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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-164 next last
To: STE=Q

bookmark


41 posted on 01/10/2010 9:38:53 PM PST by fightinJAG (Largest wing in future Obama Presidential Library will be devoted to Bush & Cheney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

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.


42 posted on 01/10/2010 9:52:10 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 40 | View Replies]

To: kittykat77
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.

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.

43 posted on 01/10/2010 9:58:17 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: patlin
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.

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.

44 posted on 01/10/2010 10:14:30 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: WellyP
I'm not being cute at all.

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.

45 posted on 01/10/2010 10:15:43 PM PST by kittykat77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kittykat77

Do you want to rethink that post?


46 posted on 01/10/2010 10:18:39 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps

“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.


47 posted on 01/10/2010 10:27:06 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
The US government never requires citizens -- even those running for president/vice president -- to establish they are natural born citizens. To me, this means the US government does not view natural born citizen as a distinct category of citizenship.

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?

48 posted on 01/10/2010 10:33:51 PM PST by kittykat77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

No — I was being ironic/cheeky. See reply at No. 34. Maybe I should use emoticons....


49 posted on 01/10/2010 10:36:05 PM PST by kittykat77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

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

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."

50 posted on 01/10/2010 10:50:03 PM PST by Publius6961 (…he's not America, he's an employee who hasn't risen to minimal expectations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Genoa
This refutes the argument of those who maintain that Vattel doesn’t amount to anything. It is woven into SCOTUS precedent.

Please show us where exactly Vattel speaks of "logical answers."
Unless it is explicit quoted, it didn't happen.

51 posted on 01/10/2010 10:52:32 PM PST by Publius6961 (…he's not America, he's an employee who hasn't risen to minimal expectations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kittykat77
I am not aware of the "natural born citizen" requirement for any position, office or administrative reason, except for the office of POTUS that is clearly presented in the Constitution.

If the American people see this as no longer a necessary requirement, well, there's a process that must be followed to change the Constitutional requirement -- to do otherwise is to set a dreadful precedent.

52 posted on 01/10/2010 10:56:05 PM PST by glennaro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
Sorry, but your inference as to what would be the most logical answer is not part of the record.

Sorry, my "inference" was... well, an inference.

Therefore, it doesn't have to be part of the record.

Pay special attention to definition b.

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.

Am I in the Twilight Zone?

Are you?

I'm astonished at how many different individuals try the same childish attempt at "reasoning."

If that's the way you feel you should come up with some sort of cogent rebuttal that doesn't involve bloviating.

STE=Q

53 posted on 01/10/2010 11:23:18 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 50 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
you are totally misrepresenting the opinion and you do not cite what references the court used in its decision...

First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866

Be it enacted . . ., 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;

Then the court goes on to cite WKA as a reference in which we know references Minor v Happersett:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. -Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’” -Justice Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)

54 posted on 01/10/2010 11:25:57 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 44 | View Replies]

To: patlin; El Gato; All

It’s getting late where I am.

Time to hit the sack!

Whether you agree or disagree I hope everyone found the article edifying.

STE=Q


55 posted on 01/10/2010 11:46:01 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 54 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

‘Seasonable’ — this certainly is a bad season, exactly the kind of thing Jay wished to avoid.


56 posted on 01/11/2010 5:44:22 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kittykat77

Is that your real interest? Suggest you study up hard then.


57 posted on 01/11/2010 5:46:56 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: True Republican Patriot

Compared to the implications of what this current admin. (and past admins) have for this country, it could be of lesser worry.

I still want to know the whole truth and nothing but.....


58 posted on 01/11/2010 5:58:26 AM PST by wolfcreek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsd7DGqVSIc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

There’s actually five. Charlton forgets perkins v Elg.

http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm#FiveCases


59 posted on 01/11/2010 6:20:14 AM PST by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPsterinMA
Did the Founding Fathers exempt themselves

Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.


60 posted on 01/11/2010 6:22:21 AM PST by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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