Replies

This issue is not as cut and dry as many people on here are trying to make it out to be. If the Framers did not intend for the phrase they put into the Constitution to mean what it meant at the time they wrote it, they would have written out a definition into the Constitution to redefine it. Since they did not, we can only assume it meant what the phrase meant when the wrote it out - the English common law definition - those born within the borders of the realm are naturally born citizens. There are a number of court cases where it is defined in this manner with regard to those born with far looser connections to the United States than Senator Rubio. The first case where it seems this was dealt with by a court was Lynch vs. Clarke in New York over a dispute with who could inherit property - there was a law on the books stating that only a "U.S. Citizen" could inherit property, and the presiding judge (apparently in this court the judge was called a "Vice Chancellor) made this declaration: Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen...Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question. You an do a google search for the full ruling but that's the meat of dealing with that issue. In another case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court over the citizenship of a person born who was born to Chinese parents (it was illegal at that time for Chinese immigrants to become U.S. Citizens) it was declared that he was a natural born citizen by virtue of having been born in the United States, and Justice Field, who wrote the opinion, actually referenced the Lynch v. Clarke decision in the ruling of the Court: After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind. This case was In re Look Tin Sing. Another U.S. Supreme Court case was United States v. Wong Kim Ark dealing with the same issue of a child born to Chinese parents made the same ruling and also declared him to be a natural born citizen in the ruling by virtue of his right to citizenship by birth. All of those cases were in the 1800s. There was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1939 with the title Perkins v. Elg which dealt with the issue of a woman who was born in the U.S. to Swedish citizens who returned to Sweden with her when she was four years old. Her father was naturalized prior to this as a U.S. Citizen and held dual citizenship. She then came back to the U.S. and was admitted entry as a citizen at the age of 21. For whatever reason, her father later did away with his U.S. Citizenship status and the equivalent of the INS at the time declared she was to be deported. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against this finding she was a natural born U.S. Citizen by right of birth and even declared she was eligible to be President of the United States in the ruling. A past President, Chester Arthur, was born with an Irish father who was not yet naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, though his mother was born in Vermont where Arthur himself was born.

Some of those individuals would be a bit concerning to me as far as dual loyalties - they left the country for long periods of time before returning. However, if they could be considered natural born citizens, then certainly someone like Rubio who has far greater ties to the U.S. could be considered one if challenged. Certainly those precedents and court rulings and common law application as it was understood at the time the Constitution was written would make it very difficult to put together a rock solid case that he is not.

I've posted similar information previously and I was blasted as making false arguments and "deficating on the constitution." But what was said in the rulings were in fact said in the rulings, and the English common law definition is what it was and the phrase meant that at the time that it was written. Those are not disputable facts...and to make a credible case that it means something else, those precedents, rulings by the courts, and the argument with regard to the definition at the time it was written must all be dealt with - with something other than personal insults and crude remarks because you are upset they were pointed out (which I'm not accusing you personally of...that's just what happens far to often...people want to pretend credible challenges to their position should not exist - but they do).

The definition of 2 citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen makes sense to me..... especially considering the historic constitutional context. This was even taught to me in my high school civics class. At the time, there was no doubt about the definition. It is interesting to note that the only place in the constitution where the phrase “natural born” is mentioned is article 2 section 1 dealing with the qualifications of the office of US President. My opinion is further enforced by minor..... BUT I will concede that I am not a lawyer. And I will agree at this point, we need the SCOTUS to chime in do their duty and clarify the issue using today’s language. I am confident that in the end, the 2 parent requirement will be upheld. BUT whatever the court decides, I will accept the issue as settled. At this point I consider it almost settled.

Mr. Wildcat is not a regular Obot that I can recall, though we should note that this thread has awakened Mr. Rogers and Drew98, two of our older Obots, so you know the Obama troops are getting concerned.

Mr. Wildcat seems to take the approach of throwing much at the wall and hoping it will stick just enough to discourage those still looking for real information. Recourse to original sources is a more efficient approach to refuting the nonsense. First, dismiss any reference to state courts. They often say whatever they feel the law ought to be, and have lifetime appointments, no matter how many times they get reversed by appeals courts, including the final appeals court. And they know that few pay attention to the law anyway. Just look at that joke of a decision by the Indiana Supreme Court known as Ankeny. It gets cited by other federal judges, who know better than to cite Supreme Court precedence such as Minor, to dismiss candidate eligibility cases. Incidental or not, two of the federal judges who cited Ankeny were Muslims. Was it Taquia?

Read the decision, just the end, of Wong Kim Ark and you'll see that Mr. Wildcat is, probably intentionally, blowing smoke. Wong Kim was made a citizen - not natural born, but native born, like Obama, to alien parents. Justice Gray cited Minor v. Happersett and quoted Chief Justice Waite verbatim.

The 14th Amendment was properly called a “Naturalization Amendment”. It only produced naturalized citizens. Wong Kim Ark's legal source is the 14th Amendment.

Finally, the author of the 14th Amendment was unequivocal. Congressman, judge advocate of the Lincoln Assassination, John Bingham told the house:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], 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….

Read the oath sworn to by every citizen naturalized by our State Department. "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.” This oath is based upon the 14th Amendment. How could anyone interpret this to permit a child to inherit citizenship from an alien parent? The meaning of naturalization is what insures that naturalized parents can inculcate allegiance in their offspring. Many of the children born to naturalized citizens understand our foundations better than natural born citizens (all of whom must also be native born - born on our soil). Until recently, my naturalized friends clearly knew more about our Constitution than I did.

With Obots facts are irrelevant. Correcting them in no way implies that they will not repeat the misinformation in their next comment. But since Obot Wildcat has continued with the same theme, let it be clear that the Constitution was explicitly written without definitions of common terms, whether common language or common law. That way politicians could not use the naturally occurring evolution of language semantics - meaning - to reinterpret the ideas. The foundation of the Declaration and the Constitution was clearly stated - "... to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them.." based upon natural law which the framers considered eternal. England's laws were created and executed to protect the King and his subjects were there to obey his proclamations. As Dr. David Ramsay explained in his elegant “Dissertation on ... Citizenship” from 1789.

About Citizens and Subjects Ramsay said:

“The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who collectively, possesses sovereignty.”

Dr. Ramsay, one of our presidents between 1776 and 1787, and our first Congressional Historian, also explained:

"Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken a part in the late revolution: but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens. Those who died before the revolution, could leave no political character to their children, but that of subjects, which they themselves possessed. If they had lived, no one could be certain whether they would have adhered to the king or to congress. Their children, therefore, may claim by inheritance the rights of British subjects, but not of American citizens.

The Obots will no doubt continue to talk among themselves with the goal of drowning this most cogent thread in irrelevant citations. On many threads they continue the dialog with each other, using the usual name calling and citing obscure and irrelevant references, probably to make the whole exercise seem silly. Don't waste your time trying to debate them. They only want to quench the rational discussion, and will repeat the nonsense many of us have been debunking for going on four years. Read original sources, or read the rebuttals to all these claims in the archives of either Leo Donfrio’s or Mario Appuzo’s Natural Born Citizen blogs.

Now go look up all the same cases on paper in a law library. When you find that on paper they read very different from what you read on line maybe then you will realize the lengths the socialists will go to to enshrine their Obama.

By the way if you can not find those cases on paper check carefully for missing pages. They are also mutilating books to hide their crime.