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 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-164 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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-164 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