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 ...
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.
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.