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”.

[patlin]

unfortunately true due the erroneous opinion in WKA.

[El Gato]

Les Droit Des Gens ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle

or more completely

Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains:

(The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns).

[Smokin' Joe]

Ergo, if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was a U.S. citizen at birth; if he was born abroad, then he wasn’t (because his citizen mother hadn’t lived in the U.S. for 5 at least years past the age of 14 as the statute required in cases of foreign birth).

If that is indeed the case, then what of Obama's Stepfather, his possible adoption and perhaps Indonesian Citizenship? These questions have not been answered either, and college admissions records could clear things up in the instance of young Mr. Soetoro. Those have not been forthcoming, either.

Did Obama receive a Fullbright Scholarship, did he ever claim foreign citizenship? If so, he has embraced the citizenship of another nation, and cannot be considered Natural Born for the purpose of the office, even if he subsequently was naturalized. To do so would fly in the face of original intent (that there be no conflicting allegiances).

There is far more to this than just the one issue, and it will take more than just a Birth Certificate to resolve it.

[AuH2ORepublican]

I don’t know why Obama’s Muslim Indonesian stepfather Lolo Soetero enrolled him in school under the name “Barry Soetero” and listed his citizenship as Indonesian (although I have a pretty good idea why he listed Barry’s religion as Muslim—because Barack Obama was raised a Muslim). I don’t know what Indonesian law says about children changing citizenship, but U.S. law wouldn’t allow a child to be stripped of his U.S. citizenship, so it doesn’t provide evidence as to Obama’s disqualification from serving as president.

I have no idea what Obama said his citizenship was when he applied for college or for scholarships or other financial aid. (I also have no idea whether he actually enrolled with Selective Service when he turned 18 as required of all U.S. citizens; the evidence I’ve seen seems to point to the Selective Service application provided by the Obama campaign to be a forgery, leaving open the possibility that he did not enroll.)

We also have not seen his long-form Certificate of Birth, just that crappy, computer-generated Certification of Live Birth that could, in theory, be produced for someone whose mother registered in Hawaii a week after being born. It is certainly possible that Obama was born in Kenya when his mother was not allowed to fly back to Hawaii because of her advanced pregnancy and (i) his grandparents called the newspaper to “report” that he had been born in Honolulu and (ii) a week later his mother falsely registered him with the Hawaiian government as having been born in her house in Hawaii. the long-form birth certificate would say whether he was registered as being born in a Hawaiian hospital as Obama claims (which, if that’s the case, would be pretty clear evidence that he was indeed born in Hawaii) or being born at home (which would certainly leave open the possibility that he was born in Kenya and did not arrive in Hawaii until later, at which time his mother falsely registered him as having been born in her home in Hawaii the week before).

So we don’t know where Obama was born. If Obama was born in Kenya, then he was not a U.S. citizen at birth and, unless he has since been naturalized, is still not a U.S. citizen today. If, however, he was born in Hawaii, then, irrespective of what Lolo Soetero may have done in Indonesia, Barack Obama would have been a U.S. citizen at birth. Most legal scholars agree with my position that if someone is a U.S. citizen at birth then he’s a natural-born citizen under the Constitution, but, as you know, reasonable minds may disagree on this issue.

[STE=Q]

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?

Yes, I believe that would be a fair inference.

However, let's ask a question that is right under our nose.

Why would Bingham and others even make such statements?

We can assume, can we not, that they didn't make it up from whole cloth?

It would seem that if your inference were correct, and the above assumption is true, than this controversy, as to what constitutes an Natural Born Citizen, has been going on for some time.

Bertrand Russell said "to see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle..."

So I ask:

What would drive these differing opinions as to what is a Natural Born citizen?

Why would the question of what constitutes an Natural Born citizen even be debatable?

Could it be that early Americans couldn't brake away from the idea of being a British subject, under a sovereign; as opposed to being a sovereign citizen, under a Republican form of government?

Is there any indication that there ever was such a schism?

Let's look at this dispassionately for a moment.

Both "YOUR" version of Natural Born citizen and "OUR" version can't both be true.

Why would the founding fathers leave this issue open ended?

So, for the sake of argument, let's say that OUR version -- born in country citizen parents -- is true.

If the above were assumed I would have to ask myself where your version of Natural born citizen -- born in country foreign national father OK. -- came from?

I don't think it would be reasonable be believe that you just made it up off the top of your head!

Now, conversely, if YOUR version were true -- born in country foreign national father OK. -- where did our view come from?

Do you think that it is reasonable to believe that we just made it up off the top of our head?

So it would seem that there IS controversy as to what constitutes a Natural born citizen... and IF there is such a controversy it would incontrovertibly follow that constitutionally (whatever be are personal opinions) -- there is a cloud of doubt, as to Obama's status as an Natural Born citizen.

Never before -- with the exception of Chester Alan Arthur -- has a President's Natural Born status been in such doubt.

If a citizen cannot be sure of a law how can he be expected to abide by same?

The same PRINCIPLE applies to one seeking to be President does it not?

I am not even arguing who is "right" or "wrong" here.

If there is genuine controversy as to Obama's status than that controversy needs to be resolved (re-solved)

STE=Q

[kittykat77]

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.

Far better to get all the paperwork in order as soon after a child's birth than to try to reconstruct events and chase down documents and "witnesses" 40 or more years later -- as is happening now.

If from day one, all the documentation clearly establishes that a child has been legally determined to be either natural born or native born, then there shouldn't be any disputes later on.

It shouldn't add that much more expense. The parents present their birth certificates, which state their place of birth, at the same time that the child's birth certificate is prepared. The legal/recording clerk/registrar then checks one of two citizenship boxes on the child's birth certificate, and the parents' birth certificates and child's birth certificate are kept on file.

Hassle-free. Plus it establishes a clear chain of document custody since the time of a child's birth.

I have the feeling at some point both Congress and the SCOTUS will be nailing down the legal definition of natural born in the future. If Congress and the Court determine that there is a distinction between natural born and native born, then these determinations will be made at the time a birth certificate is prepared and legally filed.

[GOPsterinMA]

That makes sense!

[PA-RIVER]

Now that the Barn door is open we have to shut it without a supreme court ruling.

If the Supreme court rules in favor of Obama, we then have precedent for every anchor baby ever born here. Kings and queens will have their children born here, educated here, and then run them for president. In effect, they will amend the constitution by judicial fiat, subverting Washingtons intent on keeping foreign influence from the administration of our government.

This Barn door has to be closed by the citizens in 2012 with an overwhelming vote against Obama.

[PA-RIVER]

So, if the King of England can impregnate any woman, who then delivers in the USA, that child can become President.

The King can then educate him and groom him, like a rock star for the presidency, supply him with all the funds to run for the presidency. When he is elected, he can pull all the strings of our government.

This is the problem that was addressed in our Constitution, and was never amended to allow. Obama is the son of a foreign politician, and he continues to piss on our constitution.

[Non-Sequitur]

So, if the King of England can impregnate any woman, who then delivers in the USA, that child can become President.

As a foreign head of state, he and his family hold diplomatic immunity and are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Really, can't you Birthers come up with more appropriate analogies?

This is the problem that was addressed in our Constitution, and was never amended to allow.

And where does the Constitution define natural-born citizenship.

[jamese777]

The following is excerpted from the November 12, 2009 decision of the Indiana Court of Appeals in the case of Ankeney v The Governor of Indiana which attempted to find both John McCain and Barack Obama ineligible to receive Indiana's Electoral College votes. B. Natural Born Citizen Second, the Plaintiffs argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are not “natural born Citizens” as required for qualification to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 49 of the U.S. Constitution, and that therefore because neither person was constitutionally eligible to become President, “[t]he Governor . . . should [have been] prohibited by order of [the trial court] . . . from issuing any certificate of ascertainment, or any other certified statement, under the State Seal of the State of Indiana . . . .” Appellants’ Appendix at 13. Before addressing the Plaintiffs’ specific arguments, we think it helpful to point out the context in which this claim arises. Leading up to the 2008 Presidential Election [9] The Plaintiffs cite the “natural born Citizen” clause as Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, but it is properly cited as Article II, Section 1, Clause 4. See also Ind. Code § 3-8-1-6. and in the ensuing months after, a number of lawsuits were filed nationwide challenging both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain’s10 status as “natural born Citizens” under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. See, e.g., Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Pa. 2008); Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008); Cohen v. Obama, No. 08-2150, 2008 WL 5191864 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2008), aff’d by 2009 WL 2870668 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 8, 2009); Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, 958 A.2d 709 (Conn. 2008). As to President Obama’s status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States; they support their argument by pointing to “the President’s alleged refusal to disclose publicly an „official birth certificate” that is satisfactory to [the birthers].” Rhodes v. MacDonald, No. 4:09-CV-106, 2009 WL 2997605, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 16, 2009), reconsideration denied by 2009 WL 3111834 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 18, 2009). The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs’ argument is that [10] The United States Senate passed a resolution on April 30, 2008 which explicitly recognized Senator John McCain as a natural born citizen. S.J. Res. 511, 110th Cong. (2008). Also, the supposed authority cited by the Plaintiffs to support their claim as to the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution does not support the argument that John McCain is not a natural born citizen. Plaintiffs state in their brief that the difference between being a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen” “involves having [two] parents of U.S. Citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellant’s Brief at 23. The Plaintiffs then concede that “John McCain . . . qualifie[s] as a „citizen of the United States,” by being born of [two] parents who were in turn „citizens of the United States,‟ and owed no foreign allegiance . . . .” Id. Their brief continues that “John McCain was born „subject to the jurisdiction‟ of the United States, but he was not born in one of the 50 States of the Union under Article IV of the Constitution, and thus was not a „natural born Citizen . . . .‟” Id. at 23-24. Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority or develop any cogent legal argument for the proposition that a person must actually be born within one of the fifty States in order to qualify as a natural born citizen, and we therefore do not address Plaintiffs argument as it relates to Senator McCain. See Loomis, 764 N.E.2d at 668. “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a „citizen of the United States” and a „natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants’ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President. The bases of the Plaintiffs’ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate.11 For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs‟ complaint. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a “natural born Citizen.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v. [11] Plaintiffs do not provide pinpoint citations to the congressional debate quotations to which they cite. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that: 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. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12 Then, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898), the United States Supreme Court confronted the question of “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China . . . becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment . . . .” 169 U.S. at 653, 18 S. Ct. at 458. We find this case instructive. The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “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.” Id. at 654, 18 S. Ct. at 459. They noted that “[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States [12] Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom. 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.” Id. at 655, 18 S. Ct. at 459 (quoting Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478, 8 S. Ct. 564, 569 (1888)). The Wong Kim Ark Court explained: The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called „ligealty,‟ „obedience,‟ „faith,‟ or „power‟-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king‟s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, „Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,‟-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king‟s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king. This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case known as „Calvin‟s Case,‟ or the „Case of the Postnati,‟ decided in 1608, after a hearing in the exchequer chamber before the lord chancellor and all the judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere, Postnati, 62-64; s. c. 2 How. St. Tr. 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679. The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co. Litt. 8a, 128b; Lord Hale, in Harg. Law Tracts, 210, and in 1 Hale, P. C. 61, 62; 1 Bl. Comm. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 Term R. 300, 308; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741. * * * * * Lord Chief Justice Cockburn . . . said: „By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.‟ Cockb. Nat. 7. Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics: “British subject’ means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the crown. „Permanent‟ allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien, who, because he is within the British dominions, owes „temporary‟ allegiance to the crown. „Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’ ‘Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.‟ The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two: „(1) Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such person‟s birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.‟ „(2) Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person’s birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the crown by the sovereign of a foreign state is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.‟ And he adds: „The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person’s birth, it in theory at least depended, not upon the locality of a man‟s birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the king of England; and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of the crown.‟ Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741. It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.13 Id. at 655-658, 18 S. Ct. at 459-460. Also, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, Justice Joseph Story once declared in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors‟ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830), that “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461 (quoting Inglis, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) at 164 (Story, J., concurring)). The Court also cited Justice Curtis‟s dissent in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856): The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, „a natural-born citizen.‟ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth. [13] According to Westlaw, Wong Kim Ark has been cited to in over 1,000 cases. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 662, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quoting Dred Scott, 60 U.S. (19 How.) at 576 (Curtis, J., dissenting)). The Court in Wong Kim Ark also cited authority which notes that: All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution. Id. at 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quotations and citations omitted). The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States “at the time of his birth.”14 Id. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478. Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15 [14] We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478. [15] We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs‟ case. 16 See generally McCalment v. Eli Lilly & Co., 860 N.E.2d 884 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that the plaintiffs‟ arguments had been sufficiently addressed by Indiana Supreme Court precedent and therefore the trial court did not err when it granted the defendant‟s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted); see also, e.g., Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status. [16] We note that President Obama is not the first U.S. President born of parents of differing citizenship. Chester A. Arthur, the twenty-first U.S. President, was born of a mother who was a United States citizen and a father who was an Irish citizen. See THOMAS C. REEVES, GENTLEMAN BOSS, THE LIFE OF CHESTER ALAN ARTHUR 3-4 (1975). During the election of 1880, there arose a rumor “that [Arthur] had been born in Canada, rather than in Vermont as he claimed, and was thus constitutionally ineligible to become the Chief Executive.” Id. at 3. Although President Arthur‟s status as a natural born citizen was challenged in the 1880 Presidential Election on the grounds that he was born in Canada rather than Vermont, the argument was not made that because Arthur‟s father was an Irish citizen he was constitutionally ineligible to be President. See generally id. not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”), cert. denied 462 U.S. 1132, 103 S. Ct. 3112 (1983). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court‟s grant of the Governor‟s motion to dismiss. Affirmed. CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur.

[kittykat77]

This Barn door has to be closed by the citizens in 2012 with an overwhelming vote against Obama.

I'd think you'd want to permanently seal the Barn Door, no? Better to have either Congressional legislation or a Constitutional amendment carefully defining what a natural born citizen is.

Just getting Obama out of office in 2012 doesn't solve the definition problem. Eventually some other candidate will arrive whose birth circumstances trigger the same arguments all over again.

[Uncle Chip]

And where does the Constitution define natural-born citizenship.

The Justice Marshall defined it in the Venus decision as early as 1814 and his definition has never been challenged -- until today by the Obotocrazies.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Justice Marshall defined it in the Venus decision as early as 1814 and his definition has never been challenged -- until today by the Obotocrazies.

Defined by comments made in dicta, while dissenting the majority decision. They were Chief Justice Marshall's opinion alone and thus are not legally binding. Try again.

[Uncle Chip]

Defined by comments made in dicta, while dissenting the majority decision.

Defined nonetheless -- and defined is as defined does -- and no other Justice has ever challenged that definition or offered his own that is any different.

And it concurs with the definition used in the Senate's SR511 -- Get used to it.

You're wrong. Get used to that too.

[Non-Sequitur]

Defined nonetheless -- and defined is as defined does --

That's like saying you've defined natural-born citizen -- and defined is as defined does. One Justices opinion does not a Supreme Court decision make. It counts no more or no less than your opinion or mine in terms of established law and legal precedent.

...and no other Justice has ever challenged that definition or offered his own that is any different.

So you say, though many others might say that Justice Gray did define it differently in the Ark decision. Others might point out that Chief Justice Waite did not agree with Chief Justice Marshall's blanket statement in the Happersett decision when he noted that there were different schools of thought on the subject and refused to say whether one or the other was wrong. But you keep on trying.

[Uncle Chip]

One Justices opinion does not a Supreme Court decision make. It counts no more or no less than your opinion or mine in terms of established law and legal precedent.

I have news for you -- every Supreme Court Decision is made up of multitudes of opinions, facts, dicta that lead up to a final decision -- many of which then are cited as precedents in future cases.

Furthermore Marshall's dicta was factual not opinion -- as it was the fact upon the Republic operated at that time and no one debated that or opined otherwise at all.

So you say, though many others might say that Justice Gray did define it differently in the Ark decision.

Can you name these "many others" for us??? Would those "many others" include your alter egos on this site???

Others might point out that Chief Justice Waite did not agree with Chief Justice Marshall's blanket statement

Can you name those "Others" or are you just referring to yourself and the handful of Obots who have no documentary evidence for anything they say.

[Non-Sequitur]

I have news for you -- every Supreme Court Decision is made up of multitudes of opinions, facts, dicta that lead up to a final decision -- many of which then are cited as precedents in future cases.

And I have news for you. Only the majority decision are binding precedent. Concurring opinions, dissenting opinions, obiter dictum may be used as persuasive precedent or in support of judicial argument but they do not in and of themselves ratio decidendi.

Furthermore Marshall's dicta was factual not opinion -- as it was the fact upon the Republic operated at that time and no one debated that or opined otherwise at all.

It was opinion, not established legal fact.

Can you name these "many others" for us??? Would those "many others" include your alter egos on this site???

They would all be non-Birthers, yes.

Can you name those "Others" or are you just referring to yourself and the handful of Obots who have no documentary evidence for anything they say.

Unlike you they are people who understand the law, the Constitution, and how the courts work.

[MHGinTN]

Notice how the arrogant ass eventually brays to reveal it is a donkey?... Unlike you they are people who understand the law, the Constitution, and how the courts work. And these insulting chaps/chapettes (faggots ... meatballs to the English) are a protected species at FR, especially during funds raising.

[Uncle Chip]

Yep