Posted on 05/08/2010 12:29:30 PM PDT by Retired Intelligence Officer
Taking your argument to it's logical conclusion you would have to conclude that the founding fathers intended that a couple of ardent America haters could slip into the country illegally, have a baby, raise that baby as an ardent American hater in another American hating country for 21 years and then this anti american freedom hating traitor with loyalties to another country could be the President. Do you really think the founding fathers intended that? Or do you think your argument is flawed?
The definition of the term, “natural born citizen”, was entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866, in comments made by Rep. John Bingham on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattel’s definition when he said:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, 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 not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” — John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).
Nor does the 14th Amendment make someone a citizen because they were born on American soil:
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
-----
Not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty........Children of foreigners and aliens.....
That would seem do exclude children of African students here on a temporary visa, now wouldn't it?
Oh, and I don't know if you caught this thread, but it's an excellent resource on what "Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof" Really Means.
O’s attorneys are full of it.
The definition of the term, “natural born citizen”, was entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866, in comments made by Rep. John Bingham on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattel’s definition when he said:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, 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 not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” — John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).
Nor does the 14th Amendment make someone a citizen because they were born on American soil:
“Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
Not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty........Children of foreigners and aliens.....
That would seem do exclude children of African students here on a temporary visa, now wouldn’t it?
Oh, and I don’t know if you caught this thread, but it’s an excellent resource on what “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” Really Means.
On the other side of the issue are the following quotations and US Supreme Court rulings:
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”—James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)
Justice Story, concurring opinion,”Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor,” 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (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.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826):
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
American Jurist and Law Magazine, January, 1834: “Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”
Justice Curtis, dissenting opinion in Dredd Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): “The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is, in fact, made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. …”
Attorney General of the United States Bates, Opinion of Citizenship, (1862): “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,654 (1898): “It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,658 (1898): “The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle. Binney on Alienigenae, 14, 20; 2 Amer.Law Reg.199, 203…Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,671,673 (1898): “the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,693 (1898): “It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations….There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there as any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion….Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty…..So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649, 666, 668, 673, 674 (1898): “Every person born -within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen, within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity. Town of New Hartford v. Town of Canaan, 5 Atl. SCO, 3(!4, 54 Conn. 39 (citing Rawle, Const. U. S. p. 86). See also. Lynch v. Clarke (N. Y.) 1 Sandf. Ch. 584, 2 Kent, Comni. (9th Ed.): McKay v. Campbell (U. S.) 16 Fed. Cas. 157; Field, Int Code, 132; Morse, Citizenship, 203).”
Black’s Law Dictionary, eigth edition (1999): “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …” In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court relied on English common law regarding jus soli to inform the meaning of “citizen” in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born-citizenship requirement of Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship through jus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution. ”
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.”
What I wrote was more an aside than a comment on the case. I should have begun by mentioning that Obama’s career is not as a lawyer but as a law student. He has never really practiced and His license, I think, has now lapsed. His practical experience is not in the law but in politics, and his comments on law—such as they are—are in the kind of generalities one might hear—or say—in a classroom. The relevance is that the woman he probably will nominate for the Supreme Court—Kagan—is also someone who has little experience in legal practice and who is an academic rather than a lawyer.
What I wrote was more an aside than a comment on the case. I should have begun by mentioning that Obama’s career is not as a lawyer but as a law student. He has never really practiced and His license, I think, has now lapsed. His practical experience is not in the law but in politics, and his comments on law—such as they are—are in the kind of generalities one might hear—or say—in a classroom. The relevance is that the woman he probably will nominate for the Supreme Court—Kagan—is also someone who has little experience in legal practice and who is an academic rather than a lawyer.
Here's what Binney said in Wong Kim Ark:
"Mr. Binney, in the second edition of a paper on the Alienigenae of the United States, printed in pamphlet at Philadelphia, with a preface bearing his signature and the date of December 1, 1853, said:
-snip-
...such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States.
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. 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. [p666]... "
Binney here is explaining the difference between natives born of aliens versus natural born citizens. In other words, Wong Kim Ark is the native born of alien parents being compared to natural born citizens. How has Obama described himself on his own website? He said he was a a "native born" [Obama may not even be that] -- Obama did not say he was a natural born citizen.
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we CONCLUDE that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
That wouldn’t be the same Court that put the following disclaimer in the footnote of their decision, would it:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/11/13/indiana-appellate-court-reinvents-nbc-definition/
14 “We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation& history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.”
So they admit that they misrepresented the words of the court in their citation of the words of the court. And we’re supposed to take this decision seriously??? It’s like asking us to take the misrepresentations posted by a bought-and-paid-for Obamabot seriously.
Uncle Chip
Indiana was talking out both sides of their collective mouths or donkey butts.
If this did happen; Obama is admiting he lied to public as he was not a nautral born citizen when he ran for POTUS.
He should be disqualified and leave office.
Perhaps, perhaps not.
But if so, it would be tailor made for appeal to the USSC, since the USSC often seeks cases in which the same laws are interpreted differently in different federal circuit court jurisdictions...
That wouldn’t be the same Court that put the following disclaimer in the footnote of their decision, would it:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/11/13/indiana-appellate-court-reinvents-nbc-definition/
14 “We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation& history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.”
So they admit that they misrepresented the words of the court in their citation of the words of the court. And we’re supposed to take this decision seriously??? It’s like asking us to take the misrepresentations posted by a bought-and-paid-for Obamabot seriously.
Uncle Chip
The following is footnote number 13 in the “Natural Born Citizen” section of the Indiana Court of Appeals’ decision in Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels: “According to Westlaw, Wong Kim Ark has been cited to in over 1,000 cases.”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,671,673 (1898): “the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”
Here’s what Binney said in Wong Kim Ark:
“Mr. Binney, in the second edition of a paper on the Alienigenae of the United States, printed in pamphlet at Philadelphia, with a preface bearing his signature and the date of December 1, 1853, said:
-snip-
...such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States.
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. 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. [p666]... “
Binney here is explaining the difference between natives born of aliens versus natural born citizens. In other words, Wong Kim Ark is the native born of alien parents being compared to natural born citizens. How has Obama described himself on his own website? He said he was a a “native born” [Obama may not even be that] — Obama did not say he was a natural born citizen.
Binney’s writing from 1854 certainly backs up the point of view of the two US Supreme Court justices who dissented from the six justice majority in Wong Kim Ark (one Justice did not participate in the decision); but the majority saw the issues differently.
“U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,671,673 (1898): “the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children....”
James you can’t read, can you?
WAK was declared a CITIZEN, not a Natural Born Citizen......Repeat....WAK was declared a CITIZEN, not a Natural Born Citizen......Repeat again....WAK was declared a CITIZEN, not a Natural Born Citizen..... They are not one and the same......they are not one and the same.....they are not one and the same......
The Indiana Supreme Court is not going to waste it’s time with this odious and severly flawed aspect of Appeals Court opinion thats deals primarily with the question of the Governors Certification of State Electors.... nor is it ever going to be cited in any attorney’s court brief or argument.....to do so would invite disaster......
You are probably the only one I know that thinks that the Indiana Appeals Court is relevant to the serious discussion of the important question of Obama’s eligibility to serve as President......You may want to take a look at that aspect of yourself, your reasoning abilities, and your beliefs...........
By the way, I reposted Uncle Chips response to you in total from another thread and none of the post is of my wording, etc.....I attributted his work to him at the end, and included him as an addressee.....You never responded to his original post, and did not do so this time either.....you seriously need to get some glasses.....or better yet,learn to read.
Little Jameseseeeee is an admitted paid Obot. It can only read what comes from the indoctrination kool-aid school for Obots.
“Little Jameseseeeee is an admitted paid Obot. It can only read what comes from the indoctrination kool-aid school for Obots.”
Yeah I know....not my first dance with this two left footed fool......
It is a blast to poke fun at him though, he takes himself so seriously, when no one else does.....LOLOLOLOLOLOL
That's because they found no disagreement with that infamous Footnote 14:
14 “We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation& history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.”
This Court may for a long time be known as the Indiana Footnote 14 Court.
WKA was a little dramatic and blurred reality. There was no 'ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory' that included all children born of resident aliens. As a law, it dated back to the early 1600s when instituted by King James to unite Scotland and England. The 'resident aliens' were Scots, not random, foreign-exchange students, and as such, were required to swear solitary allegiance to the crown. Those resident aliens born prior to the law were not natural born subjects. This is not a fundamental rule in the United States, except to those who were and may have remained British loyalists.
WKA was a little dramatic and blurred reality. There was no ‘ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory’ that included all children born of resident aliens. As a law, it dated back to the early 1600s when instituted by King James to unite Scotland and England. The ‘resident aliens’ were Scots, not random, foreign-exchange students, and as such, were required to swear solitary allegiance to the crown. Those resident aliens born prior to the law were not natural born subjects. This is not a fundamental rule in the United States, except to those who were and may have remained British loyalists.
“U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,671,673 (1898): “the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children....”
James you can’t read, can you?
WAK was declared a CITIZEN, not a Natural Born Citizen......Repeat....WAK was declared a CITIZEN, not a Natural Born Citizen......Repeat again....WAK was declared a CITIZEN, not a Natural Born Citizen..... They are not one and the same......they are not one and the same.....they are not one and the same......
The Indiana Supreme Court is not going to waste it’s time with this odious and severly flawed aspect of Appeals Court opinion thats deals primarily with the question of the Governors Certification of State Electors.... nor is it ever going to be cited in any attorney’s court brief or argument.....to do so would invite disaster......
You are probably the only one I know that thinks that the Indiana Appeals Court is relevant to the serious discussion of the important question of Obama’s eligibility to serve as President......You may want to take a look at that aspect of yourself, your reasoning abilities, and your beliefs...........
By the way, I reposted Uncle Chips response to you in total from another thread and none of the post is of my wording, etc.....I attributted his work to him at the end, and included him as an addressee.....You never responded to his original post, and did not do so this time either.....you seriously need to get some glasses.....or better yet,learn to read.
The only reason that Ankeny has any relevance at all is that no other lawsuit has warranted the issuing of a definitive statement from a court on Obama’s eligibility. About sixty other Obama eligibility lawsuits have been dismissed without any comments on the merits from the court.
I will quote Wong Kim Ark one more time. Here is the “guidance” that case provided for the Indiana Court of Appeals: “[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
The Wong court also said: “Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’
and finally: “…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
Oh, and yes, I can read!
Don’t get your panties all in a bunch. I’ll get around to reading and responding to Uncle Chip’s post that has you all a-twitter in due time.
Patience, grasshopper.
That sounds really impressive, but has nothing to do with what I posted, nor does the INA change anything I just posted.
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.