Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"
The Post & Email ^ | Oct. 18, 2009 | John Charlton

Posted on 01/10/2010 6:03:15 PM PST by STE=Q

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 next last
To: Uncle Chip

Per Non-Sequiter, if I read him correctly, there is no defined meaning for Natural Born Citizen. I can only therefore summarize by N/S arguments that the constitution is meaningless drivel.

George Washington read the law of nations, the only place on earth where “Natural Born Citizen” is defined prior to the constitution being written.

Are we to believe this was put into the constitution without ever being defined, and that he did not intend to have this explicit definiton in “law of nations” used for the constitution?

Yesterday, I drove past the scene where Washington crossed the Delaware with ice floating by. I have seen his Monument in Manhatten where he was inaugurated and also dodged bullets. I have seen the huts where his men lived during war in Morristown. I have been to his house at Mount Vernon. I have been to Independence Hall where the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were written and signd. I honor this man, the Father of our nation, by accepting the constitution and its intent when he accepted the constitution and gave us the greatest nation ever found on earth. I respect his legacy, the constitution.

Washington put this clause in place so that no man might be elected that intended to destroy this nation that Washington risked his life for. We now have that very man sitting in the Oval office as president, with every intent to destroy it. It is fitting that ignoring his explicit written advice and unambiguous language in the constitution has given us exactly what he was warned about by John Jay.

George Washington was not a fool. The American people are not fools. That is why this issue will not go away.


101 posted on 01/11/2010 2:05:53 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
I remember these details being discussed, just this simply and just this clearly, more than two years ago. The evidence then was the same as it is now, but the media and the swarms of seminar internet posters have kept the waters muddied and the simple truth silenced.

Obama has never been, and cannot ever be, eligible to the office of the presidency of the United States.

This past election, and the resulting current administration, is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated in the history of the United States; the gravest treason by many who knew and abetted the fraud.

102 posted on 01/11/2010 2:12:05 PM PST by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patlin
you are totally misrepresenting the opinion and you do not cite what references the court used in its decision...Civil Rights Act of 1866

The 14th amendment was also cited in the next few words of the same sentence.

First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, § 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case -- that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States -- the Court adverted to the ..

They also referanced "Steinkauler's Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15,

From the decision written by Chief Justice Hughes:

Fifth. The cross-petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg "solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship." The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (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 include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.

I still you are not getting my point and perhaps I am not getting yours. The fact that Miss Elg was a natural born citizen was not really important to the ruling, the fact that she was a native born citizen, via the 1866 civil rights act and the 14th amendment, was. That's why the NBC statement is dicta, at least to a point. Cheif Justice Hughes opinion also contains the information that tells us why the lower court ruled she was a natural born citizen:

The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg. who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here,

But, it would not have mattered, to the ruling in this case that she was a native born citizen, (as well a a natural born one), as the opinion make clear by many of the examples it cites, if her parents had not been naturalized.

The simple facts are, that while the Supreme Court has indicated on several occasions that a Natural Born Citizen must have two citizen parnents, in each case that was dicta, since the case only concerned citizenship, or native born citizenship, not natural born citizenship.

103 posted on 01/11/2010 2:20:17 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER
Well Said. The only fools here are those who think we are.

BTW -- NS and AU on this forum both believe, by their undefined definition, that anchor babies are natural born citizens.

104 posted on 01/11/2010 2:23:21 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Lower55
That’s an ODD statement about the supposed President of the United States.

But a true one.

105 posted on 01/11/2010 2:23:54 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
So then just what was “natural born citizen” understood to mean before the 14th Amendment????

I imagine that would depend on what the citizenship laws of the time said. Someone had to be born in the U.S. certainly.

106 posted on 01/11/2010 2:26:48 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
Did the Senate that unanimously approved McCain's SR511 vote on that yet??? Why not???

For the same reason the Senate did not vote on HR593. One is a Senate non-binding resolution and one is a House non-binding resolution.

You do know what a non-binding resolution is, don't you?

107 posted on 01/11/2010 2:29:56 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Well since you cannot find a definition and the Venus Case did provide a definition, then we have to go with that one, right???


108 posted on 01/11/2010 2:32:09 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Thanks.

Mocking patriots that can point to law, fact, and history is the last resort of Liberals and their drones.


109 posted on 01/11/2010 2:34:12 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Naturalized is a process reached through statute, ie, some legal statute establishes citizenship

Well, several classes of people, those born abroad to two citizen parents, and those born to a single citizen parent and an alien father, with some residency restrictions for the citizen parent(s), are also citizens at birth, but via statute. See 8 USC 1401. BTW, the statues themselves define "naturalization" as a acquisition of citizenship *after* birth. See 8 USC 1101, definitions

Of course that position is not logical. The Congress is only granted power to define a uniform rule of naturalization, yet they have defined several cases of "citizenship at birth". But it is Congress, so a little illogic is to be expected.

110 posted on 01/11/2010 2:35:22 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Lower55
Absolutely FALSE. You need to go read the decision again.

The court ruled that Ark was a citizen by birth, AKA a natural-born citizen.

...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."

Comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?

And accuracy does not seem to be your's.

111 posted on 01/11/2010 2:36:36 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

So Non-Seq, you are stating that the Constitution was ammended in practice without first being ammended by consitutional process? Would that not be violating the constition?


112 posted on 01/11/2010 2:39:39 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: afnamvet
The House passes a non binding resolution recognizing Hawaii as the 50th state and Abercombie throws Obama a bone stating he was born there. The Senate passes a non binding resolution stating McCain is some type of citizen. I find this quite humorous.

Isn't it though? Neither resolution means anything in the grand scheme of things. I mean, if the Senate passed a non-binding resolution saying Obama was a natural-born citizen, would people like Uncle Chip shrug and say, "Well I guess that settles it then?"

Since the proverbial horse has left the barn, impeachment of the current occupant of the White House is the logical remedy to remove him from office with the caveat of evidence to support Constitutional requirements.

I wouldn't disagree with that.

113 posted on 01/11/2010 2:39:39 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

It would have made a HUGE difference.

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; however her parents were naturalized and had sworn an oath of total allegiance to the United States and thus she was born owing no allegiance to any foreign nation as stated in the 1866 Act.


114 posted on 01/11/2010 2:43:55 PM PST by patlin (1st SCOTUS of USA: "Human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“The court ruled that Ark was a citizen by birth, AKA a natural-born citizen.”

No, it did not. And, a citizen by birth is not necessarily a Natural Born Citizen. One has to have citizen parentS.


115 posted on 01/11/2010 2:44:47 PM PST by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
One is a Senate non-binding resolution and one is a House non-binding resolution.

Yet the Senate's SR511 was based documentary evidence, and thus an evidenciary resolution, while the House's had no documentary evidence, and was thus a non-evidenciary resolution.

You do know what a non-binding resolution is, don't you?

Yeh -- a pontification made by a liberal or an Obot who doesn't believe what he is saying.

You know what a non-evidentiary resolution is, don't you?

116 posted on 01/11/2010 2:44:56 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

re: “His Kenyan citizen lapsed when he turned 21...”

It did not.

The (factcheck) report is not accurate as to Obama’s historical British Subject status in that the implication exists that British subject status was lost along with British citizenship back in 1963.

The proof of this exists in the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963 (KIA) which states in Section 2(1):

2.-(1) On and after the appointed day, the British Nationality Acts 1948 and 1958 shall have effect as if-

(a) in section 1(3) of the said Act of 1948 (which provides for persons to be British subjects or Commonwealth citizens by virtue of citizenship of certain countries) there were added at the end the words ” and Kenya ” ;

Now we must look at the British Nationality Act of 1948, Section 1:

1.—(1) Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject.

(2) Any person having the status aforesaid may be known either as a British subject or as a Commonwealth citizen; and accordingly in this Act and in any other enactment or instrument whatever, whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Act, the expression “British subject” and the expression “Commonwealth citizen” shall have the same meaning.

(3) The following are the countries hereinbefore referred to, that is to say, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon.

According to the KIA, the words “and Kenya” are added to subsection (3) making all Kenyan citizens also British Subjects upon “the appointed day”, December 12, 1963.

First, Obama could not have lost his Kenyan Citizenship on August 4, 1982. This means his foreign nationality issues were not only governed by the Kenyan Constitution, but – as of January 1, 1983 – he was also governed by the British Nationality Act of 1981.
AND SO OBAMA WAS A BRITISH COMMONWEALTH CITIZEN AFTER THE BNA OF 1981 took effect Jan 1 1983, AND SO HE STILL IS, since he was not only governed by KIA63.

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


117 posted on 01/11/2010 2:45:31 PM PST by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And he's also a U.S. citizen from birth, which means he is a natural-born citizen

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".

As I said above, the statutes make a person born outside the US, a "citizen at birth" under some circumstances. Such a person can hardly fit the 14th amendment definition of "(native) born in the US", but since Congress only has power over naturalization rules, they must be considered, for Constitutional purposes at least, "naturalized at birth".

118 posted on 01/11/2010 2:46:01 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I wrote:

"It would appear that A Natural Born Citizen -- born in country by citizen parents (Plural)-- would be the logical answer to the above question."

NS wrote:

pity that John Jay never said that though.

___________________________________________________________

It's a "pity" that John Bingham pretty much does (see post # 29):

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{PLURAL} 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)

It's not "birther" logic.

It's called an inference:

inference:

Logic.

a. the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises.

b. the process of arriving at some conclusion that, though it is not logically derivable from the assumed premises, possesses some degree of probability relative to the premises.

STE=Q

119 posted on 01/11/2010 2:46:07 PM PST by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
Well since you cannot find a definition and the Venus Case did provide a definition, then we have to go with that one, right???

The Venus case did not involve natural born citizens - all three men involved were naturalized citizens - and therefore what constituted natural-born citizenship was not a matter before the court. Chief Justice Chase's comments were made in dicta and are not binding.

Of the three cases mentioned, only the Ark case actually touched on the question of natural-born citizenship. The argument was that he wasn't a citizen at all since he was Chinese and his parents could never be citizens under the laws in place at the time. The court found that under the 14th Amendment he was indeed a citizen by birth and the nationality of his parents was irrelevant to that. Since only two forms of citizenship are identified by the Constitution, and since he certainly wasn't naturalized, then obviously citizen by birth and natural-born citizen mean the same thing.

120 posted on 01/11/2010 2:48:39 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: afnamvet
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).

121 posted on 01/11/2010 2:49:34 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“...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.


122 posted on 01/11/2010 2:50:49 PM PST by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER
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.

123 posted on 01/11/2010 2:52:34 PM PST by kittykat77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
"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?

124 posted on 01/11/2010 2:52:44 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: 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.


125 posted on 01/11/2010 2:54:18 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
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?

126 posted on 01/11/2010 2:55:40 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: patlin
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.

127 posted on 01/11/2010 2:59:32 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
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.

128 posted on 01/11/2010 3:08:56 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
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.

129 posted on 01/11/2010 3:11:04 PM PST by afnamvet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith
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?

130 posted on 01/11/2010 3:12:27 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

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

And where was that defined?

131 posted on 01/11/2010 3:13:41 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: afnamvet

vote vote....just one vote.


132 posted on 01/11/2010 3:13:46 PM PST by afnamvet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

133 posted on 01/11/2010 3:22:06 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Lower55
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.

134 posted on 01/11/2010 3:26:39 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
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.

135 posted on 01/11/2010 3:35:39 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
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 --

136 posted on 01/11/2010 3:44:58 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: kittykat77
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.

137 posted on 01/11/2010 4:14:39 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“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.


138 posted on 01/11/2010 4:48:20 PM PST by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
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.

139 posted on 01/11/2010 4:51:34 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“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.


140 posted on 01/11/2010 4:52:35 PM PST by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

unfortunately true due the erroneous opinion in WKA.


141 posted on 01/11/2010 4:55:25 PM PST by patlin (1st SCOTUS of USA: "Human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; Non-Sequitur
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).

142 posted on 01/11/2010 4:56:58 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
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.

143 posted on 01/11/2010 5:19:22 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

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.


144 posted on 01/11/2010 5:56:49 PM PST by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
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

145 posted on 01/11/2010 6:27:58 PM PST by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
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.

146 posted on 01/11/2010 7:47:18 PM PST by kittykat77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Munz

That makes sense!


147 posted on 01/11/2010 11:48:58 PM PST by GOPsterinMA (Never bring a snowball to a gun fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: kittykat77
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.

148 posted on 01/12/2010 8:20:17 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
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.

149 posted on 01/12/2010 8:37:22 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER
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.

150 posted on 01/12/2010 9:04:32 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson