Posted on 04/25/2011 1:33:23 AM PDT by Veristhorne
(Oct. 18, 2009) — The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to undertsand what this term means.
Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.
First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.
Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .
The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:
Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, .
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Except Wong Kim Ark petitioned the court as a NATIVE born citizen, not a natural born one.
he departed for China on a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto by sea in the same year, and was permitted by the collector of customs to enter the United States upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States.
Wong Kim Ark
Even the Judge issuing the decision made the distinction between native and natural born:
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)
Saying he was 'just as much a citizen' as a natural born one doesn't mean he was saying Wong Kim WAS a natural born citizen.
-----
People commonly try to draw parallels between the Ark case and Obama to try to prove he is natural born, but a simple reading of the actual case can prove otherwise.
Wong Kim's parents petitioned to become citizens before Wong's birth, but the Emperor wouldn't release them from their Chinese citizenship. Obama, on the other hand, had a mother that was to young to confer citizenship and a father here on a temporary student visa.
Wong Kim never claimed to be anything OTHER than a US citizen at birth.
Obama has not one, but TWO possible citizenships, and both are foreign to the United States.
From what I’ve read, at this time he’s probably not a citizen of any country.
He’s apparently lost or renounced his citizenship in any country he was ever a citizen of.
There appear to be Obama supporters who come to Obama’s defense on FR on the ‘natural born’ issue with weak court cases which are not ON POINT on whether Obama will meet the Constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen of the US.
“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.”
Natural Born Citizen = BOTH parents are U. S. Citizens
AND child must be born in the U.S. mainland.
I guess this leaves Obama out, unless he was born before the Adoption of the US Constitution
I’m having a debate with someone on this topic right now. Help me explain the “OR” part of the phrase below. I see that as probematic if I quote it to them to debate:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States”
Is it an ‘either/or’ situation or an ‘and’ qualifier or just some legalize phrasing that means both?
Ah... I see, thank you very much!!
By coincidence because of a discussion on another thread I returned to an old article about Edward Said. (Said is dead now. He was a Columbia Professor and anti-Israel agitator.) This paragraph struck me:
For the past three years I have been looking into the core autobiographical assertions made by Said about his childhood in Palestine--a childhood that he has repeatedly asserted is central to the formation of his political thought and indeed of his emblematic political identity as a Palestinian refugee. My search, a fascinating adventure in itself, took me through sometimes obscure public records and archives in five countries on four continents and involved tracking down and interviewing numerous relatives, neighbors, school classmates, and professional colleagues. Virtually everything I learned, the principal conclusions of which are set out below, contradicts the story of Said's early life as Said has told it.Said was not yet dead when Obama was at Columbia. Coincidence? Maybe not.
ML/NJ
Haven't you heard? He considers himself a citizen of the world...or some such nonsense.
He doesn't. He's either an Indonesian or Kenyan citizen who overstayed his student visa or a native born US citizen (one who acquires citizenship via jus soli the legal rule that a child’s citizenship is determined by place of birth).
-----
The best test of eligibility, IMHO, would be college records.
It is my understanding that children in the US of mixed citizenship must choose ONE when they reach the age of majority.
If that tin-plated turd world wanna-be dictator took one RED CENT of money for foreign student aid, he should be strapped to the outside of the White House gate..... and left there.
That recent lower court opinion of traitorous democrat Obot loyalist judges is all you have. Not going to cut it, boy. All traitors will swing from trees soon enough.
sfl
Not really.
The father must be a citizen, and it doesn't matter where the child is born.
Natural born citizenship is hereditary. Both McCain and Obama could have both been born on the moon, and McCain would still be a natural born citizen while Obama would not.
nobody has come up with a case ON POINT that says under ANY of the immigration law changes, the defenition of natural born is anything other than what it has been with “born in the USA”.
The constitutional notion has been defined by the law. (see John McCain’s situatin as a comparison)
The sad fact is it would require a change or law to change the definition which is not going to happen anytime soon. Until then this is going to remain an tin foil hat argument.
Here’s what’s going to happen if there’s ever another court case on this: “mother’s a citizen” = “child is a citizen”, regardless of where born.
WTF?
George Washington was not a NBC. But it doesn’t matter.
There is an exemption:
“No person except a natural born citizen OR A CITIZEN AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION..” can serve as president.
In fact this phrase PROVES they knew what they were talking about and meant it to mean a NBC would BE A DESCENDENT of Citizens of the United States, born on the soil, because they knew it would take a generation to have any NBC’s old enough to be elected.
Thanks for pointing this out as so many people get this Wong Kim Ark case all wrong.....or only take pieces parts that fit their needs/thinking/arguments....etc...
Mario has done great work on the WKA case.
I believe that’s the way it is. “Bamsters” mom was a US citizen. He was born out of wedlock. The rules at the time of his birth make him a citizen of the US. Just because he’s a citizen does not change the fact that he is a lousy president. On a related point, I think we should clarify the law so that just being born on US soil does NOT make you a citizen (anchor babies).
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.