Posted on 10/07/2009 11:23:53 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
And your proof of that statement is.....
I defy you to find a single instance in US case law or in the writings of the founders where the two terms aren't used synonymously.
You've insisted that "natural" is language that does not apply to parents, upthread. But then, it does?
No, it doesn't. "Natural" simply refers to citizenship status by virtue of birth.
Such an odd, inelegant way of parsing the language. It's rather obvious to me, given that there is no distinction made regarding natural-born citizens, that the term does not mean one thing here, and another thing there.
No, it means one thing, and one thing only: citizen at birth. There is nothing odd or "inelegant" about that. It's about as straightforward as you can get.
At the time the Constitution was ratified, some of the several States determined birthright citizenship via jus soli, and some of the several States determined birthright citizenship via jus sanguinis.
Before the passage of the 14th amendment, the states were allowed to decide who did or did not become a citizen at birth. Whoever was deemed by a state to be a citizen at birth, was a natural born citizen under the Federal constitution. That changed with the passage of the 14th amendment; now everyone born in the US, under US jurisdiction is natural born.
This is not complicated, and there's no controversy about anywhere except among birthers.
Just how is citizenship status by virtue of birth abroad determined, if not by citizen parents? Are you trying to tell me that this is not birthright citizenship via jus sanguinis, curiosity?
And, just how is citizenship status by virtue of birth domestically determined, if not by place of birth? Are you trying to tell me that this is not birthright citizenship via jus soli?
Dust off the Clintonian Parse-O-Matic, it's is-is time again, boys and girls, lol.
I'm certain you do realize, that original intent for the Consitutional term of art natural-born citizen has not been amended, altered or otherwise enlarged in any way, since our Constitution was ratified.
Citizenship can be either jus soli or jus sanguini. It's jus soli when a child is born in the US, and jus sanguini when he's born overseas. I don't see why you find this so odd or "inelegant."
As is your right, that belief appears to be
your personal interpretation. Others hold a
differing view, but thank you for the courtesy
of a reply.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(1) The Wong Kim Ark Court references the Minor v Happerset opinion three times, but does not overrule or elaborate on Minor’s discussion of natural born citizen.
(2) Despite the exhaustive discussion of natural born citizens, the Court finds Mr. Wong to be a US citizen, but does not declare Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen.
(3) The use of the Wong Kim Ark decision to justify the natural born citizen status of a person who is born in the US to two parents who are permanent residents but perhaps not citizens is undermined by the circumstances of its author, Justice Gray, and the president who appointed him to the Supreme Court, Chester Arthur.
When Chester Arthur was elected, it was unknown that he was born before his father naturalized as a US citizen. It is now known that this is fact, and it has been exposed that Chester Arthur went to great lengths to successfully hide this fact.
Did Justice Gray attempt to use his long-winded opinion that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, with its inconclusive, general, and unnecessary discussions of natural born citizen and natural born subject to confuse the issue and help to legitimize the president who appointed him to the Supreme Court against the potential that his eligibility flaw might one day be exposed?
Mr. Spiro’s analysis ignores the fact that, although the Court’s opinion in Wong Kim Ark spends a substantial amount of time discussing natural born citizen, it does not declare Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen.
From time to time, the Supreme Court has designated individuals to be natural born citizens. It’s important to note that it has never done so for an individual whose parents were not both US citizens at the time of birth.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/30/natural-born-killer-mulling-a-constitutional-amendment/
***********************************************************
One particular passage has been fervently relied upon by Obama eligibility supporters in claiming the case establishes children of aliens – born in the US – as natural-born citizens.
I can understand such reliance. The passage below has been confusing for me as well. Yet, I never truly believed SCOTUS was stating that Wong Kim Ark could be President and Commander In Chief. I just couldn’t find the words to thoroughly distinguish the case.
However, it finally became clear today. The words of the passage suddenly re-arranged the focus of the majority’s intent.
Here’s the infamous passage:
~~~~~~~~~
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…
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. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’
~~~~~~~~
It appears at first glance that the passage claims children of aliens born on US soil are themselves natural-born citizens. And that’s certainly the hard line taken by Obama eligibility supporters. But a closer inspection reveals this is not what the court held.
Have another look:
“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:
- he compares two children
- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien
- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen
Do you see the difference?
He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.
He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.
****– The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.
Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they would have said:
“…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
But that’s not what they said.
- By the Wong Kim Ark decision, both children – the alien born and the natural born – are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens.
***- But only one satisfies the requirements to be President: the natural born child.
***- This is because natural born citizen status is only required for one purpose: to be President. There’s no other legal attachment to nbc status.
***Being eligible to be President is not a right or protection of citizenship. For example, not all natural born citizens can be President. Those who are not 35 years old and/or have not been residents in the US for 14 years – though they may be natural born citizens – are NOT eligible to be President.
Here’s the final holding of the case:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question…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 domicile and residence in the United States…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. (Emphasis added.)
This is the core holding of the case. It states that only one question is presented:
whether the child is a citizen. The single question presented is not whether the child is a natural-born citizen.
If Justice Gray and the majority deemed Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen then that’s what they would have said. But they didn’t. And this in a very detailed and thorough opinion where “natural-born” was used to compare and contrast the children of citizens to the children of aliens.
I still don’t agree with the Court’s analysis of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language in the 14th Amendment, but I’ll save that for another post.
My analysis above doesn’t conclusively establish that Obama is not eligible to be President. His case is distinguished from Wong Kim Ark’s in that Obama’s mother was a US citizen. His father was never a US citizen and as such Obama (admits) he was governed by Great Britain at birth.
This presents a unique question of first impression for the Supreme Court. Based upon my review of history and law, I don’t believe Obama is eligible to be President. But it’s certainly not an easy decision either way you look at it. Yet, this is the kind of difficult decision our Supreme Court exists to answer.
It’s odd and inelegant because it lacks precision and is not rigorous, in a document of such serious import as our Constitution.
You’ve acknowledged that the several States determined birthright citizenship differently, curiosity.
There was not a State in the nation, that would have deemed a Presidential candidate born abroad of citizen parents eligible.
And, there were several States that would not have deemed a Presidential candidate born in one of the several States eligible, if that candidate was born of a foreign father.
There is nothing odd or unrigorous about the fact that a citizen at birth is by definition a natural born citizen.
You’ve acknowledged that the several States determined birthright citizenship differently, curiosity.
So? Anyone who was a birthright citizen of at least one state was a birthright citizen of the United States. Whether he would have been considered a birthright citizen by the criteria of some other state was immaterial.
There was not a State in the nation, that would have deemed a Presidential candidate born abroad of citizen parents eligible.
Nonsense.
And, there were several States that would not have deemed a Presidential candidate born in one of the several States eligible, if that candidate was born of a foreign father.
That is simply not true. States never had the authority to determine who is or is not eligible to be president. So long as a person was a birthright citizen of at least one state, that person was eligible, regardless of the citizenship laws in other states.
Nope. The following is not my personal interpretation:
"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, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.""III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
"(1) The Wong Kim Ark Court references the Minor v Happerset opinion three times, but does not overrule or elaborate on Minor’s discussion of natural born citizen."
The passage I just quoted in fact covers it very nicely. The full majority opinion in Wong goes on for pages discussing the issue.
"(2) Despite the exhaustive discussion of natural born citizens, the Court finds Mr. Wong to be a US citizen, but does not declare Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen."
Read that passage again. Can you claim that somehow that doesn't apply to Wong? No.
Did they write it in the last paragraph of the decision, or specifically write, "Mr. Wong can run for President"? No. So what? You can't ignore the rest of the opinion because they didn't word the end how you want.
"(3) The use of the Wong Kim Ark decision to justify the natural born citizen status of a person who is born in the US to two parents who are permanent residents but perhaps not citizens is undermined by the circumstances of its author, Justice Gray, and the president who appointed him to the Supreme Court, Chester Arthur."
Nonsense. It was a majority opinion of the US Supreme Court. You don't get to ignore it just because you have a problem with one of the judges. It doesn't work that way.
Please cite the Constitutional Article and Clause stating this, curiosity.
You are wong.
That’s why there’s chocolate and vanilla.
I don’t believe the opinion conclusively
determines that Wong Kim Ark’s case, a
case being considered WITHOUT the backdrop
of him as a candidate for US president, was
made by SCOTUS in any manner to comport
with Article II of the Constitution in mind ...
“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.”
Any such POTUS eligibility case today would be a case of first impression. That would open up an entirely new landscape of legal and Constitutional analysis yet untouched.
No I’m not.
There are people that still think the world is flat. Just because someone holds a contrary opinion, doesn't mean that both opinions are equally valid.
"I don’t believe the opinion conclusively determines that Wong Kim Ark’s case, a case being considered WITHOUT the backdrop of him as a candidate for US president, was made by SCOTUS in any manner to comport with Article II of the Constitution in mind ..."
And to believe that, you have to ignore the plain wording of the decision itself. Do that if you like, but don't plan on trying to engage people in a debate. It's not a rational position.
You are basically deciding in advance what you want to believe and trying to force evidence to fit that view.
I’m not deciding anything .. I
merely disagree with your view,
but I’m not calling it irrational.
Are you an attorney ?
Where it is not written conclusively, it is a matter of what you believe you are reading. I believe a natural born is born of 2 US citizens. I also believe that a natural born is born of any combination of US or naturalized citizens at the time of birth. You are not considered natural born if 1 of your parents owes allegiance to another country since you would have split allegiance as the case of BO.
His roots are 1 of the United States and 2 for his Kenyan roots. No doubt about it in my mind.
You may think as you want and I know I won’t change your mind as you will not change any of our minds. The only way for all of us to agree on what Natural born actually means, would be for this question to be brought before SCOTUS! This means we have to agree to not agree on this subject!
So, I say believe as you will - but it is futile to change anyone elses mind on this issue!
Despite what *some* may say, the Court did NOT determine that Wong Kim Ark is a ‘natural born citizen.’ That wasn’t the question before the court, and it appears that they avoided that question in their opinion.
“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, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, .....
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present 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, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Order affirmed.”
US v Wong Kim Ark
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
....”to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present 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, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.”
~~~~
Single issue case — which I alluded to above .. no POTUS eligibility issue involved.
Seems reasonable to deduce it bore no
bearing on any concurrent or future
POTUS natural born citizen issue,
pursuant to Article II of the US
Constitution.
No I’m not.
So then you are wight? I gave you your chance...lol...
Didn’t notice till after I hit Post. :-)
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.