4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"

The Post Mail ^ | 10/18/2009 | John Charlton

[etraveler13]

4 Cases have been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that define the status of Natural Born Citizen.

[El Gato]

Look at the link below to the 1961 Natality Report:

Danke.

But I think you are on weak ground using these tables. Residency information would come from the BC, but the table would not indicate that the state of residence issued the BC. The same is true of race. Hawaiian counted as a "race", still is, but they append "/Pacific Islander" to it. More likely the state where the birth occurred issued it.

But we know that Hawaiian law, territorial (which carried over to the '61 time frame) and after statehood, allowed for registration of births which did not occur in the state.

But if a child was born in say, Washington, they'd have a WA birth certificate and would not need a Hawaiian. But if they were born in Canada, and wanted to be documented as US citizens, they could get a Hawaiian BC.

[El Gato]

It is clear from the opinion he wrote that he believed that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen.

Funny that he did not write that then in his conclusion. What he wrote was:

becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.

If if meant natural born citizen, he likely would have written:

"is a natural born citizen of he United States".

[BP2]

> You can email the Honolulu Star-Bulliten and the Honolulu Advertiser
> and ask them directly.

And have the newspapers publicly acknowledged that they printed the birth announcement?

Has the Hawaii DOH publicly acknowledged that they sent Obama the COLB or his trusted staff that appeared on FactCheck?

The answer to be is a resounding -NO- to both questions

[BP2]

[BP2]

Hmmm, let’s see what WONG KIM ARK v US says, referencing MINOR v. HAPPERSETT:

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.

Wow. Sounds a bit like Vattel:

[wideminded]

It is clear from the opinion he wrote that he believed that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen.

Agreed.

The others concurred with the opinion,

Except for the two dissenters, who apparently explicitly objected to the NBC part of the opinion.

NOTICE THAT THEY DECLARED HIM A CITIZEN UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

That is because the case did not involve the question of whether Wong Kim Ark was a NBC for the purposes of running for president. Also in those days it was undoubtedly inconceivable that someone like the plaintiff would ever have a chance to become POTUS. Note that the dissenters included racial reasoning among their other arguments.

IF GRAY HAD INSISTED ON DECLARING HIM AN NBC, HE WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN A MAJORITY - SINCE THE OTHER JUSTICES WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED WITH HIM,

But six other justices did sign off on an opinion that, without explicitly declaring him so, clearly implies that Wong Kim Ark was a NBC.

" ... The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such ..."

Blackstone admits that there are exceptions - notably, Denizens ...

Obama is a Denizen

If you look up the definition of denizen, it is very clear that Obama is not a denizen.

BTW I am not arguing that Obama is a NBC. I was only pointing out that anyone bringing a case on this subject would at least have to overcome some of the arguments made in the Wong Kim Ark majority opinion. Perhaps that is not so difficult.

To: wideminded; All

I have heard that 'All' does not cause anyone to be pinged.

[BP2]

That's huge. I had no idea that Ben Franklin testified to the fact that the Framers consulted Vattel's work while drafting the Constitution. That is very important.

Let me dispel some more After-Birther myth ...

It is "commonly accepted" that Vattel’s “Law of Nations” was not translated from French to English until 1797, 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written. This is important, as Vattel’s “Law of Nations” contains the purest form of the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” defined in English, as written in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

Charles Dumas, one of Benjamin Franklin's key collaborators in his European diplomacy, met with Franklin in Holland. In 1770, Dumas sent three copies of the “Law of Nations” (presumably written in French) and instructed Franklin to send one copy to Harvard University, and one in the Philadelphia library. Franklin retained a third copy for himself.

It is further "commonly accepted" that the Founders and Framers only had access to the one copy of “Law of Nations” in Philadelphia when they wrote the Constitution and that the "one copy" was written in French, because, after all, it is "commonly accepted" that the first English translated copy of "Law of Nations" did not appear until 1797, 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written.

However, upon further research, this is discovered not to be true.

A lesser-known version of Vattel’s “Law of Nations” was actually the first to be translated into English (anonymously) in 1760 in London, based upon Vattel’s French original “Droit des gens” of 1758. Older law journal articles from the early 1900s lead to this "discovery".

In 1765, five years BEFORE Franklin received his three copies of Vattel “Law of Nations” from Dumas in 1770, the 1760 English version of Vattel’s “Law of Nations” was referenced by Attorney James Otis of Massachusetts in his 1765 pamphlet “The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved”.

Below is a COMPARISON between a Vattel reference from the 1765 James Otis pamphlet (quoting the 1760 London English translation of Vattel’s “Law of Nations”) and the 1854 London English version of Vattel’s “Law of Nations” (which, in turn, is based upon the 1797 London English anonymous translation) of Vattel’s “Law of Nations”.

The quotes, Long-S notwithstanding (" ſſ "), are virtually identical:

This proves two important points, perhaps never before pieced together:

Today’s version of Vattel’s “Law of Nations,” thought to be based upon the 1854 version (taken, in turn, from the 1797 London English version), is actually primarily based upon the lesser-known 1760 London English version of Vattel’s “Law of Nations”.

An English version of Vattel’s “Law of Nations” was available to the Colonists in America at least 11 years BEFORE the “Declaration of Independence” was penned, and 22 years before the “US Constitution” was written.

As cousins Samuel and John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and others cited Vattel before 1776, it is likely they had access to James Otis' or other copies of Vattel's "Law of Nations" published in English from 1760 London.

This new finding likely impacts what we have long understood about the influence Vattel's "Law of Nations" had on this nation's Founding documents.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

The root problem appears to be Obama exploited gullible legislators who never imagined this kind of mess could occur. Now that the horse is out of the barn, the legislators are making their opinion clear:

60+ Lawmakers 7 States Tell Obama; if you want on 2012 ballot, RELEASE THE RECORDS!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2462967/posts

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

I’m glad you are offering a counter-point.

“Four justices did indeed offer opinions that would disagree with Obama’s alleged eligiblity. However at the current US Supreme Court, four justices does not a decision make, it takes five, like the current five Justice conservative majority: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas.”

OK, so we have five justices who disagree with a reasonable opinion, perhaps for reasonable reasons. We had five justices who ruled on Kelo for UN-reasonable reasons too.

So, are states being foolish to pass new laws that would have forced Obama’s hand?

60+ Lawmakers 7 States Tell Obama; if you want on 2012 ballot, RELEASE THE RECORDS!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2462967/posts

Would those other five justices consider those states to be silly?

The fact that those laws weren’t passed earlier isn’t the point. The point is that people who called us names and tried to make us out to be kooks are losing the debate. When a president forces states to pass such laws, that tells me that the finger should not be pointed at us, but rather at the “president”.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

[I’m no lawyer to let you know.]

I don’t consider him to be a legitimate president. Unfortunately, he was processed in and sits in the Oval Office. So, best I can tell, he would need to be impeached.

To me, this is one of those important moments that defines the DNC more than anything else.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Sounds to me as though you nailed it down. — FRegards ...

[dools007]

Thanks for the info. I have not seen this particular facit of the NBC controversy stated so clearly and concisely anywhere.

Looks like a lot of people, including Pubbies, enabled The Usurper to snake his way into the WH.

[edge919]

But I think you are on weak ground using these tables. Residency information would come from the BC, but the table would not indicate that the state of residence issued the BC.

You'll notice I didn't claim anything about which state issued the BC, just that the home state appears to have registered the births. We can tell this in the first column on page 43 because it says how many total births occurred in State and how many occurred in the county of residence. On page 241 of the report, Hawaii claims 17,616 total births while on page 43, only 17,578, and only 17,508 in county. The remainder is either out of county or out of state.

On the table listing different races, again the total number of 17,616 is listed and that 366 born out of state footnotes means that it's part of Hawaii's total number of births. The state had to have been registering these births, else there could be massive duplications of birth reports between states.

The bottom line is that we see a strong clue that Obama could have been born out of state, but registered in Hawaii, perhaps eligible to receive a birth certificate there. Since we haven't seen an original birth certificate, we don't know what place of birth is listed.

The part that is most unknown is about foreign births, since these tables only include births within the United States. But I found another source that says for children born en route (on a ship or airplane), that a child would be registered where they arrive and that the type of conveyance would be marked on the birth certificate. Theoretically a baby could be born in another country, but reported to have been born on the plane or on the ship en route, and thus receive a Hawaii birth certificate. The en route designation might not appear on a COLB, but it might show up on Obama's original birth certificate ... which easily explains why he wants NO ONE to see it.

[bgill]

It frosts me that Obama is a Constitutional Scholar, he KNEW that what he was doing was wrong. Perhaps it was an intellectual exercise that went too far, or perhaps it was fraud. Only he knows that answer, but to the law, its fraud, and to others that participated, its treason

Of course he knew. He proved he knew when he signed off on SR511 declaring McCain a NBC due to two US citizens. Yet, he laughs and sneers at us every time he references his Kenyan background. It's all a joke. What I don't get is why no Congress member or state official stepped up to the plate to stop it before it got this far.

[bgill]

Each and every one who didn’t object should be (gently) tarred and feathered.

[bgill]

I've written to my state legislators and the governor about instituting such a law in Texas. It's a shame that there haven't been such checks and balances on this issue before.

The mere act of signing one's name to a contract means he agrees and binds himself to it. The states signed that they had certified him. It was their duty to prove his eligibility. They did not do their job and knowingly committed fraud. They did not protect their citizens and should also be thrown out of office.

[edge919]

Obama enjoyed cult-like popularity to get elected. That's a hard thing to fight, especially when you realize how many people insist that native born = natural born. It's a matter of picking and choosing a battle you think you can win, instead of doing what's right.

[bgill]

Make damn sure this can never happen again by having the Republican Party sponsor legislation on the State Level

The laws are already on the books in the form of the certification they signed their name to. The GOP is just as guilty as the RATs. They didn't want this term and did everything they could to give it to the RATs. After all the Bush and Cheney hate and knowing the financial crisis was just around the corner, they paraded a dozen candidates out to confuse the public and settled on dingbat McLame and got Sarah on board knowing the msn would make mincemeat of her. What they didn't count on was so many falling in love with her so they had to shut her up. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if the GOP didn't help the msn slander her. They thought they'd be up against Hillary but that backfired and by that time it was too late to protest Hussein or they might do too much damage to the RATS. Then they saw not enough were drinking the koolaid so had McRino gush lovingly over Hussein and give us a nice little grandfather's knee speech that we didn't have to fear Hussein. At any time, especially after SR511, McBlame could have spoken up but he didn't. At any time Cheney could have spoken up but he didn't and conveniently didn't allow anyone else to speak up. So, yeah, there's more than enough blame to go around and I blame the GOP the most.

[Kenny Bunk]

You are absolutely correct about Obama's sign-off on SR 511.

However, while it certainly might show his knowledge of the 2-citizen parents requirement, a Senate Resolution is actually more of a feel-good exercise with very little legal weight, rather than some gigundous deal. "The National Pickle Week," sort of thing.

I am sure that my Fearlessly Ineligible Leader would be the very first to point that out in court.

[GBA]

However, Keyes knew all this in 2006. When he challenged Obama on his citizenship during that senatorial race, Obama cheerfully admitted he wasn't an NBC, correctly saying that in order to run for the Senate, he didn't have to be!

Does a record of this exist? Youtube? Transcripts?

It would be a nice counter to those who say he is an NBC, especially if the counter is obama himself saying he isn't!