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.
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”.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
First time I've seen one of these threads that wasn't infested by the usual gang of deceivers.
It is "understood" by those with logical minds capable of determining the intent of the words of the author -- something that is foreign to the minds of liberals and Obots.
Yes, the actual requirement is for the President to be a natural born citizen of the United States or a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted.
10-4! Thank you both!
“§ 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.”
Which means that if Obama was born in Kenya, then he isn’t a natural-born citizen because federal law at the time only gave U.S. citizenship at birth to a child born abroad with one U.S. citizen parent if such parent had lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years after the age of 14 (and Obama’s mother hadn’t yet turned 19 years of age when he was born). However, if Obama was born in Hawaii, then he’s a U.S. citizen at birth and thus a natural-born citizen.
“... thus, a natural-born citizen is someone that is a citizen at birth, while a naturalized citizen becomes a citizen later in life.” By mistating your premise to include that which you wish to establish as singular truth, you have deceived readers and yourself. Naturalized is a process reached through statute, ie, some legal statute establishes citizenship. By statute is not a state achieved by meeting the primary definition of natural born. Even you can think up a case where someone born on American soil but not a natural born citizen at birth and not a citizen at birth can become a citizen by statute passed later in life yet reaching back to date of birth, state of parents’ citizenship, and location. [HINT: think children born to diplomats and years later Congress establishes a statute covering siad child born to a diplomat of a foreign country.]
A child of foreign diplomats born in the U.S. is not a U.S. citizen because U.S. laws (and, less relevantly, the 14th Amendment) in existence well before 1961 and still in effect today specifically state that the children of foreign diplomats do not acquire U.S. citizenship merely by being born in the U.S. However, the laws of the U.S. in 1961 said that the child of a U.S. citizen and a foreigner is a U.S. citizen at birth if he was born in the U.S. 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).
Your theory is that a person can be a U.S. citizen at birth and not be a natural-born citizen. I disagree with you, as did, apparently, Joseph Story. That doesn’t prove that you are wrong, but at the very least you should accept that that passage from Story’s Commentaries is a point in my favor.
I’m not in some sort of contest with you; I just find natural born—based upon the writings from the eras of our Constitution being written and by whom it was written, their comments on the subject—to mean two American citizen parents and born on American soil or territory (as in an embassy or military base rented lands). Changing the Constitution by fiat fits leftist fascist design, but it is anti-American in the main.
McCain was tested for his “Natural Born Citizenship” by congress before he ran for President. He was qualified because both his parents were Americans at the time of his birth.
Obama was not, because he would not pass the test. It was a brilliant move by Dems to focus on McCain and then be generous to allow him to run. They had no issues running against a feeble old man. Getting Obamma past this requirement was their motive. (IE, “We gave you a gold plated pass for your Panamanian born senator, now leave us alone.”)
That opened the door for Obama to get in without being given a natural born citizen test.
Believe me, the fact that Obamma was not tested like McCain was not an accident. Harry Ried was running the show, and he slected Obama to run. We have never seen any original documents for Obama, and he was in fact born a British subject. As a matter of Fact, not opinion, we now have a "British born subject" running the American government.
A pity that John Jay never said that though. Still how can we argue with Birther logic?
No, it's not. Three of those cases do not deal with the question of natural-born citizenship and the fourth doesn't say what the author thinks it says.
You’re right, we’re not in a contest—I apologize for using language that implied that we were.
Regarding your expanded definition of U.S. soil, federal law does not grant birthright citizenship to persons born in U.S. military bases abroad or in U.S. embassies or consulates. If a Cuban woman gives birth in the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base to a baby whose father is also a non-citizen, then the baby would not be a U.S. citizen at birth under federal law, the same as if the baby had been born outside of the base. Same goes with an embassy—if a cleaning woman gives birth in the U.S. embassy in Moscow, the baby wouldn’t be a U.S. citizen. This is because while in conversation people use terms such as “U.S. soil” or “U.S. jurisdiction” to refer to embassies and military bases abroad, such places are legally part of the sovereign territory of the foreign nation surrounding them and the only “jurisdiction” that the U.S. has is what was given to us by treaty.
Of course, if what matters is whether or not a person is a U.S. citizen at birth, irrespective of where he was born, then it doesn’t matter whether the child of U.S. citizens was born in a hospital inside or outside of the U.S. military base, since he is a U.S. citizen at birth under federal law irrespective of where he was born.
Rest assured, You are not alone in belittling Americans who know the law by calling them “birthers”.
The truth remains: He is the first to assume the presidency, after the founders, with numerous claims to citizenship rights to multiple countries. The NBC clause is there to stop this exact situation.
On the contrary, I'm belittling Birthers who don't know the law.
The truth remains: He is the first to assume the presidency, after the founders, with numerous claims to citizenship rights to multiple countries. The NBC clause is there to stop this exact situation.
Ah if you could only point to where the Constitution defines natural-born citizen in a way which supports your position.
Common sense defines it. He was born on United States soil (let’s assume) the son of a father who was at all times a UK/Kenyan citizen.
Which, according to the 14th Amendment, made him a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth. Since the Constitution only identifies two forms of citizenship, and since Obama wasn't naturalized, then that narrows his status down to natural-born.
I read where they had to exempt themselves at the time and it was legislation because there was no way that anyone would have been eligible since the country was so young.
It strikes me as strange to insist in this case on an explicit definition in the Constitution itself, given the fact that the Constitution routinely uses a lot of other terms without defining them; and so, quite a few interpretations in many other cases (not just regarding natural-born citizenship) have been based on discerning the intent of the framers and determining their likely use of language as understood at the time. Why is that not allowed now?
So then who were the natural born citizens before the 14th Amendment????????????
The meaning of “Is” is subject to interpretation. “Arms” is not defined in the constitution, therefore congress can out law guns and must not regulate T-shirts.
Natural born Citizen is not defined, therefore A British born Subject can run for president.
When the terms of language are set upon quicksand as you insist, there is no constitution. There is no law. There is no justice. People then set the rules on their own terms with their own instruments of justice, as they must, as they are forced to.
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.