Skip to comments.Natural-born and Native-born Definitions
Posted on 01/07/2009 12:49:42 PM PST by ml/nj
I previously have posted the Oxford English Dictionary definitions and usage histories for natural-born and native born in some long thread about the question of Obama's Constitutional eligiblity to assume the office of President. But that thread was eventually deleted, and I think these definitions should be available for discussion here.
Lawyers use the OED because it is sometimes the only way to examine what words meant at the time they were used to craft legislation. So here are the entries for these phrases:
Of note to me is that at least some of the usages of native-born and particularly the ones whose dates bracket the drafting of the Constitution suggest that this term has as much to do with whom one is born to as to where one is born. I also note that the entry for natural-born suggests comparison with the one for native-born which seems to have nothing to do with who ones parents are.
Whatever natural-born means, it means something. That everyone would turn their heads and pretend otherwise will not be good for the rule of law in this country.
FWIW, the issue is dead. America may have elected a foreigner to be president, but America has spoken and the courts are not taking the issue up. All you are doing at this point is pissing into the wind. Nobody is going to unseat Obama because he might not be a natural born citizen.
“I also note that the entry for natural-born suggests comparison with the one for native-born which seems to have nothing to do with who ones parents are.”
I don’t see any connection to who one’s parents are in the natural-born definition. Also, I seem to recall reading a passage in the Wong Kim Ark decision (which maintained that a child born on American soil to alien parents was a citizen) that used native-born and natural-born interchangably.
The courts are not necessarily the final arbiter, as Washington, Jefferson, and Adams knew well. Some things never change.
We can either take up arms (which isn't going to happen) or we can vote to remove him from office legally in 2012.
I guess you must have difficulty with the English Language. The usage example for 1709 states, "The children of all natural-born Subjects born out if Ligeance of her Majesty .. shall be deemed .. to be natural-born Subjects of this Kingdom." And the 1833 example states, "It is not true that every person, born out of dominion of the crown, is therefore an alien; nor is a person born within them necessarily a natural-born subject."
What could possibly be clearer?
B. Hussein Obama IS a Natural Born SUBJECT of Her Majesty![/quote]
The problem with that rationale is so were George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams.
Spoken exactly like the Tories of the late eighteenth century. Comparing your notions on who decides whether that is so, and Carl Von Clausewitz's teachings - I am afraid I am going to trust his contentions over yours.
It only takes a tiny number of determined individuals to start things, and only those willing to fight matter AT ALL when it comes to that. Thank you for playing.
“We can either take up arms (which isn’t going to happen) or we can vote to remove him from office legally in 2012.
Or, we can continue to fight through the courts and continue to educate our fellow citizens (who are mostly clueless about this issue thanks to the MSM blackout), and hope that through our diligence we can make a difference.
Hopefully you and others will help by writing letters and informing others of this critical issue. One would also hope that if someone cannot or will not do those things, they would at least have the courtesy not to stand in the way of those of us who do want to fight for what is right.
I'd rather be "pissing into the wind" than have a usurper pissin' on our constitution!
The problem really is that you and probably most of the American people are clueless about what the Constitution says.
"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."
Check it out.
Perhaps I should rephrase. I dont see any *necessary* connection to who ones parents are in the natural-born definition. Those instances of the term’s use cited are not U.S. law, nor are they exhaustive of all the uses of the term. They are random.
Moreover, the excerpt “The children of all natural-born Subjects born out if Ligeance of her Majesty .. shall be deemed .. to be natural-born Subjects of this Kingdom” does not say ONLY children born of natural-born subjects shall be deemed natural-born subjects. And as you know, we do not have “subjects” in America, we have citizens.
Also, the phrase “nor is a person born within them necessarily a natural-born subject” is hardly news. Children born as part of an invading army, children born of foreign diplomats, etc., have never been considered citizens. Notice the use of the word “necessarily”. The excerpt does not give the particulars of who among those born on a country’s soil qualify for citizenship, and therefore it leaves 14th amendment citizens from birth, for instance, open for natural-born status.
See, I can read English.
In "natural born citizen" the position, status or character is citizenship. So both definitions simply mean having citizenship "by birth".
Someone that is born a citizen is a "natural born citizen".
I have checked it out. This issue is dead. There is no evidence that he wasn’t born in Hawaii, thus a citizen if the US, which would make him natural born. But I guess everyone has the right to waste their time in any they so choose.
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.They grandfathered themselves in because they had been SUBJECTS, but became CITIZENS after the Revolution.
So we are no longer a Constitutional Republic?
We are now the People's Republic of Obamanations?
We are no longer governed by the rule of law as set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America?
We are now under mob rule, aka democracy, because allegedly "America" has spoken in this fraudulent election?
It appears that Obama is a natural born citizen, according to the definitions you provide above. He was born to a woman who was born in the U.S.
The difference in the Wong Kim Ark case is that his alien parents were legal residents that could not apply for citizenship under the law of the land at the time, every one that uses this argument glosses over the fact that under our laws at the time his parents could not become citizens.
They fell under our jurisdiction because by law because they were actually bared from citizenship, the question before the court was did he get citizenship even though his parents were barred from it.
What did they decide?
Then we as a country are not worth saving.
or we can vote to remove him from office legally in 2012.
ROTFLOL! How naive of you. How does one go about legally removing and illegally elected official?
By 2012 it will be illegal to have elections. That is, other than the Castro/Saddam type of elections.
It is enough that the people know there was an election.
The people who cast the votes decide nothing.
The people who count the votes decide everything. -Joseph Stalin
Who is saying that?
You are assuming what you need to prove. In what way is he illegaly elected?
One fact is blazingly clear ... 0bama is hiding something by refusing to show his long-form vault BC.
“The difference in the Wong Kim Ark case is that his alien parents were legal residents that could not apply for citizenship under the law of the land at the time, every one that uses this argument glosses over the fact that under our laws at the time his parents could not become citizens.”
How is this a “difference”? I am at an utter loss as to explain how Wong Kim Ark’s parents being “legal residents that could not apply for citizenship under the law of the land at the time” is any different from your garden-variety child born “subject to the laws” of the U.S.
How do the particulars of the Wong Kim Ark case differ from Obama’s particulars as alleged in the Berg case, for instance? Obama’s mother and father were here legally, just like Wong Kim Ark’s parents, right? If Obama was born on U.S. soil, he would be a citizen from birth for the exact same reasons Wong Kim Ark was.
Not true. My cousin is an American Born woman who is married to an Eastern European and they live in France where he is employed as a lawyer. They met in the US. Her children are not natural born Americans. They are also not French citizens. They do carry both American and Estonian passports. At the age of 18 with the use of the passports and ticket stubs showing a total time spent in the US of 4 years they can declare their American citizenship. If they want French citizenship they have to apply for it at age 18. If they marry an American, then any children born to them in the future would be American but have to be born in the US to be Natural Born. If they marry a Frenchman or any other nationality, the 4 year requirement must be met for them to claim American citizenship for themselves. It is complicated according to my cousin. She should know, she has been in France now for about 10 years and has 4 kids.
“What did they decide?”
They decided that, even though his parents had moved him back to China and claimed for him Chinese citizenship, Wong Kim Ark had the right to reclaim his U.S. citizenship status at any time, by virtue of his birth on U.S. soil.
So it’s not worth knowing and letting it be known if it doesn’t guarantee his removal from office? Intentional ignorance seems to be a wave this country is riding these days.
That Kim was a citizen however the question of what defines jurisdiction was still not addressed.
There are those of us here that contend that his mother because she was not 21 or had reached the age of majority at the time she gave birth according to the law at the time, could not pass on her citizenship to him and that because his father could pass on his British citizenship according to their laws did so.
If indeed Obama’s original vault copy birth certificate shows him being born outside the US, and it appears that would be the best reason he has for only showing a copy or forgery created in 2007, then he is not natural born because the law of the land at the time prevented his mother from passing her citizenship to him to prevent just the sort of issue we are facing, someone who is not a natural born citizenand has divided loyalties from becoming our president.
Then why are spreading a lie as if it were true?
You may have "checked it out"....but it is apparent that you either did not read it or failed to understand it.
BTW......welcome to Freerepublic.
Oh wow! Thanks loads noob. You just saved me a lot of time. Welcome to FR.
There is no evidence that he wasnt born in Hawaii,
There is even LESS evidence that he WAS born in HI.
There is a great deal of evidence that he was born in Kenya.
NO ONE KNOWS nor has anyone proven that he was born at all.
I'm beginning to believe he was a botched lab experiment.
For your reading enjoyment and edification:
Kenyan Ambassador: Obamas Birthplace Already Well Known In Kenya
November, 21, 2008 nicedeb
We're good at multi-tasking.
We can “P***, walk, and chew gum at the same time! Gee! Imagine that!
Obama’s father would have passed his citizenship to his son because at the time this country had entered into treaties that allowed that.
Was his father in this country legally, yes!
Was his father protected by a special visa from our laws or jurisdiction, that I have argued countless times.
Does our nation have the right to apply our citizenship to the children of those foreigners that are here for a brief stay, I contend that we do not have that right when they are here on a special visa that protects their citizenship IE: a diplomatic, student, or tourist visa, because their intent on visiting our nation is not to become a citizen of it.
Because his mother was not old enough to transfer her citizenship by the law of the land at the time, he should be a British citizen first and he has admitted that at least on his fight the smears website.
Ignoring the legalities involved as well as defining the scope of our countries jurisdiction to seat a foreigner as our president is something our founding fathers tried to prevent but writing the Natural born clause in the constitution, and it appears that the media on both sides of the spectrum are perfectly willing to ignore the issue to prevent rioting and a second civil war on our streets.
My biggest worry is that once he has power, what will he do to wrestle it away from our people permanently?
With the projected makeup of congress he could easily do so in a few short years.
But if he was born in Hawaii then he didn't depend on his mother passing on citizenship, and he is a natural born citizen.
For the time being, I believe you are right....But...The issue is not going away.
You can be sure that conservatives red states all over America a demanding that proof of valid citizenship be provided before candidates name will be placed on the ballot.
Obama will get through the hoop once, but not twice.
That is exactly what I believe is the reason everyone that would have been a source of help on this issue has sat silent. They were calling and planning for "resistance" if they did not win as stated in this article:
McCain "Win" Will Be Theft, Resistance Is Planned (By Ally of Obama's Code Pink Bundler)
Global Research ^ | Monday, October 20, 2008 | David Swanson
Posted on Monday, October 20, 2008 10:05:16 PM by kristinn
In a court of law the onus is on the one making the claim. This whole circus is the equivalant of suggesting he should prove himself innocent. The law doesn’t work that way. Why do you think ALL of the cases have been labeled as frivilous? It is because they are.
“I contend that we do not have that right when they are here on a special visa that protects their citizenship IE: a diplomatic, student, or tourist visa, because their intent on visiting our nation is not to become a citizen of it.”
The standard in the 14th amendment is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which has been interpreted to exclude diplomats and enemy combatants, not students and tourists. The intent of legal aliens may not be to become a citizen of the U.S., but that doesn’t mean their children might not become citizens.
Again, I am unable to decipher why this wouldn’t also apply to Wong Kim Ark’s parents. They were here legally without being citizens, just like Obama’s father.
“Obamas father would have passed his citizenship to his son because at the time this country had entered into treaties that allowed that.”
What status Obama’s father passed onto Obama is the concern of whatever nation said status applies to. It would have no impact on Obama’s status as an America citizen, as the U.S. government routinely ignores dual citizenship.
he needs to PROVE IT!
“every one that uses this argument glosses over the fact that under our laws at the time his parents could not become citizens.”
Tell me why this matters. Everyone I’ve seen use the Wong Kim Ark case to defend the idea that children born on U.S. soil are natural-born citizens recognizes that Wong’s parents were aliens. What are you getting at by saying “at the time his parents could not become citizens”? What is the difference between his parents simply not being citizens and his parents not being able to become citizens?
To put it in a more basic terms here. Let’s say I suspect that my co-worker is an illegal immigrant. So I go sue my employer and him both to get them prove his legal status because they are violating immigration law, or take it to a prosecutor(of course I would have no standing, same as in these cases, and neither would the prosecutor). That is a backwards case. They are under no obligation to prove my allegation false. Once I have definitive evidence of his illegal status then I can have a case.
All of this right now is so far beyond silliness it is embarrassing.
"What's all this hubbub about only natural born citizens can become President of the United States. Citizens born by c-section are just as capable of being President too!"
Really? I was not aware that any of them had been labeled frivilous. Please site a source for that claim.
It was either Berg or Donofrio. Actually I think both of them were labeled as without standing. Which means frivilous.
The bottom line is you have to have evidence of the claim you are making first. Right now none of the cases have any evidence of their claim.
They are making the fallacious argument that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Don’t you think that if there was any merit here that a prominant conservative or conservative group would be all over this? Rush, Hannity, Levin, Heritage? They all have great legal minds and resources at their disposal out the wazoo.
Not the point of this thread.
We stopped being a Constitutional Republic when we started having direct elections for President and Senators.
Prove himself innocent???? No one is accusing him of a CRIME! NO ONE!
There is NOTHING criminal or not criminal about the case.
We have a GAME here with a rule book which is commonly known as the Constitution. Where's the umpire? No one in any branch of government wants to step up, be the man in striped suit, who will wave his arms, and say, “YOU'RE OUT!!!” or “HOME RUN! !”
Every other president has presented evidence that they are natural born citizens. ARMIES and ARMIES of witnesses could have stepped forward and testified that the only place the president could have been born was their home town.
But...Obama hasn't done that and there is no umpire to force him to do it. It has NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with innocence or guilt!!!
Now it could be, that if Obama is not a natural born citizen he would guilty of defrauding millions from innocent people....but that's simple! All he would need to do it withdraw from the GAME!
I bet the red states soon enact firm laws about proving citizenship ( and any other surrounding issues) before a name is placed on the ballot.
Obama will get through this time, but NOT in the next election! I predict that he will have a health problem and needs more time with his family.
I said equivalant. That is what the faulty approach all of these cases have taken but on a civil level. They are frivolous. None of them will ever succeed.
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.