4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"

The Post & Email ^ | Oct. 18, 2009 | John Charlton

[STE=Q]

Oct. 18, 2009) — The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to understand what this term means.

Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.

First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.

[El Gato]

impeachment of the current occupant of the White House is the logical remedy

If a person is not eligible to the office of President, how can they logically be President, and thus be eligible for impeachment which is only for "The President, the Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States"? (Art. II section 4).

[Lower55]

“...as much a CITIZEN as a Natural Born Citizen

The quote actually reads, “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.”

I was paraphrasing. Hence no “quotation” marks.

Your “quote” says the same thing....as much a citizen, it does not say “as much a Natural Born Citizen”.

So, you really do have a problem with comprehension. I was just guessing and you reinforced my assumption.

[kittykat77]

As a matter of Fact, not opinion, we now have a "British born subject"* running the American government.

If so, then what do we do about President Chester A. Arthur? He would be the first British subject to be president, beating out Obama by a century. Arthur's father was an Irish preacher (a British subject) when Chester was born. The father became a naturalized citizen later in life, when Chester was about 13 years old.

*Are you saying that Obama was born in Britain, or just that his father was a British subject? "British subject" and "British-born subject" are two different things.

[Non-Sequitur]

"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{PLURAL} not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…"

Then why didn't they include that in the amendment?

It's called an inference...

Then could not one also infer that since that language was not included in the amendment, then Bingham's opinion was not that of a majority of the Senators voting?

[Uncle Chip]

What did the Court in the Venus case understand the words “natural born citizen” to mean???? It is right there in the decision.

[Non-Sequitur]

And their is your implicit assumption, for which there is no support in law or the Constitution. The Constitution does about 3 forms of citizenship. Art I, section 8 talks about naturalization, as does the 14th amendment. Art. II Section 1, speaks of Natural Born Citizen, and finally the 14th amendment speaks to "citizenship by birth in the US".

Then what defines the difference between citizen by birth and natural-born citizen?

[El Gato]

Had her parents not been naturalized before she was born, she then would have only been a native of the soil owing allegiance to a foreign nation

She would not have been natural born, true. But she still would have been 14th amendment citizen, as the examples in given in the opinion make clear, some of which involved birth to alien parents, in the US, and in which the person was declared to be a citizen.

[El Gato]

Then what defines the difference between citizen by birth and natural-born citizen?

You know that natural born citizen is not defined in the Constitution. Neither is Naturalized citizen, but Congress was given the power to define that. The 14th amendment defines "citizen by birth in the US", but did not change the definition of "Natural Born Citizen". That remains what it was when the base Constitution was passed and ratified in the 1787 to 1788 timeframe.

[afnamvet]

Are there any challenges to Obama’s eligibility that are currently before a court that were filed prior to the congress approving the electoral college vote vote? Is there a plaintiff that has shown the court that he/she has standing?

I want him out of the White House as well.

[Non-Sequitur]

It did not.

Take a look at the Kenyan Constitution and you'll find it did.

The botfuscation tactic is to make it seem as if his citizenship vanished, but it did not. Obama is STILL a British Citizen.

Your questionable logic on British citizenship aside, I said that Obama is not a Kenyan citizen. And he is not, per their constitution.

Anyway, what do the British government say about his citizenship?

[Non-Sequitur]

That remains what it was when the base Constitution was passed and ratified in the 1787 to 1788 timeframe.

And where was that defined?

[afnamvet]

vote vote....just one vote.

[Non-Sequitur]

What did the Court in the Venus case understand the words “natural born citizen” to mean???? It is right there in the decision.

But the question of who was a natural-born citizen was not a matter for the court to decide in this matter. None of the defendants were natural-born citizens and none of them claimed to be. As such, any comments made outside of the case are made in dicta and are not binding.

The story that starts this thread made a couple of errors. Justice Livingston didn't write the majority decision, nor did Chief Justice Chase. The majority decision was written by Justice Washington, and in it he did not touch on or define natural-born citizenship. Chief Justice Marshall's comments on natural-born citizenship was actually made in dissent of some of the conclusion the majority opinion, which make them even less binding than their dicta status.

[Non-Sequitur]

I was paraphrasing. Hence no “quotation” marks.

But your paraphrase does not mean what the actual quote means. The actual quote indicates no difference between the citizenship of the child of an immigrant if born in this country and the child of a citizen if born in this country.

Your “quote” says the same thing....as much a citizen, it does not say “as much a Natural Born Citizen”.

At the risk of stating the obvious, nowhere in the quote does the phrase natural-born citizen occur. It says natural-born child of a citizen.

So, you really do have a problem with comprehension. I was just guessing and you reinforced my assumption.

Not based on what you're posting.

[El Gato]

Then could not one also infer that since that language was not included in the amendment, then Bingham's opinion was not that of a majority of the Senators voting?

They were not defining "natural born citizen", they were merely saying that anyone born in the US is a citizen of the US. They were aiming this at former slaves of course, the vast majority of whom were born in the US (Importation of slaves having been banned in 1808, and most slaves were decendants of those importated much earlier.

Furthermore, Bingham's statement was made in the context of a debate on the 1866 Civil Rights Bill, not the 14th amendment. The final language adopted, and passed over the veto of President A. Johnson was:

That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Uncle Chip]

That's all fine and well. Call it whatever you like, but in the court decision John Marshall used and defined the phrase "natural born citizen" and no one on the Court disagreed with his definition or use of the phrase.

What did he mean by that phrase??? Post it for us --

[Smokin' Joe]

If the US government has in fact legally established three types of citizenship, only one of which enables a person to serve as president/vice president, you'd think that (excluding naturalized citizens) we'd be classified as natural born citizens or just plain citizens at or near the time of our birth and that our government-determined citizenship classification would appear at least on our birth certificates, our passports, our census forms, and maybe our death certificates.

To what purpose?

The Rights of citizens remain the same, whether Natural Born, native born, or naturalized.

To create a 'second class citizen' status flies in the face of equal protection under the law.

The only time being a Natural Born Citizen matters is when running for President or Vice President, or otherwise ascending to the office (as in the unprecedented instance of the President and Vice President suffering their demise at the same time).

As such, as a qualification for the office, it can be sorted out when it arises in those cases, rather than be done for everyone.

It would just be an added expense.

[Lower55]

“At the risk of stating the obvious, nowhere in the quote does the phrase natural-born citizen occur. It says natural-born child of a citizen. “

Whatever you claim it says, it will not make a Natural Born Citizen out of someone without citizen parents. Will not happen. Ever.

[El Gato]

And where was that defined?

Les Droit Des Gens ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle, Emmerich de Vattell, Londres, 1758

Vattel's work was based on the work of others, such as Hobbes, Bareyrac, and Baron de Wolf. In his introduction, Vattel gives greatest credit to de Wolf.

[Lower55]

“The actual quote indicates no difference between the citizenship of the child of an immigrant if born in this country and the child of a citizen if born in this country.”

There would be no difference in citizenship. But, the one with citizen parents would be a Natural Born Citizen and the other would be just a citizen.

There is a difference no matter how long you chose to ignore it. There would have been no reason for the grandfather clause in the Constitution if you were correct.