Posted on 10/07/2009 11:23:53 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
"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)
Really? What about Obama Sr's other wife Ruth? Oh and what abot Jael?
Let’s just say that any sane court, anywhere in the world, isn’t going to go down that road, to de-legitimize a child by annulment of a marriage between two now-deceased people that ended 45 years ago by divorce, for purely political reasons.
And, let’s just say that the Founders would not have considered the child of a recorded marriage that was legal in the United States at the time of his birth, to be illegitimate.
Who would be the the injured party, here? Obama? Because he doesn’t like the legal ramifications of his birth father being married to his mother?
Like I’ve said before, it’s just nonsensical.
"Natural born citizen?"
There's something missing in your definition, mlo. It's clearly intended to have a more restrictive meaning than your favored interpretation.
There’s no evidence other than hearsay, that this Kezia was ever married to Obama, Sr.
There’s no evidence other than hearsay, that this Kezia was ever married to Obama, Sr.
No, it's "natural" because the person has the status by right of birth. It's not something requiring a special provision. You certainly cannot get "two citizen parents" from the word "natural".
Oh, so you're one of them there anti-McCain birthers, then.
Where has this woman testified, before whom, and what sort of legal record exists of this testimony, under the jurisdiction of Great Britain or the United States?
There are numerous, other Kenyan women who claimed to have been the wife of Obama, Sr., yet there is no way of proving such claims, legally.
People born overseas to US citizen parents are called "natural born" not becasue of the identity of their parents, but because they are still citizens at birth.
As I posited, Obama has always known that he has the ability if necessary to show that he was never legitimated under the 1948 BNA under which his birth was “governed”.
You’re reading my mind. That was
my very thought last night. Why
don’t you ask Donofrio ?
“The constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States.’
By the original constitution, every representative in congress is required to have been ‘seven years a citizen of the United States,’ and every senator to have been ‘nine years a citizen of the United States’; and ‘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.’ Article 2, 1.
The fourteenth article of amendment, besides declaring 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,’ also declares that ‘no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’
And the fifteenth article of amendment declares that ‘the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any state, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.’
The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born r naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’ Amend. art. 14. In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422 , 5 S. Sup. Ct. 935; Boyd v. U. S., 116 U.S. 616, 624 , 625 S., 6 Sup. Ct. 524; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 , 8 Sup. Ct. 564. The language of the constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law.
1 Kent, Comm. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. U. S., 91 U.S. 270 , 274. [169 U.S. 649, 655]
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. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
Wong Kim Ark was legally allowed to vote in the US.
Was Wong Kim Ark Constitutionally eligible to run for
and attain the office of presidency/vice presidency of
the United States ?
Yes, he would have been eligible. That was not the question before the court, but the court addressed it as part of the legal reasoning leading to their decision. I quoted from the decision earlier. It leaves no doubt whatsoever that he was a natural born citizen.
But we don't require citizen at birth under the Constitution. We require natural-born citizen.
To me, it's rather peculiar, how the term natural-born citizen supposedly applies to births under jus sanguinis through the parents on the one hand, and also under jus soli through the soil, on the other.
You've insisted that "natural" is language that does not apply to parents, upthread. But then, it does?
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. The evident meaning of other, Constitutional terms of art is consistent, and consistently applied.
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. Given that Presidential elections actually were and are decided by electoral votes, from each State, and that the Office of President, being the only Office voted upon by all of the several States, had to qualify across varying jurisdictions, how do you suppose a given canidate met the natural-born citizen eligibility requirement in those of the several States that determined birthright citizenship via jus sanguinis, if the candidate himself did not meet that standard?
There you have the practical reasoning behind the acceptance of the definition of the term, as found in The Law Of Nations. A Constitutional Republic is not a monarchy. A Constitutional Republic often consists of various States in confederacy, with varying means of determining citizenship.
And, a Constitutional Republic such as the nascent United States of America, certainly was not going to acknowledge legal concepts of citizenship under the law in England, that would place them into perpetual allegiance to the very monarchy that they had just fought a war to separate themselves from.
You and I have discussed England's competing claims of citizenship upon the original U.S. citizens, and that the War Of 1812 was fought largely due to England sitting off our shores, seizing and conscripting U.S. citizens, claiming them under perpetual allegiance as natural-born subjects of England.
It is just incredible to me, that you or anyone else would attempt to misconstrue our Founders' intent, to allow a British citizen into the Office of President.
You were referring to hearsay.
You've gone completely 'round the bend, mlo. There is no way at all, that Wong Kim Ark was eligible for election to the Office of President.
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.