks at language structure. For example, I believe and was taught that there are distinctions between dogs such as poodle and St.Bernard. If I wanted to specify/buy one or the other(s) I would not just ask for a dog. The same logic applies as to when it is explicitly written in the Constitution that ‘citizen’ applies for congresspersons and ‘natural born citizen’ is specified for POTUSA. If I want a large dog I ask for a large dog not just dog.
One of the dissenters in WKA based part of his argument on the claim that if WKA was found to be a citizen, then the child of “coolies” would be eligible to become President. (The horror.)
None of the other justices refuted him by pointing out that although a citizen, such a person would not be NBC and thus ineligible. By not refuting his argument they basically accepted that it was valid.
And the point you miss is that because of these dichotomies, none of the people heretofore being mentioned are "natural citizens." They are all naturalized. The 14th amendment is a "naturalization" Amendment.
Even in it's wording it equates being born here with being naturalized.
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
It plainly regards birth in the US the same as naturalization because it makes no distinction between the two. What was it Chief Justice Waite Said again?
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
As the 14th amendment plainly says who will be "citizens", we must conclude that it does not say who shall be "natural born citizens", or ... that Justice Waite is an imbecile.
I quite agree. That’s why nobody is claiming a naturalized citizen is eligible to be elected president.
The argument is between those who consider all citizens at birth to be NBC, and those who consider NBC a special subset of citizens at birth.
I’m in the first camp. YMMV
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.