Posted on 03/18/2010 12:24:55 PM PDT by Polarik
Judges didn't put it there. The original authors of the Constitution did.
In fact they rejected Hamilton's "born a citizen" wording in favor of John Jays' "natural born citizen" language. More specifically they blended the wording, but as to the citizenship qualification, they chose Jay's "Natural Born Citizen" over Hamilton's "born a citizen" language. Jay wrote, a mere suggestion not a full fledged proposal for specific language:
"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be side & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen."
Jay was not a delegate to the convention, but that was written to G. Washington, who was the presidnet of the convention.
Whereas Hamiliton, who was a delegate did write a formal proposal, and the Presidential qualification section stated:
"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
The final language:
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;
It appears that they thought the permanent citizenship requirement should come before the temporary one, and that "natural born citizen" would be a better protection than "born a citizen".
Why would judges be involved when to date, no federal court ruling has turned on the definition/meaning of "natural born citizen?
Judges didn’t put it there. The original authors of the Constitution did.
In fact they rejected Hamilton’s “born a citizen” wording in favor of John Jays’ “natural born citizen” language. More specifically they blended the wording, but as to the citizenship qualification, they chose Jay’s “Natural Born Citizen” over Hamilton’s “born a citizen” language. Jay wrote, a mere suggestion not a full fledged proposal for specific language:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be side & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen.”
Jay was not a delegate to the convention, but that was written to G. Washington, who was the presidnet of the convention.
Whereas Hamiliton, who was a delegate did write a formal proposal, and the Presidential qualification section stated:
“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
The final language:
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;
It appears that they thought the permanent citizenship requirement should come before the temporary one, and that “natural born citizen” would be a better protection than “born a citizen”.
Why would judges be involved when to date, no federal court ruling has turned on the definition/meaning of “natural born citizen?
“And the mere fact that the plaintiff [Elg] may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law….
The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [page 350] ….. declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,”
Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454 (1920)
“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. But, while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation, was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen…”
Schneider v. Rusk (1964)
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘ natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.” Art. II, s 1.
Baumgartner v United States (1944)
“The naturalized citizen has as much right as the natural born citizen to exercise the cherished freedoms of speech, press and religion…”
Here only two types of citizen are recognized.
Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’” Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.
Minor v. Happersett (1874)
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
Also from Minor v Happersett (1874)
“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. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9 (1913)
“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827
Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U. S. 634 (1973)
“I do not believe that it is irrational for New York to require this class of civil servants to be citizens, either natural born or naturalized.”
And several relevant lower court rulings from US Federal Courts:
Diaz-Salazar v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. (1985)
“The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States. He also has relatives in Mexico.”
Tanaka v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (1965)
“Jalbuena was a natural-born citizen of the United States who moved to the Philippines and, by operation of law, became a Philippine citizen. His action in applying for and receiving a Philippine passport after subscribing to an oath to support the Philippine Constitution, it was held, did not constitute renunciation of his American citizenship;”
United States v. Low Hong, Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.Circuit Court of Appeals (1919).
Low Hong was born in the United States in 1894 presumably to non-citizen parents (Chinese immigrants could not become citizens under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and because of the court’s citation of US v. Wong Kim Ark).
“The averments of the amended petition show that the appellee is a natural-born citizen of the United States.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 Sup.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890.
Not what the courts said.
You just cant’ get past the unsupported assertion that “born citizen” and “natrural born citizen” are the same. They are not. The word “natural” was put in there for a reason.
I guess reading is not your forte.
BTW, I am, or was at least, a rocket engineer of sorts. In my case, the sort that are designed to go boom at the end of their travel.
I really think I can get by your imaginary “facts” rather easily.
Barack Hussein Obama II is the duly elected and sworn in 44th President of the United States and he has been for over a year now. All legal attempts to challenge THAT fact have been defeated in 74 courts of law at every level of the judiciary including 8 rejections by the US Supreme Court.
"Of sorts" meaning I worked on the radar seeker and guidance, not the rocket engine or the airframe.
Fact are slippery things. But I merely said that no court has looked at any evidence, AFAIK. Nor made any ruling on the meaning of "Natural Born Citizen".
As far as the Supreme Court goes, their failure to take up a case means precisely nothing, as far as any future cases go. They do not give their reasoning for denying cert. Such denial establishes no precedent.
You need to read an article "can the simple cite be trusted". Since the court in Ark never stated that he was an NBC, it was improper for the lower court to state that the appellee in that case was one, based on Ark anyway.
You need to read an article “can the simple cite be trusted”. Since the court in Ark never stated that he was an NBC, it was improper for the lower court to state that the appellee in that case was one, based on Ark anyway.
My point is that high state courts, lower courts and the United States Supreme Court have been using the terms “natural born citizen,” “native citizen,” and “citizen-at-birth” interchangeably for centuries now.
US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his concurring opinion in “Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor,” 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 99 99 (1830): “The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”
The US Supreme Court have termed persons made citizens at birth by statute, "naturalized", and in the last half of the 20th Century at that. I've already given the citation.
But, with one exception, no court has ruled that anyone other than a person born in the country to two citizen parents was eligible to the office of President. Not once.
Meanwhile:
"US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his concurring opinion in “Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor,” 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 99 99 (1830): “The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”
So? no one is challenging that one becomes natural born by the circumstances of ones birth. Nor that one becomes a citizen by birth in the United States.
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, quoting an older (even then) translation of Vattel's "Law of Nations",in The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)
The original French, which Marshall could probably read, was "Les Naturales ou Indigenes", which translates properly (try each word on Bablefish),as "Naturals or natives". Thus that early translation put "natives" in there twice and left out "naturals", but then again, it was by an Englishman.
The US Supreme Court have termed persons made citizens at birth by statute, “naturalized”, and in the last half of the 20th Century at that. I’ve already given the citation.
But, with one exception, no court has ruled that anyone other than a person born in the country to two citizen parents was eligible to the office of President. Not once.
So? no one is challenging that one becomes natural born by the circumstances of ones birth. Nor that one becomes a citizen by birth in the United States.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, quoting an older (even then) translation of Vattel’s “Law of Nations”,in The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 (1814)
The original French, which Marshall could probably read, was “Les Naturales ou Indigenes”, which translates properly (try each word on Bablefish),as “Naturals or natives”. Thus that early translation put “natives” in there twice and left out “naturals”, but then again, it was by an Englishman.
Would you say the same of Blackstone? He wasn't American either.
But I would say Vattel has more relevance than Blackstone. Vattel was much more often cited in early Supreme Court decisions. There are more references to Vattel, or "Law of Nations", in the papers of George Washington, than Blackstone. (8 references in 3 documents, verses 1 reference)
I don't know about you, or perhaps any of us after tonight, but I am not a feudal subject. My oath and allegiance is not to any person, such a King or Queen, but to the idea that is The United States, and more specifically to it's Constitution.
When I look at the footnotes of those actual judicial decisions that have been rendered on who is natural born, who is native born and who is a citizen at birth, I see many more references to judicial decisions that formed precedents than I see references to foreign legal treatistes.
For example, the Indiana Court of Appeals mentions Vattel once in its ruling on Barack Obama’s natural born status. The reference is in passing stating that the plaintiffs based their argument in part on Vattel. That’s all the Court said.
You warned me about the danger of one simple cite, yet you use one simple citation to Vattel in the Venus decision. What’s up with that?
There have been none which rendered a decison on who is natural born. It's never been at issue. Yes, some opinions include such in dicta, but it is only dicta and is not precedential.
You warned me about the danger of one simple cite, yet you use one simple citation to Vattel in the Venus decision. What’s up with that?
That's not a "simple cite". What a simple cite is, is a short quote from an earlier decision, or just a statement of a supposed "principle", not even a quote, and then a citation to that earlier decision. Often when you look at the cited case, you find that the quote is way out of context, doesn't refer to anything very related to the current case, or that the cited case comes to the opposite conclusion from the current one. That's a simple cite.
Since I know you did not read the article I pointed you to, here's a link.
The whole history of judicial approval of gun control is rife with that sort of thing.
You need to go to those "precedent cases" and see what sources they used, or if they pulled it out of their ashes, with a few fancy words thrown in. Law clerks have been known to do that you know.
this problem refuses to die and eventually one way or the other it will break wide open.and then,one way or the other,avery large group of people will be in deep kimshi
Another lawsuit bites the dust, again:
“Holliser v Soetoro”-Appeal-Motion to Dismiss Is Affirmed
03/22/2010 PER CURIAM JUDGMENT filed [1235943] (without memorandum) that the district court’s orders filed March 5, 2009 and March 24, 2009, be affirmed (SEE JUDGMENT FOR DETAILS), withholding issuance of the mandate. Judge Henderson, Tatel and Garland [09-5080, 09-5161]
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed March 5, 2009, and March 24, 2009, be affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Hollister v. Soetoro, 601 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D.D.C. 2009). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that counsel had violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) and in imposing a reprimand as the sanction for his part in preparing, filing, and prosecuting a legally frivolous complaint. Hollister v. Soetoro, 258 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2009). Appellants have provided no reasonable basis for questioning the impartiality of the district court judge. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994).
Hi, Polarik!
Wish you were posting somewhere.
But I understand why you decided not to.
Maybe someday we’ll all see Polarik v 2.0
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.