When Did the Definition of “natural born Citizen” Change?

The Post & Email ^ | April 09, 2011 | Glen Gilliland

[DoctorBulldog]

That is to say, were they born on at a hospital on a U.S. governed military base?

[Johnny B.]

obama is not nor ever can be the President if his father( by his own admission ) was a foreign national.

And yet, he is President.

The people who are arguing that he "can't be" President because his father wasn't a U.S. citizen are just making themselves look foolish. It is now an established fact that you can be President even if your father wasn't a U.S. Citizen. At this point, it would probably take a Constitutional Amendment to change that fact. (Good luck with that!)

Now, if it were discovered that Obama really had been born outside of the U.S., then you would have a valid argument for removing him from power. Of course, if that happens, the resulting Civil War would cause far more damage to the country than Obama ever could.

[Lees Swrd]

Nothing has changed except crooked lawyers and judges they try to twist everything to their own means.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident” Now those words are from The Declaration of Independence but also are true for The Constitution . IN other words the language used is so simple the village idiot could understand what they meant.

[Johnny B.]

P.S. - You might want to consider the AND function

If you combine the two clauses with a logical AND, you get the result that a child MUST be born outside the United States in order to be eligible to be President, which is absurd.

[x]

It was an ambiguous term to begin with.

Blackstone, who followed the English tradition, and Vattel, who followed the Continental one, gave different answers of just what a "natural born citizen" or a "natural born subject" or a "naturel" was.

If the definition could be altered by legislation over the years, that's a further sign that the meaning of "natural born citizen" is uncertain and disputed.

One additional factor: for many years, women of foreign citizenship who married US citizens were automatically extended US citizenship.

That complicates the situation -- since they never renounced their foreign allegiance and may very well still have been considered citizens or subjects by their native land.

The assumption behind the old law -- that wives assume the nationality of husbands on marrying and children automatically assume the nationality of the father, rather than that of the mother -- is something that doesn't have as much acceptance as it once did.

[DoctorBulldog]

It’s an established FACT that the Earth revolves around the Sun. It’s an established FACT that the moon revolves around the Earth. Those are immutable facts and only an act of God will change those facts.

Whenever a libtard claims that something is “NOW an established fact,” my experience has been that it’s NEVER been an established fact. So, I wouldn’t put ANY credence in what you might of heard from some libtard trying to push an agenda.

If you are born with dual allegiances, you are NOT under sole allegiance to the United States - especially when you get actively involved in the politics of your non-U.S. nationality (as in Obama’s active and unauthorized (I might add) campaigning in Kenya for Odinga in 2006).

Therefore, even IF it were “NOW an established fact” that you “can” be President even if your father wasn’t a U.S. Citizen, Obama has forfeited his birthright.

Just call him Ishmael...

Cheers

[nomoremods]

It’s clear and obvious that the Founders based our rights and citizenship on Natural Law, hence, “natural born citizen” being a requirement to be eligible for the Presidency.

I’ve always wondered why the argument was over O’s jurisdiction and certificate; the argument and question should be IS HE ELIGIBLE BASED ON THE “NATURAL BORN” CITIZEN CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the answer is NO, he is not because his father is a non-citizen. BOTH parents have to be U.S. citizens and O’s dad was a foreigner.

Obama is a U.S. citizen, but he is not a natural born citizen, thereby, making him ineligible for the Presidency.

[noinfringers2]

My brother and I are a twist on your situation. We were both born in mid-west USA. Both parents were aliens i.e. non citizens at our birth. We both served in WWII. My brother was killed on Okinawa. Through grade school I believed I could be POTUSA. However, after service it dawned on me that neither I or my brother were eligible for POTUSA. I just had to accept the fact and be glad to have served my Country anyway. Makes me feel better/superior to Obama who never served if he could have.

[noinfringers2]

My brother and I are a twist on your situation. We were both born in mid-west USA. Both parents were aliens i.e. non citizens at our birth. We both served in WWII. My brother was killed on Okinawa. Through grade school I believed I could be POTUSA. However, after service it dawned on me that neither I or my brother were eligible for POTUSA. I just had to accept the fact and be glad to have served my Country anyway. Makes me feel better/superior to Obama who never served if he could have.

[Publius6961]

My daughter had carefully written this for the answer: "Harriet Tubman had no birth certificate because she was born a slave."

Are you suggesting that Barack Hussein Obama was born a slave??

[bushpilot1]

Obama was born spurious.

[DoctorBulldog]

In your original comment, your conditions for TRUE Natural Born were incomplete to begin with as you have been fooled by the Progressives into believing that only one U.S. parent (A or B) is required if a child is born on American soil (C). Therefore, I was subtly nudging you by bringing up the AND operator. I figured you were intelligent enough to pick up on that and I just didn't want to spend my Sunday afternoon leading you by the hand. But since you obviously didn't understand what I meant, here's the math with the addition of Jus Soli (C)

Born on (C) American soil AND of parents (A*B)owing sole allegiance to the United States equals TRUE.

OR

Born on (C')foreign soil under the jurisdiction of the United States AND of parents (A*B) owing sole allegiance to the United States equals TRUE.

Clarification Notes: (C') is a "NOT C" and (X) is "Don't Care."

By using an X in the following Boolean equations, I am saying that X = C or C'. I am NOT saying that X = born on foreign soil which is not under U.S. jurisdiction. The Boolean equations are:

1) (A*B)X = TRUE

- That is to say: (A*B)C= TRUE as well as (A*B)C'=TRUE. Therefore, (A*B)X = TRUE

3) ((A+B)X) = Confusion

4) ((A'*B)X) + ((A*B')X) = More confusion

Now do you understand what I was implying?

Cheers

[Steely Tom]

Are you suggesting that Barack Hussein Obama was born a slave??

Well I'm glad you asked that question.

I think that is what the Left is going to try to put across as the narrative, the template, the storyline.

They are going to try, by means of "framing," and the other tricks they think they have, to set up the story line that black people in America are slaves. Right now. They're not the descendants of slaves. They are slaves, literally, at this moment.

Those who question the birth documents and eligability of Obama are just trying to eliminate the person who's been chosen, by fate, to lead the slaves out of bondage. His lack of a birth certificate is certainly not his fault, and every single person who questions his right to be President is no different than a slave owner.

This is the story line they are going to try to set up as we approach the 2012 elections.

[Johnny B.]

you have been fooled by the Progressives into believing that only one U.S. parent (A or B) is required if a child is born on American soil (C).

I'm going by the clear meaning of the law mentioned in the original post. It is clear from that text that the requirement of having a father who is a Citizen applies only to a child not born on U.S. soil.

Perhaps there is another law that defines it for someone who was born on U.S. soil, but I'm not aware of such a law.

If the requirement of a father who was a Citizen were true in all cases, then it would be redundant to include it here. It it were not a requirement in the "default" case, then it would make sense to list it here.

Since the authors of the Constitution failed to define the term "natural born citizen", and since this law only describes the parental requirement for someone who was not born in the U.S., you have failed to prove your point.

[omegadawn]

The fact that obama was able to fool so many uneducated people does not change the facts. You must be born of two American parents to be the President. I can call myself a rocket scientist and maybe convince a few people that I am , but it does not make me one. One of the reasons obama is going such length to keep this out of court is because he knows that he is ineligible to be the President.

While there may be a few riots if obama is arrested and removed from the White House , it’s highly unlikely that it would cause a civil war.

It does not take Constitutional Amendment to make politicans follow the Constitution, just a few people holding them accountable for their actions.

[vetvetdoug]

Ironically, when I turned 18 and registered for the draft, I had all of my paperwork and the person down at the registry stated I was eligible for the British Military Service. It seems I had a “dual” citizenship. The person said it was uncommon but that I was eligible for both countries. The law changed around 1956 but I was born before then.

[RebelTex]

bookmark

[BladeBryan]

Both of my children were born while I was serving overseas on Active Duty. Both have a birth certificate issued by the US State Department. This birth certificate is headed “Report of the Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America.” Are you saying that my children are not natural born citizens?

Expert opinion is that your children are natural-born citizens, potentially eligible to be president. Here's how a renowned constitutional scholar explained it to lay audience:

"The Constitution's rule that the president be 'a natural born citizen' focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date."

http://slate.com/id/2183588/

[DoctorBulldog]

And, there you go wasting my afternoon on cr@p that isn't really the crux of the biscuit.

Here's my position on all of this when it comes to Obama:

A) Obama falls under the "more confusion" category in the previously defined Boolean expression (A'*B)X. In other words, his dad was NEVER a United States citizen and NEVER resided in the United States. Because of that, his Natural Born status is in question:

"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 [plural] 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens." - Minor v. Happersett

Since Obama's Natural Born status falls under the "there have been doubts" category, we need to search out the original intent behind the Natural Born Clause.

I submit to you an original signer of the U.S. Constitution and Founding Father, Charles Pickney, for an explanation of the intent behind the Natural Born clause:

"...and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible. . . ." - March 28, 1800.

And, lest we forget the author of the 14th Amendment, Rep. Bingham:

"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents [plural] owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." - Rep. Bingham (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

Okay, now that we know that the actual intent of the Natural Born clause has more to do with allegiances than anything else, let's continue onto the next line item and take look at Obama's situation:

B) He was born with dual allegiances:

He readily admits this on his website fightthesmears.com. (No, I'm not going to link to that cursed, God-forsaken site!):

"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."

- I.E., Barack H. Obama, Jr...

Which means, Obama Jr. was born with his allegiances to not only the United States, but also Kenya, and ultimately, the British empire.

Now, if we were to stop there, there would still exist a little wiggle room for Progressives to play word games and what-not to downplay Obama's split allegiances. After all, the assumption is that Obama was born in the United States and would therefore owe his allegiance solely to the United States.

Of course, that's not the ultimate true test of allegiances when dealing with a person born with dual citizenship. One must also look into the actions of said person with dual citizenship to determine sole allegiance to the United States or split allegiance between the United States and another foreign country.

The Obama-psychophants' much vaunted U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision contains some real interesting nuggets that they (the psychophants) would like to keep hidden. One of which is this:

"...and [Wong Kim Ark] has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence, and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him [p653] therefrom."

Clearly, one can commit an act which would exclude one from sole allegiance to the United States!

Please note, the majority decision by the SCOTUS in the Wong Kim Ark ruling makes it clear that even if one does not renounce one's citizenship, one can still commit an act "or things" which would exclude him/her from sole allegiance to the United States.

Of course, the SCOTUS cops-out in defining specifically what type of act or things, besides renunciation, would exclude one from sole allegiance to the United States.

Here's their cop-out clause:

"Whether any act of himself or of his parents during his minority could have the same effect [as renunciation of his citizenship] is at least doubtful. But it would be out of place to pursue that inquiry..."

Well, has Obama committed an act or thing serious enough to jeopardize his sole allegiance to the United States?

I believe he most certainly has! In fact one need look no further than his 2006 trip to Kenya:

C) He has demonstrated his split allegiances by actively participating in the governmental affairs of Kenya---namely, stumping for, and helping Odinga attain a position of power within the Kenyan government---BEFORE he (Obama) was elected President!

That, to anyone paying attention, clearly shows his split allegiances between the United States and Kenya.

There are, of course, more instances of Obama having committed acts which demonstrate his split allegiances, however, the 2006 trip to Kenya is the real clincher.

In conclusion, I think Our Founding Fathers have been VERY clear what they meant by Natural Born, it's just that everyone gets caught up in the letter of the law, and not the actual intent of the law---which was to ensure that the President owed sole allegiance to the United States and no other foreign nation.

Obama clearly has demonstrated his dual allegiances and is therefore not a legitimate president.

I'll leave you with a little quote from David Ramsay. If you remember your history, he was the Acting President of the Continental Congress before the current U.S. Constitution took effect. In 1789 He wrote:

"[Citizenship] as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."

You can find a scan of his dissertation on citizenship HERE.

Cheers

[<1/1,000,000th%]

About the time that it was declared that there was “no controlling legal authority” for campaign finance law.