The TRUE definition of a "Natural Born Citizen."

12-16-2008 | unknown

[briarbey b]

As a supposed Constitutional scholar, would Barack Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Obama know that We The People are the ones with whom the government's contract rests in a Constitutional Republic. Yes he would. And if this supposed scholar sought to defraud the nation because he is not eligible by the most basic tenets cited in the Constitution, how would he go about avoiding We The People?

How would he go about avoiding “WE THE PEOPLE?” Just like it is being done. What is the purpose of so many different names? Not as easy to track? I see...AKA more on criminal records than on your average everyday American.

Republican or Democrat...we are ALL..”WE THE PEOPLE!”
Each and everyone of us should have the concern that we are losing what our ancestors...republican or democrat have bled and died for!! We are losing it...or IT IS GONE!!

To BLINDLY accept and NOT QUESTION something of such catastrophic proportions where this country is concerned is LUNACY!! UNITE..don't fight amongst yourselves...United WE STAND...divided we fall..remember?????????? WHAT do we UNITE for?? The preservation of A REPUBLIC that we ALL love...WHAT is bad about that?

[Eagles6]

And you view these as unbiased sources?

[Citizen Blade]

As I understand it, hospital patient confidentiality rules DON'T apply to a patient who has died.

I don't think that's the case. I seem to recall that the confidentiality privilege then becomes the "property" of the estate of the deceased person. Otherwise, medical personnel could sell all kinds of embarassing medical details to the tabloids after a celebrity died. Obama is the only person (barring some sort of court order) who could permit the hospital to discuss his medical records and the medical records of his deceased mother.

For instance, suppose you walked into a Hawaii hospital and asked this question: Was president Bush born there?

The legally correct response, if hospital personnel were trained to comply with privacy laws, would be for them to neither confirm nor deny that fact. Otherwise, people could do an end run around privacy laws- if a hospital will tell you that someone was not a patient, then if they refuse to comment on a particular person, then you know that person was a patient.

[Non-Sequitur]

And you view these as unbiased sources?

They are several sources that say one thing. I've yet to see the sources that contradict them.

[briarbey b]

My Dear Blade...I think this country needs a little paranoia directed properly...maybe there won’t be so much apathy and non-concern for such huge matters...EXCLUDING my fellow Freepers as those who are not concerned of course! :)

I think it has been more than proven “WE THE PEOPLE” can be moved by paranoia and fear. Maybe it is time to use the same tool that has been used against us to work for us!!

We just had $700Billion of our hard earned money handed to
elite companies and CEOs who have raped their companies to the point of financial extinction....why did we hand it over??....FEAR and paranoia of what would happen if we didn’t!!!

This may be a discussion of opinions on facts and law but the very basis, mystery and unknowns of the subject matter SHOULD spark paranoia and conspiracy fears among the people.
Caution is a good thing...being blindly led is not.

[Eagles6]

Well wikepedia is notoriously liberal and loaded with fraud and can be edited by anyone and I would expect the usa yesterday and the leftist UK papers to parrot what camp obama tells them. I have kept abreast of the issue and I have not seen these claims in anything that I would consider reputable.

I suppose we shall agree to disagree.

[Non-Sequitur]

Well wikepedia is notoriously liberal and loaded with fraud and can be edited by anyone and I would expect the usa yesterday and the leftist UK papers to parrot what camp obama tells them. I have kept abreast of the issue and I have not seen these claims in anything that I would consider reputable.

And I don't have a problem being skeptical. So point me to an unbiased source that contradicts what Wikipedia and the newspapers said and it'd be a start.

[so_real]

Actually, the case from which this information was derived, refers to an individual who was born inside the United States to two parents of Chinese decent who were both subjects of the Chinese empire. In this scenario, the individual *was* ruled to be a "citizen of the United States" by virtue of his birth in San Francisco.

This ruling contradicts the statement in your post regarding Greisser. As you stated, Greisser Wong Kim Ark was "neither a natural born or naturalized citizen". He was, however, granted a citizen by birth. This in itself indicates a clear distinction between "citizen by birth" and "natural born citizen". Wong Kim Ark is by birth a "citizen of the United States".

Prior to this, in the Hausding case, it had been ruled the child of two foreign subjects would not be considered a "citizen" in any sense of the word despite birth on U.S. soil. This is the argument you attributed to Greisser. The Wong Kim Ark case contradicted this finding directly, which explains some of the Justices dissent. After Wong Kim Ark, Hausding would have been considered a "citizen" -- no more, no less.

Greisser, however, was born in Ohio to an American mother and a German father (a German subject). This is a more clear parallel to Obama's situation today being born (presumably) in Hawaii with an American mother and a Kenyan father (a British subject). Mr. Secretary Bayard ruled that Greisser was not a "citizen" in any sense of the word despite being born on U.S. soil with an American mother. Again, the Wong Kim Ark case contradicted this ruling directly and Justices dissented. After Wong Kim Ark, Greisser too would have been considered a "citizen" -- no more, no less.

Initially Hausding, Greisser, and Wong Kim Ark had not been granted any form of citizenship in any sense of the word. All would have required "naturalization" to attain citizenship. By extension, Obama falls into this camp. The Wong Kim Ark case changed this, with obvious Judicial dissent, by establishing a "citizen of the United States" by virtue of birth in the United States. If Obama is proved to have been born in Hawaii, he is a "citizen of the United States"-- no more, no less -- thanks to the Wong Kim Ark ruling. Neither Hausding, nor Greisser, nor Wong Kim Ark, and by extension Obama, would have been eligible for POTUS. It was big a leap, with dissent, to even consider them citizens at all let alone eligible for the mantle of POTUS.

[allmendream]

You quoted the Greisser case at me. I responded that it was not applicable. Now you agree that it is not applicable but claim the Wong Kim Ark case is.

U.S. law is clear.

If Obama was born in Hawaii to Stanley Ann Dunham, a U.S. citizen, he is a “natural born citizen” i.e. a “U.S. citizen at birth” according to U.S. law.

[Citizen Blade]

Greisser, however, was born in Ohio to an American mother and a German father (a German subject). This is a more clear parallel to Obama's situation today being born (presumably) in Hawaii with an American mother and a Kenyan father (a British subject). Mr. Secretary Bayard ruled that Greisser was not a "citizen" in any sense of the word despite being born on U.S. soil with an American mother.

The opinion of the Secretary of State in these matters is not determinative. The court's decision in thr Ark case overrode Mr. Bayard's views.

If Obama is proved to have been born in Hawaii, he is a "citizen of the United States"-- no more, no less -- thanks to the Wong Kim Ark ruling. Neither Hausding, nor Greisser, nor Wong Kim Ark, and by extension Obama, would have been eligible for POTUS.

The Ark case did not address the issue of who is a natural born citizen. Ark only dealt with the issue of whether someone born on US soil to non-citizens qualifies as a citizen. The court was silent on the natural-born citizen issue, IIRC.

[seekthetruth]

What is the age requirement of Senators? 21?

[Non-Sequitur]

What is the age requirement of Senators? 21?

30

[Non-Sequitur]

The Ark case did not address the issue of who is a natural born citizen. Ark only dealt with the issue of whether someone born on US soil to non-citizens qualifies as a citizen. The court was silent on the natural-born citizen issue, IIRC.

Justice Gray did say in his decision that there are two classes of citizen - citizen at birth and naturalized citizen. It also said that a child born in the U.S. was a citizen at birth, regardless of the nationality of the parents. So according to the decision citizen at birth and natural born citizen are synonmymous. And if he was born in Hawaii then Obama is a natural born citizen.

[briarbey b]

Another link.

http://www.theobamafile.com/NaturalBornCitizenChart2.htm

Am I allowed to link like this guys?

[so_real]

Yes I am; thanks. More important than simply being part of a dissenting opinion, it is an outline of prior history. See post 188. The Wong Kim Ark case afforded citizenship to individuals who had been, through prior legal ruling, been denied citizenship in all forms. Obviously, with prior decisions being what they were, there would be dissent. Going from "alien" to "citizen" is a big leap. Going from "alien" to POTUS is inconceivable.

[Non-Sequitur]

The problem I have with that chart is that nothing in law or the Constitution define three classes of citizen - they define two. And the Ark and Elg cases do not support the claim that natural born and citizen at birth are not one and the same.

[Eagles6]

Point me to links for the stories you cite and I’ll see what I can find. I have not seen those claims anywhere.

[so_real]

No, no. I referred you to Greisser because it was the "prior art", if you will, from 1885 I referred to in post 111 identifying clearly that in the history of the United States the statement "a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen" is patently false. The Greisser case is *extremely* applicable as it represents historical legal precedent and draws a close parallel to Obama's situation today -- I do not agree with you in the least that it is not applicable. Wong Kim Ark is relevant only in that it extended "citizen" to a circumstance that had prior been deemed "alien". I only mentioned Wong Kim Ark because you had in post 152 mistaken Greisser for Hausding. Wong Kim Ark does not extend a "natural born" status to any class of citizen. Nor does it support the erroneous assertion that "a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen".

[STE=Q]

"U.S. law and past Supreme Court decisions disagree with you."

See update #108

Supreme court justices also 'disagree' with each other on points of law.

Lacking specifics your post is meaningless.

If you would like to have a fruitful discussion, you might want to comment on what YOU believe the framers intent was in drafting the 'natural born' directive for those that wished to serve as president: as that was the substance of my post.

Thanks ahead of time for your opinion.

Have a nice day.

STE=Q

[AmericanVictory]

We don’t know if they have reached it yet because we don’t know if they have yet found a petitioner that they believe has Article III standing.