Posted on 04/27/2012 4:48:20 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome
Again, there are only two types of US citizens as defined by law and supported by court precedence – those born on US soil regardless of the parent(s) citizenship status or those born abroad to one or two citizen parent such as to those born to US diplomats or to members of the US military serving abroad – all natural born citizens and “naturalized” citizens that being those not born on the US or meeting the above conditions who have to become “naturalized”.
I also seem to recall that there were many German immigrants in the U.S. at the time of World War II who were subject to being conscripted into the German Army. Am I wrong about that?
I’d really like to see some evidence for that claim. Are you saying that many Germans who had immigrated to the US before WWII and where legally living here, a great number perhaps for many years, even those who had become citizens, were forcibly conscripted into the German army? What, did the SS and Gestapo knock come knocking on their door in New Jersey or Indiana or Iowa in the middle of the night and forcibly drag them out of their homes, force them to board a German ship and join the German Army and force them to fight against the country they chose to come to and live in?
Someone who has legally immigrated here and is a documented resident alien is subject the laws of the United States – all of them. The only exception is registered diplomats from other countries who are still bound to the laws of their country. In fact as my father was not yet a naturalized citizen a year after Pearl Harbor he was drafted – by the US Army, as I understand, he couldn’t refuse, even if he had wanted to, based on his status.
Yes, there were some German Americans who sided with the Nazis, belonged to the German American Bund during the 1930’s. And many of them faced harsh consequences for their actions when war was declared. And a good number of them by that time had already renounced their membership and were no longer involved and demonstrated their allegiance to the United States. Overall they represented a very small percentage of Americans with German ancestry – most of whom were completely and unquestionably loyal to the US. Don’t even get me started on the internment of US citizens of Japanese descent, many who were US citizens for several generations – that’s an whole other topic of conversation.
Charles Lindbergh for example, the American born son of a Swedish immigrant and an American born citizen, became a spokesman for the antiwar America First Committee and expressed what was deemed to be pro-Nazi sympathies. It should be pointed out however than after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor; he tried to be re-commissioned in the USAAF. He was refused but went on to be a consultant to the USAAF and aviation companies involved in the war effort and went on to fly combat missions as a civilian aviator.
Thank you! Excellent posts and excellent and reasoned and thoughtful explanations.
In fact, even if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Framers’ plan to protect and preserve the Republic involved discriminating against the babies of foreigners, it wouldn't matter to liberals. They would simply (1) deny to the death that actually *was* the Framers’ intention, and (2) work day and night to undermine any and all resulting restrictions. Better to “fundamentally change” the USA as we know it than to hurt the feelings of an anchor baby, doncha know.
The one good aspect of it all is the way liberals self-identify w big flashing neon signs in this debate. A conservative will look at original intent, and if he or she is persuaded the Framers did indeed intend to ‘discriminate’ against some in order to preserve the Republic, we will accept and support that. A liberal will look only at the inconceivably unfair concept of discriminating against [for instance] anchor babies, and go ape-poop over it.
Liberalism: it's a mental disorder.
This is a Fogger fabrication (= "outright lie"). The SCOTUS clearly made a distinction between NBC and the 14th amendment.
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."
The court considered the 14th amendment of the constituton and said that the Constitution (which INCLUDES the 14th amendment) does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. The court said it was "committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment" ... those are TWO very clear statements that EXCLUDE NBCs from having anything to do with the 14th amendment.
“The court said it was “committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment” ...”
Edge, as I have pointed out to you before, you edit that remark to make it mean the OPPOSITE of what they actually said. That makes you a liar.
Here is the quote, including the part you delete:
“That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court...”
Edge, you really need to stop LYING about what the court wrote...
"As such, the Framers did NOT want the spawn of America's foreign enemies to occupy the one office in which they could do the greatest damage.
Any interpretation of NBC which does not act to prevent, to the greatest extent possible, the potential for divided loyalties in the person to be entrusted with wielding the presidential levers of power is contrary to the intent of the Framers who inserted that language which "at common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar" into Article II, Section I, Clause V of our founding document.
Yes, it is discriminatory, and with very good reason: to prevent someone like "Obama" from getting in there and wreaking destruction upon the Republic from within. Outside enemies can be guarded against quite effectively. Treachery from within is a much more difficult thing to stop, and is exponentially more dangerous.
Well, if you can put certain restrictions on this, the highest office of the land, then restrictions can't innately be wrong/bad. Nor is it wrong to point out the vast difference between a baby raised by Americans vs. one raised by foreigners. One is raised as an *American*. Odds are, the other will be raised w divided loyalty At Best.
At worst, you've got Obama. He is not that singular, however. Many, many foreigners hate the US. And by hate I mean virulently and violently. The problem being, it's easier to cover this stuff up w a foreign or half-foreign entity. That is, it's easier to hide from voters the anti-Americanism of an individual who's been raised by non-Americans, or by an American on foreign soil.
For instance, take Bill Ayers. Liberals love to point to him and say his kids would be eligible to be POTUS. True, but we all know his history. The odds of a well-known domestic terrorist's kids being able to sneak past voters, Obama-style, are too remote to factor.
Yet we all see how it worked w Obama. A true hater of America—and a fervent lover of our enemies—made it in via the ignorance of the average voter. The difference being, liberals love having an anti-American in office, and therefore support the idea of foreigners spawning yet more future POTUSs, while conservatives look at Obama as the ultimate validation of the Framers’ restriction. He is, iow, the exact candidate they tried and intended to spare us. We brushed their restrictions aside, and now we get to watch Obama flush the country down the toilet.
But hey, at least we didn't ‘discriminate’.
Agreed, although it's unfortunate that it has been so co-opted, because it's a perfectly serviceable and suitable word to describe how the relevant clause is intended to operate. It discriminates, as in makes a distinction, and also discriminates negatively against office seekers not having the highest level of presumed loyalty to the nation.
"Obama as the ultimate validation of the Framers’ restriction. He is, iow, the exact candidate they tried and intended to spare us. We brushed their restrictions aside, and now we get to watch Obama flush the country down the toilet.
But hey, at least we didn't ‘discriminate’."
Just so.
I think you did quite well.
To those who think our Founders were motivated by a concern regarding "discrimination", I would simply point to the Thirteenth and Nineteenth Amendments to the Constitution; freeing one class of persons from slavery and another from being disenfranchised.
The Constitution required Amendment because there is no doubt whatever that our Founders did not recognize slaves as freemen or women as being suitable voters. That our Founders might have discriminated against some babies because of the nationality of their parents with respect to who may become President, seems rather obvious.
It does NOT mean the opposite. The only person who is lying is you. 18 Supreme Court justices agreed on the definition of natural-born citizen: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. The court said the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. This statement therefore EXCLUDES children born in the country of citizen parents from the operation of the first sentence of the 14th amendment. It means EXACTLY what I said. Learn it. Understand it. Comprehend it. And then, quit telling lies to Freepers.
Your statement:
“The court said it was “committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment” ...”
The REAL statement:
“That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court...”
Since you have been aware of this for over a year, that makes you a deliberate liar. Period.
Deliberate. Liar. Period.
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.
Virginia Minor herself had citizen parents, so answering the question of the children of aliens was not necessary to decide this case. The Court explained:
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.
As the court was not ruling on her citizenship status only confirming it for purposes of determining her eligibility to vote, as they conceded that she was a citizen, what the court stated regarding citizenship was a dictum.
Dictum:
In United States legal terminology, a dictum (plural dicta) is a statement of opinion or belief considered authoritative though not binding, because of the authority of the person making it.
There are multiple subtypes of dicta, although due to their overlapping nature, legal practitioners in the U.S. colloquially use dicta to refer to any statement by a court that extends beyond the issue before the court. Dicta in this sense are not binding under the principle of stare decisis, but tend to have a strong persuasive effect, either by being in an authoritative decision, stated by an authoritative judge, or both. These subtypes include:
dictum proprium: A personal or individual dictum that is given by the judge who delivers an opinion but that is not necessarily concurred in by the whole court and is not essential to the disposition.
gratis dictum: an assertion that a person makes without being obligated to do so, or also a court's discussion of points or questions not raised by the record or its suggestion of rules not applicable in the case at bar.
judicial dictum: an opinion by a court on a question that is directly involved, briefed, and argued by counsel, and even passed on by the court, but that is not essential to the decision.
obiter dictum in Latin means "something said in passing" and is a comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but it is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential (although it may be considered persuasive).
simplex dictum: an unproved or dogmatic statement.
In English law, a dictum is any statement made as part of a judgment of a court. Thus the term includes dicta merely in passing (referred to as obiter dicta) that are not a necessary part of the reason for the court's decision (referred to as the ratio decidendi). English lawyers do not, as a rule, categorise dicta more finely than into those that are obiter and those that are not.
Whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens” was not a question before the Minor Court because Mrs. Minor was unquestionably born in the US to US citizen parents, whereas Wong Kim Ark was not. The determination of his citizenship required the 14th Amendment, whereas Mrs. Minor’s did not.
The dictum stated in Minor v Happersett regarding citizenship is and never was a binding opinion and in fact the whole ruling was made moot with passage of the 19th Amendment.
In a nutshell what the SCOTUS said in Minor v Happersett was, yes she’s a citizen without question, and on a side note (dictum), there is some question regarding whether persons born in the United States to non-citizen parents are natives or natural-born citizens but we are not discussing or ruling on that as it has no relevance in this case. The court in Minor v Happersett never answered the question as to whether the law included as native or natural born citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents, they only mentioned it in passing that they were among some legal authorities, questions regarding that opinion.
As they did not make a ruling as to the citizenship status of those born in the US to non-citizen parents, the dictum, the dictum did not even have any persuasive effect as to future cases as they never made a ruling on that issue – only mentioned that it might be in question.
Thanks, WT. Your points are excellent. They will not impact the ‘don’t you dare discriminate against anchor babies’ crowd, however. This is not a cool, calm rational discussion for them, in which facts and logic carry the day. This is fundamentally emotional, because it’s about the essence of who they are. I.e.: they are the morally superior non-discriminators, battling the xenophobes who hate innocent babies. As such, no fact or logical argument will penetrate their self-righteous carapace. They must keep the non-discrimination principle inviolate, and everything else will simply have to fall—or be forced—into place around it.
Lost in the minutia of their legalism is the abject lunacy of their position. They are arguing that the Framers put in the NBC restriction specifically to prevent discrimination against the offspring of foreign enemies. Iow, there is no other rational for the Framers using such specific language in this one place unless it was to codify who can and cannot be prevented from occupying the WH. The non-discrimination crowd is saying the Framers worried that if one of our enemies—say King George—managed to sire a child that happened to be born on US soil, people would discriminate against the offspring. So they inserted NBC to make sure the children of King George and any other foreign enemy could assume the helm of the new Republic, providing daddy arranged an American birth.
This is batdung crazy. Absolutely certifiable. More than anything, though, it’s a tribute to the degree to which liberalism has taken over the US MSM and our classrooms. It has become the default worldview even for many who don’t consider themselves liberal.
For instance, take this scenario. A few generations back, you ask a WWII vet if a ‘natural born US citizen’ means: ‘the half foreign son or daughter of a foreign enemy who happened to be born on US soil’, they would look at you like you had both loose screws and horns/a pointed tail. I.e.: an evil lunatic.
A few scant generations later, and the people who believe the Framers proactively protected the ‘right’ of foreign enemies to sire future POTUS occupy [in their own minds] the moral and intellectual high ground. I.e.: t engaged in a noble fight against jingoistic wingnuts, and it’s one they have no intention of losing.
This is the very essence of modern liberalism. It takes an absurd, even insane principle [such as moral equivalence] and not only defends it as a given, but paints anyone who challenges it as ignorant and racist. Anyone who’s ever tried to talk a liberal down from this intellectually suicidal bridge knows it simply cannot be done. If they’re wrong about discrimination being the ultimate/only real sin, then their entire world view falls. They can’t go there, so anger and increasing irrationality are their responses to challenges.
The only effective way to claw back from this madness would be to eradicate the worst of leftwing nutbaggery from our public educational system. No Republicans are even mentioning this possibility, so it looks pretty bleak. Meanwhile, the non-discrimination NBC crowd goes merrily on their way, arguing that Obama is exactly who the Framers wanted, when they penned their restrictive clause.
Insanity: there’s no reasoning w it.
on their = on its
More caffeine.
Sorry, but the ONLY deliberate liar is you. The REAL statement means EXACTLY what I said it does. Read it. Learn it. Comprehend it and then, quit lying about it.
Well, no, that's not what the court is saying. The court did answer the question of the children of aliens in the following paragraphs because the question, as the court understood it, was for more than just Virginia Minor. Read and learn:
The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters.
See the part where it says "all citizens"??? This is why the court considered the wives and children of aliens in these paragraphs:
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States ....And here:
As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath; [n10] and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or [p169] who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. [n11]
From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, ...
Now, the other part you ignore is that the Minor's citizenship status was a part of the holding. Minor made an argument based on the 14th amendment, which the court unanimously rejected:
The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship ...
The part underlined above is the citizen clause of the 14th amendment. Read how the court responds to Minor's argument:
in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.
The court deliberately used the NBC clause from Article II to reject Minor's 14th amendment argument. They didn't need to solve the doubts about citizenship of children born without reference to the citizenship of the parents for Minor, but they did solve those doubts anyway, by citing the passages I mentioned above. The most important part of this case, however, is that the court clearly showed that natural-born citizens did NOT need the 14th amendment to be citizens.
The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her.
What's noteworthy is that the court didn't address this issue simply about Virginia Minor but to women as a class. The court unanimously held that women did not have a right to vote, but as their citizenship was defined, they did have a right to run for president ... except for those who rely on the 14th amendment to be citizens, which is what we learned in the Wong Kim Ark decision. That latter decision affirms that Minor's citizenship is part of the holding, and not just dicta.
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ...
Virginia Minor did NOT argue she was a citizen through her parents, nor did the Minor court say that she was born of citizen parents, but the Ark court DID say she was born of citizen parents. Why would they do this??
Nothing in your post contradicts what I said nor does it prove that the court in Minor v. Happersett ever made a ruling on the supposed NBC clause in the Constitution. The court rejected her 14th Amendment argument only because they interpreted that her citizenship was not in question. The court in Ark did the very same. The court in Minor v. Happersett did however ignore the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th, wrongly IMO, and the 19th Amendment made the whole ruling moot when women were deemed to have equal protection under the 14th and were granted the right to vote.
The court deliberately used the NBC clause from Article II to reject Minor's 14th amendment argument.
The NBC clause in Article II does not state anything about the citizenship of the parents. It simply states:
“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.”
This clause was necessary at the time of ratification so as to allow all citizens, even those who were not born on US soil but even to those who became citizens before ratification the very same citizenship status and granted them all eligibility to hold the office of POTUS.
If the Framers had in mind and intended that a natural born citizen meant something other than having been born in the US, intended that there was some sort of “third” type of citizenship of those born here and predicated on the citizenship status of their parents, they would have clearly stated so.
Call me a Constitutional “purest” but I believe the Constitution says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t.
Furthermore, the 14th states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Note that the 14th defines citizenship in only one of two ways; born or naturalized in the United States. It does not say those born in the United States to non-citizen parents, excepting those born to foreign diplomats have to undergo some other sort of “naturalization” process or meet any other test of their citizenship.
If this were true, the citizenship part of the decision wouldn't have continued for the next six paragraphs. Second, they could have accepted her 14th amendment argument in which her citizenship also would not have been in question, yet they did NOT do this. Why not simply accept her argument??
The NBC clause in Article II does not state anything about the citizenship of the parents. It simply states:
Ummmm, the court explained what the term NBC meant according to the nomenclature of the founders. If the 14th amendment defined or redefined natural-born citizenship, then the court didn't need to go outside of the Constitution to define NBC, yet they clearly did:
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.This clause was necessary at the time of ratification so as to allow all citizens, even those who were not born on US soil but even to those who became citizens before ratification the very same citizenship status and granted them all eligibility to hold the office of POTUS.
The Framers had just signed a treaty in 1783 with Great Britain that preserved British subject status for those persons born in the U.S. whose parents were loyal to the crown instead of becoming U.S. citizens. That's part of the reason for the "time of the adoption of this Constitution" clause. Not everyone who was in the U.S. automatically became citizens when the Constitution was adopted. This is confirmed in the Shanks v. Dupont and Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harbor rulings. Justice Story explains the concept nicely below. In the part underlined about "natives or otherwise"; natives would refer to those persons born in the U.S.
The Treaty of 1783 acted upon the state of things as it existed at that period. It took the actual state of things as its basis. All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; all those who then adhered to the British Crown were deemed and held subjects of that Crown. The treaty of peace was a eaty operating between states and the inhabitants thereof.
The next paragraph in this decision is instructive because it tells us where the court looks to for the citizenship status of those persons who are in question. It's not to the common law or to municipal law:
The incapacities of femes covert provided by the common law apply to their civil rights, and are for their protection and interest. But they do not reach their political rights nor prevent their acquiring or losing a national character. These political rights do not stand upon the mere doctrines of municipal law, applicable to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations.
See the last part where it refences the law of nations. This is where the Minor court got its definition of natural-born citizen. What you call a third type of citizenship is simply a class of naturalization. The Minor court told us specifically there are TWO classes of citizenship at birth. One is with doubts and the other, NBC, has no doubts.
As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first [class].Furthermore, the 14th states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The problem is that the Supreme Court decided unanimously in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that the 14th amendment does not include NBCs, based on upholding the Minor decision:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."
If the 14th amendment included NBCs, the Minor court AND the Ark court had a perfect opportunity to say so. Instead, they made a distinction between the classes of birth citizenship, one that was defined outside the Constitution and the other defined by the Constitution in the 14th amendment.
Note that the 14th defines citizenship in only one of two ways; born or naturalized in the United States. It does not say those born in the United States to non-citizen parents, excepting those born to foreign diplomats have to undergo some other sort of “naturalization” process or meet any other test of their citizenship.
Actually it does; that's what the subject clause is there for, and the court defined this in Wong Kim Ark as the parents having permanent residence and domicil in the United States. This was a stated factor of Wong Kim Ark's parents throughout the decision:
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, ...
- - -
for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States ...
Elsewhere in the decision, it talked about aliens being domiciled in order to satisfy British common law and later, the subject clause:
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, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign ...
- - -
Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.
- - -
The same rule must be applied to both races, and unless the general rule, that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted, the Fourteenth Amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose ...
- - -
Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.
- - -
Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.
There's a a very specific emphasis on residence, which would on its face exclude temprorary visitors. In order to have residence, an alien must be accepted into a country for an indefinite stay. Obama's father was not a permanent resident in any sense of the word, and going by the Supreme Court's principle on femes covert, neither was Obama's mother. He fails not only to be a natural-born citizen, but also 14th amendment citizen ... but of course, he's never legally proven he was even born in the United States to begin with, so it would all be moot anyway.
The person must be a "natural born Citizen." It's the circumstances at Birth. Not what happens later in life (in becoming a natural born Citizen).
Related Supreme Court Cases:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Synopsis: Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens and said: “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘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.’
Note: That quote comes from the 1797 London edition English translation of Vattel's Law of Nations.
Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830)
Synopsis: The majority cited Vattel on the right of election to change one’s allegiance and thus citizenship in the context of the new nation being formed after revolution. The Court found on principles consistent with Vattel’s jus sanguinis and not on the English common law rule of jus soli, that simply being born in New York, after July 4, 1776 and before September 15, 1776, when the British took possession of New York, was not sufficient to establish one’s status as an American citizen, for a child of minor years is incapacitated from making any citizenship election but rather followed the citizenship held or chosen by the father. On the contrary, relying upon principles of the English common law, Justice Johnson and Justice Story, who wrote separate minority concurring opinions, would have found the child born in New York during the same time period a citizen of the State of New York, regardless of the citizenship of his parents. Id. 136 and 164. This case shows what the majority rule was on citizenship and that it followed the Vattelian doctrine that a child when born took on the national character of his or her father (meaning father and mother under the doctrine of merger of the wife’s citizenship into the husband) and did not acquire his or her citizenship from the territory in which he or she was born.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830)
Synopsis: same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel, stated: “If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.”
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
Synopsis: Justice Daniels concurring cites Vattel and The Law of Nations and provides his definition of natural born citizens and takes out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively, stated: “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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.” Again: I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .”
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875)
Synopsis: Even though the Fourteenth Amendment had already been passed, Minor did not rely upon that amendment to define either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen.” Rather, it applied the American “common-law” definition of those terms. Providing Vattel’s law of nations definition of a “natural-born citizen,” but without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, it laid down the definition of a “natural-born citizen” as follows:
“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. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” Id., at 167-68.
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." Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared
Page 112 U. S. 102
to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898)
Synopsis: It distinguished between an Article II “natural born Citizen” and a Fourteenth Amendment “born . . . citizen of the United States.” It relied on the English common law and Calvin’s Case (1608) to hold that a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was a “born . . . citizen of the United States” under the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment. But concerning a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen,” it cited Minor and quoted its American common law definition of a “natural-born citizen.”
In the House of Representatives
John Bingham, "father of the 14th Amendment", the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.
The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!
"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 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."(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!
“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.”(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"
No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears the ALL where in agreement.
Then, during a debate (see pg. 2791) on April 25, 1872 regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen (generally. they were not trying to decide if he was a NBC). Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:
“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”
Being born with two (or more) allegiances contradicts the known definition and the intent for the "natural born Citizen" requirement for the commander of the armed forces. Obviously.
Only the progressives are interested in changing the meaning.
Indeed.
For me, I was completely ignorant of this history prior to 2008. I simply had no idea, no experience or teaching in this stuff.
In a way, Barry usurping the office of the Presidency has created a new generation of far...far more historically and politically informed citizens. That's a great thing for the long term survival of our Republic and posterity.
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.