Skip to comments.Trump is Right and is Now Turning to the Real Issue – What is a ‘Natural Born Citizen?’
Posted on 04/10/2011 4:52:10 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Trump has been right in bringing up Obamas eligibility/natural born citizen issue, the birther issue. No one else (at this point in time) has the clout or the guts to tackle it. No other politician or ethical reporter will cover this issue in any depth because the Political Correctness (PC) police have been out in full force intimidating all who might dare to raise any questions. Theyve been very successful too. Thats why birther is the name everyone associates with it; and why most associate the meaning the name implies not born in Hawaii. No independent thought necessary! However, it is an issue that needs to be addressed, if for no other reason that we have military men and women fighting around the world at Obamas beck and call.
And the high stakes game, it appears will have a few more hands to play.
The issue with Obamas eligibility (regardless of what the media is trying to lead you to believe) not only involves the place of his birth but also his conflicted allegiances vis-à-vis the citizenship of his father.
Unfortunately, there is no Supreme Court decision that I know of where the Court addresses the specific question (in a case where it is factually necessary to the facts and issue presented) of who can and cant be a Natural Born Citizen, other than in the penumbra of discussions/historical presentations in cases involving ordinary and/or naturalized citizenship.
However, the relevant writings/common understandings that were available to the Founders and the ones that have been suggested that the Founders relied, suggest (see article by Prof. Solum in Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause) that to be a natural born citizen requires being born in country to parents (2) who were citizens at the time of the persons birth.
Further, the significance of the Constitutional provision containing both the terms Citizen and Natural Born Citizen clearly indicate there is a difference in meaning in the two. This has been recognized in several cases and writings. The reasons for inclusion of the Presidential eligibility restrictions are also recognized as being the need for and/or fear of a person becoming President who did not have complete/sole allegiance to the new nation. In your heart of hearts, do your perceptions of Obamas actions and ideology validate the Founders' concerns? For me, the answer seems obvious.
Did you see that Trump had a meeting with a group that included a Rep. from Arizona and gave out some homework? In that meeting, Mr. Trump asked for information regarding the term "natural born citizen". Only the Donald can assign research as homework and not have to pay for it. Once Donald Trump receives the information asked for, he will then be in a position to force the main street media's hand; and call them on their decision to cut the public out of considering the Obama eligibility issue in any meaningful, thoughtful way.
Simply labeling everyone asking questions birthers is neither meaningful nor thoughtful.
Keep in mind that, Trump also has his mother's naturalized citizenship status as a possible springboard should he decide to file a suit for a Declaratory Judgment indicating he (Trump) is eligible.
Thats an ace in the hole that only Trump has!
Get your Popcorn ready! Trump has sent investigators to Hawaii and is collecting his assigned homework. There are more hands to play!
In defining an Article II natural born Citizen, it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a natural born Citizen. Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a natural born Citizen.
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolutions first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)
Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task
In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay's History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.
In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the original citizens were and then defined the natural born citizens as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, [c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens . Id. at 6. He added that citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring . Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776 . Id. at 6.
Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a natural born citizen. Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined natural born Citizen. Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a natural born Citizen and he told us that definition was one where the child was born in the country of citizen parents. In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined a natural-born citizen the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a natural born Citizen the same way the Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time.
Ramsays article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship. This article by Ramsay is one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found (provided to us by an anonymous source) which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a natural born Citizen and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country to citizen parents.
This time-honored definition of a "natural born Citizen" has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and lower court cases such as:
1) The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens); :
2) Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring took out of Vattels definition the reference to fathers and father and replaced it with parents and person, respectively); :
3) Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, said that the clause was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States; :
4) Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States); :
5) Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); :
6) Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); :
7) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted from the same definition of natural born Citizen as did Minor v. Happersett); :
8) Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, 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. . . . John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)).
The two-citizen-parent requirement would have followed from the common law that provided that a woman upon marriage took the citizenship of her husband. In other words, the Framers required both (1) birth on United States soil (or its equivalent) and (2) birth to two United States citizen parents as necessary conditions of being granted that special status which under our Constitution only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military (and also the Vice President under the Twelfth Amendment) must have at the time of his or her birth. Given the necessary conditions that must be satisfied to be granted the status, all "natural born Citizens" are "Citizens of the United States" but not all "Citizens of the United States" are "natural born Citizens." It was only through both parents being citizens that the child was born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States which the Framers required the President and Commander in Chief to have.
Obama fails to meet this natural born Citizen eligibility test because when he was born in 1961 (wherever that may be), he was not born to a United States citizen mother and father. At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. But under the British Nationality Act 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obamas birth, Obamas father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he even become a legal resident or immigrant to the United States.
Obama may be a plain born citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment or a Congressional Act (if he was born in Hawaii). But as we can see from David Ramsays clear presentation, citizenship as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776 . Id. at 6. Hence, Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," for upon Obama's birth his father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice President must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance to the United States from the time of birth which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth allegiance and loyalty to the United States, a trait that is constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Like a naturalized citizen, who despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too cannot be President.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. :
April 2, 2010:
Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett. (Mario Apuzzo used Leo Donofrio's research.)
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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
somebody should send this to Donald Trump
This is an article written by an ex IRS investigator.
As an IRS tax examiner,one of many former federal jobs, I have seen what it appears Barry Soetoro has done, mostly by illegal aliens attempting to acquire a new identity in the U.S and/or criminals looking to acquire a new ID.
Barry, AKA Obama, was lawfully adopted by a foreign national, Lolo Soetoro, and Barry’s name was legally changed to “Barry Soetoro”. (Barrys own admission) Barry Soetoro was also made an official legal Indonesian citizen. (again Barrys own admission) The adoption would be noted in Barry’s vital statistics record in Hawaii on his original birth certificate...
OR Lolo Soetoro may have always been Barry’s legal birth farther. The public does not know for sure at this point who Barry’s father really was and Barry himself may not know.
Barry was raised as a Muslim in Indonesia and attended a Catholic funded school that permitted all faiths to attend.
Barry’s mother dropped him as a dependent for some reason....
I've been hoping that Trump would up the ante to the next level, and so he has. This is where the real argument against Obama's alleged eligibility must be made.
It's also been said here many times, that someone of Trump's stature never asks a question that he already doesn't have the answer to. Look for the media drones to begin scraping together any definition they can, that will support the idea that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen.
I am not a big fan of Trump.
But his entertainment value is outstanding. I love as the media whores scream and rage as Trump announces that the Emperor has no clothes.
I admit I am intrigued by the controversy surrounding Obama’s BC,sort of a mild curiosity, but there isn’t much else I have in common with Trump. He seems like an angry kind of guy and I’m not sure I understand his motivation to seek the office of POTUS.
When asked to do so McCain produced his long form. You can see it online right now. Why doesn’t Barry just do the same and end this?
(And, yes, I know some contend McCain is not NBC. But the point remains that he turned it over without objection.)
The real issue: Who is this “Barack Hussein Obama”... really?
To quote Factcheck.org: As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.s children.
So, why would Obama feel it is important that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than by the 14th Amendment to the United States of America? (There is more to this situation than most people imagine and remember, lawyers are involved!)
If Barrys parents were indeed married in Hawaii, that marriage would not be recognized by Great Britain because it was invalid - Obama Sr. was already married with a wife and child living in Kenya. So, as per the British Nationality Act of 1948, any subsequent children born to this relationaship would be considered illegitimate and NOT British subjects.
Just to be upfront, I believe that Obama was not born in Hawaii but born in Mombassa, Kenya, in 1961; my belief is based on the presence of a missionary woman, an American, who was there and helped Stanley Ann Dunham Obama return to the U.S. after Barrys birth.
Interesting and new information, at least to me.
Someone just tried to use Ramsay on me, tried to say he wanted childrens’ Natural Born Citizenship to be of both NATURAL BORN parents. From what I could tell his issues were with only the requirements for basic citizenship.
I just skimmed the information on him, because I don’t care, it’s going to be known soon. I’m coasting.
(The Left is trying to play some serious catch up on this issue on the internetS, it’s fun to watch).
I can’t recall if I’ve seen that specific one, but I saw the Oreilly interview and one he did for the MSM in the last couple of weeks. I also watched his CPAC speech.
The problem for me isn’t so much about what he says, although he talks about us being ripped off without providing much backgrouond info or specific examples, like we’re supposed to just take it at face value, and it’s kind of annoying. It’s what he doesn’t say. It’s so easy to get zingers on the O, he’s an easy target, but I don’t just want an anti-Obama and take someone who is more qualified just because he was born here. There has got to be more to it than that.
In summary - where’s the beef??
I was hoping that he would not be trapped into the born on soil is natural born.
If he ups the ante and continues to keep the msm on the string he will have bama backing out of the next election.
I think that Trump is Obama’s Achilles heel ..
Obama has been having everyone from his aunt, bidens daughter, his MSM contacts and everyone else except HIMSELF come out to say this is not worth doing.
Obama does NOT want to have to answer questions himself but is pulling out all the stops to silence Trump. It ain’t working. Watch Obama pull something as a distraction now if he starts getting really itchy.
I bet he sleeps poorly at night now ... better pass the cocaine so he can relax a bit ...
First Congress 1790.
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.”
I’m not a law expert, but found this to be an interesting rebuttal to the McCain Not NBC argument.
A prior post by Leo Donofrio
Natural Born Citizen
Respecting the Constitution?
Justice Hugo Black in DUNCAN v LOUISIANA Indicates Obama Would Not Be Eligible: Ineligibility Echoed by Former Attorney General Jeremiah Black
United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo Black, in a concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), emphasizes his reliance upon the statements made by Representative Bingham and Senator Howard in Congress which pertain to the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment. Justice Black stated that it is far wiser to rely on the words of Bingham and Howard when analyzing the 14th Amendment.
This is crucial to understanding that Obama is not eligible to be President as it provides the strongest Supreme Court statement post Wong Kim Ark indicating that the current occupant of the White House is not in legal possession of the office of President.
Here is the relevant statement by Justice Black:
Professor Fairmans history relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means. (Emphasis added.)
A few weeks ago, I published a report entitled, The House of Representatives Definition of Natural Born Citizen = Born of Citizen Parents in the US. (Please review that report now as I have directly re-posted from it below.)
During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:
As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth. (The term to-day, as used by Bingham, means to date. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a natural-born citizen by citing two factors born of citizen parents in the US.
John Bingham, aka father of the 14th Amendment, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincolns assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:
All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
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. (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
According to Justice Black, Binghams words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source. Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens.
Obama does not fit that description since, at the time of his birth, his father was a British subject.
Obamas own web site, throughout the entire 2008 Presidential campaign, stated that his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom:
As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.s children.
\QUESTION: How can a person whose birth status was governed by the United Kingdom be considered a natural born citizen of the United States?
ANSWER: Its not possible. Such a person is born with divided allegiance. Such a person is born owing fealty to the monarchy of the United Kingdom.
ATTORNEY GENERAL JEREMIAH BLACK
According to a July 18, 1859 official proclamation by former Attorney
General Black (as reported in the New York Times on July 20, 1859), only those who never owed fealty to another nation may be President:
Here none but a native can be President A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been.
Here again we see a person in high office stating that to be President one must never have owed fealty to another nation. We see the true legal requirement that the President never owed allegiance to any foreign sovereign. This clean natural citizenship is one which can only be present at birth. Since the naturalized citizen cant be President because he once owed allegiance to a foreign nation, the same goes for any other citizen who owed allegiance to a foreign nation.
Obama admits to having owed fealty, aka allegiance, to the United Kingdom at the time of his birth. Therefore, upon the authority of Representative Bingham, Justice Black and Attorney General Black, Obama is not eligible to the office of President.
SENATORS HOWARD AND TRUMBULL AND REPRESENTATIVE THAYER
But theres even more authority to be heard from regarding Obamas unconstitutional occupation of the White House. Justice Black also told us that we must consult with Senator Howard since he was Binghams counterpart in the Senate relating to the 14th Amendment.
Bingham and Howard are the two that ushered the 14th Amendment into the Constitution.
As to the meaning of the term subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the 14th
Amendment, Senator Howard stated:
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress pg. 2890 (1866))
Notice that Howard lists several classes of persons who are not citizens under the 14th Amendment:
- families of ambassadors or ministers
The statement was clarified a few days earlier when Howard stated:
That means subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress pg. 2893 (1866))
Those who owed allegiance to anybody else are not natural born citizens of the United States.
Examine the following statement by Representative Thayer from the same period:
To accomplish this great purpose, the bill declares, in the first place, that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign Power, are citizens of the United States. Now, I do not regard that as the enunciation of any new principle. It is, in my judgment, but declaratory of the existing law. According to my apprehension, every man born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to a foreign Power, is a citizen of the United States. Rep. Thayer, March 2, 1866. (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1152 (1866))
The same sentiments were also uttered by Senator Trumbull who stated that it meant Not owing allegiance to anybody else.
Obama supporters cling to a desperate argument. They claim that another countrys nationality laws should not have any bearing in the US. But this is clearly false.
In a previous article entitled, The State Department Has Always Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality, I highlighted an official letter from Secretary of State Lansing to Senator Dodge wherein Lansing educated the Senator regarding the requirement of citizen parents so that children born here not be subject to foreign military duty.
If a child is born in the US to a father who owes allegiance to a foreign power, that child also owes allegiance to that foreign power. This was always our law. It was US law at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, at the time Obama was born, and it is US law today. Nothing has changed.
Obama admits his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom. I think its very important to note that Obama himself gave preference to the United Kingdom in his statement at Fight The Smears. Notice that he didnt say his birth status was governed by both United Kingdom and the US. Obama chose to give preference to his fathers nationality by stating that his birth status was
directly tied to his father and not his mother.
Read the quote from his web site again:
As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.s children.
I will finish this report with a question:
Why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than the 14th Amendment?
by Leo Donofrio, Esq.
This birth must occur under the sole jurisdiction of the United States, meaning within sovereign territory, other than for Ambassadors and other figures abroad in service to the nation. Some extend this to the military as well, but there have been various attempts to amend the Constitution in recent decades, in order to extend the definition of the term to encompass the children of military parents who were born abroad. This would have been wholly unnecessary had they been regarded as natural born citizens all along, so this is obviously not regarded as being the case. People do sometimes get their wants and wishes tied up in this, so be forewarned. Also, purely insisting upon Blackstone's English common law is a canard, and if Vattel were to have been the exclusive authority, children born abroad to parents in the military would be unquestionably natural born, that's just the way he rolled. Look at what has actually happened on the ground to keep from getting sidetracked.
Anyone citing the 1790 Act without acknowledging that it was repealed and replaced by that of 1795 is up to no good, too.
It's not as complicated as it sounds, though, when it's all said and done. The objective was no foreign entanglements to be eligible for the Presidency. If another nation can potentially make a legitimate claim upon that individual, then there is doubt. Such doubt can be resolved, or it can mean ineligibillity, but it all boils down to that.
That in of itself speaks of a Titanic load of steaming manure.
If some other Mack Daddy American was really Zeewoe's da da, then it needs to come out.
It would be a good idea if someone collected for the Donald a list of all the 30+ lawsuits we’ve had and the reasons they were thrown out......
In case such a list exists, I would suggest to send it to:
Mr. Michael D. Cohen, Exec. VP & Special Counsel
The Trump Organization
725 Fifth Avenue,
New York, NY 10022
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.