Posted on 04/24/2010 9:18:10 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
Nice of you to admit that, now follow the ramifications through ...
Then we disagree on what the Court intended - which is OK. I place more emphasis on their not citing the father’s citizenship as relevant, while you put more emphasis on they fact that the father was, regardless, a naturalized citizen.
Cheers!
I see no ramifications. I don’t think they used Vattel’s like the Bible, and I think the folks voting on the Constitution had differing opinions on what the phrase meant. I can find quotes on both sides.
My PERSONAL OPINION is that Vattel’s definition is to be preferred. It blocks almost no one, and clearly is the safest way to interpret NBC.
HOWEVER, I think the courts have steadily drifted towards a definition that includes anyone born in the USA who isn’t the child of visiting diplomats or military. And I think any court asked the question now will almost certainly decide that Obama’s mother plus his birth in Hawaii (if it happened) is sufficient.
Yes, that's what he says in the footnote. But, in the paper's second paragraph of the first page under the section titled: I. INTRODUCTION: THE ENIGMA OF THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE, Solum says this...
"What is the legal significance of what we can call “the natural born citizen clause”? There is general agreement on the core of settled meaning.2 As a matter of inclusion, it is beyond dispute that anyone born on American soil with an American parent is a “natural born citizen.”3 As a matter of exclusion, anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of “naturalization” is not a “natural born citizen.”emphasis added
I left the footnote anotations in to prove that this paragraph is found in the body of the paper, not the footnotes. In any event, compare that with my statement...
"He plainly says now, that it only takes a single citizen-parent and jus soli to effect natural-born citizenship"
The language is clear to anyone who isn't a birther, looking to parse every comma, apostrophe and colon to find support for their belief (I use the word "belief", because that's what is is, something more closely resembling a religion, than intellectual exploration), or to impeach the statements of others. It's ridiculous.
Your earlier response is a curiosity then, OldDeckHand.
Actually it’s over 8K, with 80-150 granted; but even that doesn’t guarantee an argument before the Court.
Neither does Vittal...
May I remind you that both the court’s and Vittals Native Born means Born to Natives....ie citizens,
To Vittal Native Born and Natural Born are the same person ie. Born in the country to 2 Citizens.....don’t believe me? Read Vittals Law of Nations.....
212. Citizens and natives.”.....The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens......”
While you use the term native as merely jus solis, born in country with any referance to parentage....
quite a difference between your idea of a Native, and both the Court’s and Vittal’s usage of the term.........
Not nearly as curious as the posting I was responding to that initially tried to make it an issue of my (his words) "gross characterization".
“To Vittal Native Born and Natural Born are the same person...”
Not to the courts. To the courts, a native born citizen is a citizen by birth. And that is common usage as well.
Yes, his mom did give him a blood connection to the US. Even if you want to argue that Obama has a closer connection to his mom than his dad, it still doesn't make him a NBC.
Marie had no relatives here, while Obama had mother and grandparents, and his grandparents raised him.
The Constitution doesn't say that being raised by your grandparents makes you an NBC. So this discussion of loyalties is kind of an irrelevant side argument to what the law actually says. NBC is not proof of loyalty to the US, just an insurance policy to protect the US from a serious possibility of foreign influence. Marie's situation is still NBC, but provides a loophole around the intent of NBC clause. She still is NBC.
For their definition of NBC, they don’t refer to Vattel but common law. Some are unconvinced by that reasoning. I find it completely reasonable, and think other courts will take the approach the Indiana Court did.
Yeah, that is probably the closest that the Supreme Court has ever broached the topic of Natural Born citizen status and is currently the established precedent. However, it is difficult to discuss the relevance of Wong Kim Ark when we don't know where Obama was born yet. Once his place of birth can be established, the Wong Kim Ark argument would be a little more persuasive, if you accept the premise that it was decided correctly of course. However, if Obama ever lost his US Citizenship or voluntarily took up another citizenship voluntarily, then there's going to be a problem.
So, the divided loyalty argument is not so much pertaining to thoughts in the mind of a President, as it is a matter of law between nations. The Founders sought to avoid such entanglements and intrigues, and legally structured eligibility to office in the executive branch in such a way as to preclude them legally, which was the only means at their disposal.
To be fair, that is not what they say. The say that the natural born citizen language does not appear in the English translations until the 1793 (sometimes they say the 1797 edition which was just a cleanup of the 1793 translation), However I have not seen any but the first, 1760, translation and the 1793/7 one, so I cannot say for certain.
But it also doesn't matter, enough of the founders could read and speak French, and didn't need the translation. The 1793 translation is clearly the more representative one. The earlier ones did not even translate "indigenes" and translated "naturels" as natives, whereas the better translation is "natural ones" for naturels and "natives" for "indigenes".
There clearly were pre Constitutional Convention translations, the first seems to have been in 1759 and 1760 (different volumes) Since that was right after the French original was published, it was clearly a "quick and dirty" translation.
It's not entirely clear if the Dumas edition, which Franklin thanked Dumas for sending in a letter dated December 19, 1775.
...
Oh, in looking up Dumas Franklin and Vattel, I find that what Dumas sent to Franklin was an edition in French. Thus the founders had access to Vattel, and Franklin along with many of the other founders, could certainly read and write in French. So even if they did have an earlier English translation, which they very likely did, they didn't need one either.
John Jay seems to have made the first recorded use of the term, in a letter to G. Washington, that the Commander in Chief of the American Army be required to be a Natural Born Citizen. Jay was Secretary for foreign affairs under the articles of confederation, 1784 to 1789. French was the language of international diplomacy (a fact which lingers on in the Olympics where announcement are made in French). Jay's grandfather was a French Protestant. John Jay was educated at King's College, now Columbia, in New York. he was part of the delegation, along with Franklin and Adams, that negotiated the treaty of Paris, which ended the revolution. At least in part, it was a 3 way negotiation, with France as the 3rd party. I expect he was fluent in French as well.
As an aside, shortly before Jay's letter to Washington, Hamilton had submitted a draft Constitution. The relevant part of it read:
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
Jay suggested to Washington:
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen
Thus the founders expressly rejectged the "born a citizen" language in favor of the "Natural born citizen" language. if they meant the same thing, why change it? Since there were no laws making persons born outside the country citizens, we can eliminate the statutory citizen at birth possibility, which leaves only the "born in the country" type of citizen. That would be included in the Hamiliton language, so "natural born citizen" must mean more than that. The only thing left would be those born in the country to citizen parents, or at least a citizen father.
A few facts to consider:
Marie’s parents were both U.S. citizens (naturalized) at the time of her birth even though they later went back to Sweden. She was a Natural Born citizen.
obama place of birth has not yet been certified by documents. Regardless if he was born in Hawaii ,with only one American born parent he is a Native born Naturalized citizen( Elk and Ark cases U.S. Supreme court). A native born citizen is not born with full alligiance to the U.S. and thus NOT a Natural Born citizen and eligible to be President. There is no question what our founding fathers meant by Natural Born citizens ( both parents U.S. citizens) and this has been upheld by the Supreme Court a number of times already.Example Minor vs. Happensett the Supreme court said that children born to PARENTS that were citizens were Natural Born. This issue was rised prior to obama taking office but the democratic leadership in Congress blocked the hearings that were requested. For obama to legally be president it would be necessary to pass a constitutional amendment to remove Article 2( natural born citizen clause) from the Constitution. Do you think It’s fair to “overlook “ the constitution so that obama can be the legal president of the U.S.
The Supreme court will probley never review this case as they would have to uphold the original intent of the founding fathers CHILDREN OF CITIZENS SHALL BE CONSIDERED NATURAL BORN, and of course previously decisions by the Supreme court CHILDREN WHOS PARENTS WERE U.S. CITIZENS ARE NATURAL BORN. Botton line ,BOTH parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of a child’s birth to be considered Natural Born. By law this issue is supposed to be settled by Congress, when a politican is found to be ineligible to hold a office under District of columbia code 3501 that persons election is required to be voided. All votes for the person would be void and the “runner up” would be given the office. Of course congress knew in advance that obama was not elgible but ignored the Constitution and installed him as “president” A little question of Treason!
We disagree.... not unusual after reading most of your posts.
You certaintly have a different take on things ....
You are correct, having the read the orginal first it was easy for me to miss the deletion of a single character "s" and addition of a single character word "a" in the relevant passages.
But ask yourself, why did he make those two "minor" changes? Did he change his mind? In 2008 he said:
There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a “natural born citizen.”
Then somewhere along the line he changed it to.
it is beyond dispute that anyone born on American soil with an American parent is a “natural born citizen.
If there was "general" agreement in 2008, why did that change to something different being "beyond dispute?"
It seems, to me anyway, that this University of Illinois Associate Dean is kind of blowing with the political winds.
Mis-characterization. With "gross" meaning large.
Each person does have a theory and I wish to give one that will not win me many friends. It could be that such a long form does not exist. If the now president was not born in a hospital and elsewhere, I believe it would be incumbent on the mother or relatives etc to attend the record offices. Supposing Stanley Ann Dunham did not immediately inform the authorities. She might have done this when she divorced the father three years later. As was done by various people, they gained a COLB long after the claim of actual birth.
Now the political backers of Barack Hussein Obama, would not wish to risk any delay in ratifying the nomination of their man. For without the long form, persons opposed to him could delay his nomination. This until such times as there was a resolution. A resolution that may have engaged either the Congress or the courts. Any delay would have possibly put Hilary Rodham Clinton up front and center as the nominee.
True this is only a theory. Stanley Ann Dunham Obama would not have been alive to testify, nor Barack Hussein Obama Sr. A long form may not exist, at least not in the style that we have been shown.
I can leave arguing this to death to others, but in neither case cited was NBC status relevant. That’s not what the cases were about. The one and only place NBC becomes relevant is with the presidency.
What is troublesome to me is that we are so far out now from the days of this country’s founding that we can’t seem to grasp just how extraordinary that founding was. How extraordinary the form of government established. Everything about it. And 2 centuries later we take it all for granted. We take our citizenship for granted if we were blessed to be born here. In that sense, I’ll take an immigrant who came here legally over many native-borns. Just not for my president.
Since the US was so different from all else then known, it was imperative to the Founders to get it right, or as right as they could. 200+ years out there have been 17 Amendments not counting the Bill of Rights. Not a bad reflection on their work.
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.