Skip to comments.4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"
Posted on 01/10/2010 6:03:15 PM PST by 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.
Lets 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
New-York, 25th July, 1787
Permit me to hint whether it would not be WISE and seasonable to provide a STRONG CHECK to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a Natural Born Citizen. (Emphases Mine)
I remain, dear sir,
Your faithful friend and servant,
John Jay Letters:
Now the question arises as to what would have been the best "STRONG CHECK" to the admission of foreigners into the administration of the incipient national government of Jay's time?
It would appear that A Natural Born Citizen -- born in country by citizen parents (Plural)-- would be the logical answer to the above question.
A Very Important Article for all to read, especially Glenn Beck and O’Reilly who believe this is no big deal!..(o_O)
This refutes the argument of those who maintain that Vattel doesn’t amount to anything. It is woven into SCOTUS precedent.
Just curious: Did the Founding Fathers exempt themselves from this or did they declare themselves US (vs. English) citizens at the conclusion of the Revolutionary War?
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,
Article II, Section 5. I think this answers your question.
They “GRANDFATHERED THEMSELVES IN:
“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;...”
The issue was dealt with thusly:
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'
I have never heard if the first seven Prsidents (Martin Van Buren, #8, being the first to be born a US citizen) specifically declared US Citizenship.
Nice. Maybe those cowards at SCOTUS will take it up soon. I know Leo and Pidgeon are trying DC Circuit through quo warranto.
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;
Justice Joseph Story, also founder of Harvard Law School, in his works of Volume 3, Section 1472-73 of The Founders Constitution: Commentaries on the Constitution originally published in 1833 writes of the qualifications of those who wish to attain election into the executive branch as laid out in A2 S1 C5 of the constitution:
§ 1472. Considering the nature of the duties, the extent of the information, and the solid wisdom and experience required in the executive department, no one can reasonably doubt the propriety of some qualification of age. That, which has been selected, is the middle age of life, by which period the character and talents of individuals are generally known, and fully developed; and opportunities have usually been afforded for public service, and for experience in the public councils. The faculties of the mind, if they have not then attained to their highest maturity, are in full vigor, and hastening towards their ripest state. The judgment, acting upon large materials, has, by that time, attained a solid cast; and the principles, which form the character, and the integrity, which gives lustre to the virtues of life, must then, if ever, have acquired public confidence and approbation.
§ 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. 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 honors in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. 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; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe.
Got it, thank you!
Where's the BC?
Till yer boyee answers that, stuff the frog up!
FROM THE ARTICLE:
"Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term 'natural born citizen' to any other category than 'those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof'."
What’s interesting to me is the heavy reliance on the foreign Vattel by the SCOTUS when only recently Americans were screeching about the Supreme Court justices even acknowledging the merest whiffs of foreign law.
Ben Franklin's son, who was also governor of NJ, refused to renounce England and thus was jailed charged with Treason for not relinquishing his office while continuing to adhere to the crown. Not a common story, but it should be.
Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term natural born citizen to any other category than those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof.
Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally."
His most recent case is over 100 years old and does not consider the developments in citizenship law since 1898. He ignores many cases which have a bearing on Obama' eligibility.
Also, what happens when you apply the last paragraph (in my italics) to Roe vs. Wade? Then by his definition, we must unquestioningly accept it. Despite it being far more repugnant to the Constitution's actual meaning than the questions about Obama's citizenship will ever be. In that case Supreme Court is wrong, and must be overturned, just as the court was wrong in Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott.
Sorry, this article, like the birther movement in general, drew a conclusion first, and then wants the law to support it, instead of seeing what the whole constitution, and ALL relevant case law, says.
You could learn much from reading the commentaries of Justice Wilson, 1791 & Justice Story, 1833.
Ping for another Natural Born Thread.
The last Supreme Court case pertaining to natural born citizen is the Elg case from the 1930’s. Elg’s Swedish parents came to the US, naturalized before Miss Elg was born, the parents then took their daughter back to Sweden, but at the coming of age, Miss Elg wished to return to the US and thus after her persistant efforts, the Supreme Court decided that Miss Elg, being born to 2 US citizen parents was a natural born citizen and ordered the State Dept to reinstate her passport.
Well, according to many so-called and self-described conservatives, if Nancy Pelosi pencil whips the approval process and the Supreme Court refuses to look at the case, well, it is official and no definition of “natural born” means squat, no Constitutional requirements, nothing.
Indeed, men -- dictators and tyrants among them -- may inact various laws that oppose and oppress the people.
That is why the founders depended on "Natural Law" as opposed to mans law.
Man's law -- divorced from "natural" law -- is less stable and enduring.
It pains me that leftest believe that the constitution is JUST a mailable piece of paper to suite the whims of the moment.
That is why it is WISE that the POTUS be elected of and from the pool of the indigenous (in-the genes) people... people born in the country from citizen parents.
That is why Natural Born Citizen -- as defined in this article -- is the best protection from undue foreign influence leading to usurpation of office.
>! you have to turn to page 1291 !>
According to the the principal framer (John Armor Bingham )of the 14th amendment, particularly
the Citizenship and the Citizenship Clause (Defining who was a citizen of the United States) and by Mr. Obamas
own admission he is not a Natural Born citizen.
Bingham states: 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 not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language
of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen . . John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866
I don’t know how you found this case but is the key to removing Obama from the office he is not entitled to hold!
PERKINS V. ELG, 307 U. S. 325 (1939) — US Supreme Court Cases ...
Cited by 442 - Related articles
(Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should ...
supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html - Cached
FREE THE BC!!!...
Powerful -- and definitive -- Statement!
Something eludes me here. My question is this: In the 20th and 21st centuries, has the United States government ever differentially classified US citizens on US government-issued visas, passports, military papers, census documents, etc as being either (1) a citizen, (2) a natural born citizen, or (3) a naturalized citizen?
One would assume that if the US government had always intended to maintain a legal distinction between each of three types of citizenship, then it would have established a rigorous system for doing so by now. Yet the US government hasn't. It only keeps track of two types of citizenship.
Why is that?
Looks like you are trying to get “cute”, I don’t buy it! Only applies to the qualifications to hold office as President and V. President.
You are so correct about the govt/Congress & I have compiled all the attempts of the progressives, from both sides of the isle that have attempted to change it, but all attempts died a quick death in committee, well, except S. Res. 511
Congressman Candy, 2000
Mr. Candy who is chairing the subcommittee opens by stating:
The natural-born citizen qualification continues to provide to the political system of the United States a certain level of protection against the influence of foreign nations. In addition to this safeguard, the requirement also secures the ability of the President to make decisions involving domestic and foreign policy that are in the best interests of the United States without an inherent emotional or familial attachment to another nation.
And Mr. Candy is quite right. The qualification was put in place specifically for national security & sovereignty reasons. It was put in place to protect the citizens of the newly formed Republic from ever becoming subjects to foreign sovereigns or an all powerful central Monarchy. Mr. Candy has done his homework and thus is the reason I believe that this never made it out of committee.
The difference being that Vattel wrote of "natural law", *before* the Constitution was written. The founders, many of them at least, were well read, especially on government, politics and political theory.
They obviously found many things about the English system not to their liking, otherwise why rebel against it? Vattel did not write law, he wrote about laws, he was a sort of legal theorist.
Have any of those developments been a Constitutional amendment? If not, and the answer to that question is indeed no, then the Constitution still means what it meant when written. In that sense, more weight should be given to the earlier cases and writings, rather than later "developments", unless those later developments derived from earlier, but freshly "unearthed" documentation.
The real problem is that for Constitutional purposed, the only time the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" matters is for eligibility to the Office of President. Since no President heretofore has been challenged in the courts as to his Citizenship status, although Chester Arthur *should* have been, the courts have not determined what the meaning of NBC was in 1787. All the cases on both sides of the question, only mention NBC in "dicta", it was not a factor in any of the decisions.
No one has ever been ruled to be, or not be, a natural born citizen, except as part of ruling that they were a citizen, or not, when the question was of their citizenship. Ms. Elg, for example, was declared to be natural born, because she was born in the US of two (then) citizen parents, but all that mattered was that she was a citizen. Similarly, Wong Kim Ark was not declared natural born, but was declared to be a citizen, having been born in the US of two (legal) alien parents.
But, since she was not running for President, the declaration of her as a natural born citizen was "dicta", not necessary to reach the conclusion of the cout, they only needed to determine if she was a citizen, which she of course was.
You have to read the opinion and see the references they used in determining her citizenship status before stating what you do.
Have you done that? My guess is not.
I think you'll find that passports only indicate citizenship, although because they include place of birth, they can be used to infer "native born" or "naturalized"... but not reliably, since persons born of parents in the service of the country (such as military or diplomatic) are considered native (and if both parents are citizens, natural) born, yet place of birth might be Nairobi, Kenya, or more likely someplace in England, Germany or South Korea.
Your second and third "classes" are subsets of the first. Both "natural born" and "naturalized" are citizens, as are native born. Natural born is a subset of "native born", while naturalized is a subset that does not intersect the set "native born". Where "native born" has the modern meaning of "born in the United States".
The reason it's not kept track of, is that all citizens have the same rights, so there is no purpose in keeping track. But being elected to office is not a right, and their are eligibility criteria which may restrict naturalized citizens from running for or holding federal elected office. For Representative and Senator, there are residency requirements, and for President a complete ban. Similarly non Natural Born citizens cannot hold the office of President, even if they are native born, and otherwise meet the eligibility requirements.
Of course I have. I'm not saying she was not a natural born citizen, she was. But that was not the issue in her case. The issue was "is she a citizen". Being a natural born citizen obviously means she was a citizen. But she could have been merely "native born", had her parents not been naturalized when she was born, say if they'd been legal resident aliens, like the parents of the Governor of Louisiana were when he was born, and she'd still be a citizen, and still entitled to a US passport and admission to the US, which was the real issue in her case. The court could thus have delared her to be a native born citizen, which she also was, and the result/finding would have been the same.
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. That's the kind of stuff the government normally likes to keep track of.
While it definitely wants us to be legally designated male or female, the US government has never bothered to legally establish which of us is natural born. That's very curious. I think it can be argued the US government's curious indifference means that it does not consider natural born a legally distinct category of citizenship.
Do you want to rethink that post?
“Sorry, this article, like the birther movement in general, drew a conclusion first, and then wants the law to support it, instead of seeing what the whole constitution, and ALL relevant case law, says.”
Sorry, but “ALL relevant law” beyond the Constitution has nothing to do with it. The overriding, ultimate law in the USA is the Constitution. No law, statute, regulation overrides the Constitution which IS interpreted ultimately by the Supreme Court. Their interpretation is dictated by precedent and interpretation of what the term meant at the time the Constitution was written.
Correct me if I'm wrong: Has the United States government ever demanded that a United States citizen prove he was a natural born citizen?
No — I was being ironic/cheeky. See reply at No. 34. Maybe I should use emoticons....
Sorry, but your inference as to what would be the most logical answer is not part of the record. It is your opinon.
Am I in the Twilight Zone?
I'm astonished at how many different individuals try the same childish attempt at "reasoning."
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.