Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Wants Definition of 'Natural Born Citizen'
WND ^ | 26 April 2012 | Bob Unruh

Posted on 04/27/2012 4:48:20 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome

U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee said the courts ultimately must define “natural born citizen,” affirming that the “issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the presidency is certainly substantial.”

“This specific question has been raised in numerous lawsuits filed since President Obama took office,” Anderson wrote in his opinion. “The outcome of the federal question in this case will certainly have an effect on other cases presenting the same issue about whether President Obama meets the constitutional qualifications for the presidency.”

Van Irion, whose Liberty Legal Foundation brought the case, alleges the plan by Tennessee Democrats to register Obama as their nominee for president opens a case, under state law, of negligent misrepresentation and fraud or intentional misrepresentation because of doubts about Obama’s eligibility.

Irion was pleased the court recognized the significance of the claims.

“The court made several very positive statements about our case,” he noted.

He cited Anderson’s statement that the court “finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ as a qualification for the presidency set out in Article II of the Constitution, is important and not trivial.”

“It is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are ‘actually disputed and substantial,” the judge said.

Anderson said it also is “clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012; birthcertificate; elections; naturalborncitizen; obama; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-146 last
To: Flotsam_Jetsome
I too, found it interesting that the judge blew right past Ankeney and WKA and went straight to Minor.
To me that means the Judge did his own homework instead of having someone else do it for him.

But then again, I could be wrong.

101 posted on 04/27/2012 7:36:09 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; All
"To me that means the Judge did his own homework instead of having someone else do it for him."

There are judges who still do that? Who knew?

Happy First Birthday "Obama" LFBC forgery!
Not.

102 posted on 04/27/2012 7:45:43 PM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; William Tell; New Jersey Realist

Every court that has looked at the issue agrees with me. Every member of Congress and all 50 states agree with me.

And the USA has never followed Vattel’s theory of citizenship by parentage. In the US, unlike Vattel’s Switzerland, citizenship is based on birth location.

That is how it worked in the colonies, and they continued to follow that rule without change. As the Supreme Court ruled:

“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.”

Notice: THE SAME RULE. In the colonies, and it “continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established”...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html


103 posted on 04/27/2012 8:13:43 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Yes, this “rule” was “in effect” for children born of loyal subjects who were thus born British subjects. The Treaty of 1783, however, separated out those who stayed subjects and those who became citizens of the U.S. by the adherence of the parents to whichever side they swore their allegiance. If this “rule” applied to all persons becoming citizens in the U.S., then there would have been no need for the 14th amendment. Second, the “rule” contains a provision ... “aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England” ... the Ark court construes this to mean permanent residence in order to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment. But that’s ONLY to qualify for citizenship by birth. The court clearly and decisively said the 14th amendment does NOT define natural-born citizenship. Under both types of birth citizenship, Obama is EXCLUDED, and that’s IF he could actually legally prove he was born in the U.S., which up through today, the Kenyan coward refuses to do.


104 posted on 04/27/2012 10:10:45 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
As the Supreme Court ruled...
You've just proven that you are the one who doesn't know dicta from a ruling.
105 posted on 04/27/2012 11:21:44 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: bluetick
"I’ve lost all hope that the usurper will be dealt with appropriately, but I do like surprises."

History has a funny way of playing ironic jokes on those who believe they're doing all of the writing.

If you find out anything at a local level, please don't hesitate to de-lurk again, to let us know what you discover.

106 posted on 04/28/2012 3:26:42 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; All

I think you have put this issue to rest. THANK YOU!


107 posted on 04/28/2012 5:14:45 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; Mr Rogers

I think Mr. Rogers, Post #103, pretty much takes the wind out of your sails. His reference makes for good reading. Maybe we can all get some rest around here on this issue and finally bury Vattel who seems to get far too much attention for no reason.


108 posted on 04/28/2012 5:24:04 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
I was very glad to see this thread; thanks for posting it. I have so much I'd like to add [not even having read all the posts] but time has been very scarce of late. I'll try to condense a thought I had, and see if I have time to make it intelligible.

The problem [in understanding what the Framers meant by NBC], in a nutshell, is the pervasiveness of the liberal mindset. According to modern liberalism, the cardinal sin is discrimination. Thus, to deny to an innocent baby the right to occupy the Oval Office just because his/her parents are [or were] not US citizens strikes at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals simply cannot conceive of this as being what the Framers intended, and so they begin from a premise of ‘anybody born on the soil is A-Okay’.

This goes to an even more fundamental problem of modern liberalism: the absolute, total and abject inability to think outside the liberal mindset. I.e.: they can think like liberals, but cannot see or comprehend any issue from any other POV.

This is not just my opinion. There was a major study done a few years back that proved it. Researchers gathered a large group of conservatives and an equal group of libs. They handed out a detailed questionnaire, and asked the libs to answer ea. question as a conservative would, and vice versa.

The conservatives ACED it. I.e.: conservatives not only understand their POV, but they also grasp the essence of modern liberalism, and if asked, can answer in that mindset.

The libs failed miserably. ALL, and I mean *ALL* they have in their liberal reference point. W’in that is a weird, phony over-the-top caricature of what conservatives are, believe and think, and this they hold as true and accurate. [Thus, when Bill Clinton accused conservatives of doing and believing almost the opposite of what we do and believe, he wasn't (in this lone case) so much lying as revealing his inability to grasp true conservatism. Ditto Obama. People say he sets up ‘strawmen’ and knocks them down. The problem being, he doesn't know they're strawmen. He actually believes they accurately represent the other side. Creepy but true.]

This is, as I said, the essence of the NBC issue. Liberalism has become so pervasive in its presuppositions that even some conservatives buy it. I.e.: they cannot conceive of the Framers as people who cared nothing for ‘diversity is our strength’, who did NOT believe that discrimination [even against innocent babies] is wrong, and who did prioritize above all the protection of the Republic. As such, the Framers did NOT want the spawn of America's foreign enemies to occupy the one office in which they could do the greatest damage. However, libs and even some conservatives simply cannot envision the Framers as so exclusionary, and hence the idea that any baby popped out on Am. soil is what the Framers had in mind as a future POTUS.

There is no arguing w these people. This is because they simply CANNOT reason from a non-liberal foundation. In their minds, the idea that the Framers would discriminate against a baby just because of who its parents were is inconceivable. All their arguments proceed, consciously or unconsciously, from that premise. They cannot, even for sixty seconds, entertain the idea that perhaps the Framers actively wished to protect the Republic from the likes of Obama [yes, he personifies their worst fears of divided loyalty and the foreign ‘enemy within’]. Liberally-oriented thinkers resort to the idea that a baby could have a foreign father but turn out to be a great US patriot, as if that is a rational a argument. It misses the point by light years, but don't try to tell them that; you'll just waste your breath.

Anyway, I have to run. I probably expressed the above sub-optimally, but I don't have time to massage it. Thanks again for the post; it was much appreciated.

109 posted on 04/28/2012 7:40:52 AM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
I think Mr. Rogers, Post #103, pretty much takes the wind out of your sails.
Well you can think as you want. And if you want to believe someone that ignorant then you go right ahead and do so.
110 posted on 04/28/2012 8:35:13 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
They would have all of the rights of other citizens with the sole exception of being elected to the office of POTUS.

In other words, they would have most of the rights of other citizens. Sounds like two separate classes to me.

111 posted on 04/28/2012 1:22:58 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Drew68; philman_36

Being able to run for POTUS is an opportunity, not a right.


112 posted on 04/28/2012 1:25:31 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: thecodont
Being able to run for POTUS is an opportunity, not a right.
Point duly noted and taken.
113 posted on 04/28/2012 2:06:12 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
See 112 and 113.

Sounds like two separate classes to me.
Doesn't sound like it to me. To me it sounds like you're trying to stir up "class warfare" just like a good liberal would.

114 posted on 04/28/2012 2:09:14 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: thecodont; philman_36
Being able to run for POTUS is an opportunity, not a right.

So you have two babies born next to each other on the exact same day at Balboa Naval Hospital in San Diego and you're telling me that one of these babies can aspire for the opportunity to run for President while the other baby cannot? Sounds like baby #1 has more "opportunities" than baby #2. You really think a Supreme Court Justice is going to support this? Not a single judge anywhere else has.

Doesn't sound like it to me. To me it sounds like you're trying to stir up "class warfare" just like a good liberal would.

Call it what you want. Separate classes of people is exactly what this is and there is no way in 2012 that SCOTUS would craft such a decision in the unlikely event one of these cases ever reaches their desk. Unlikely because the whole notion is so absurd that none of these cases ever get out of the starting gate.

115 posted on 04/28/2012 2:56:27 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

Great post.

See exhibit A - post #115

Like clockwork. It’s almost like you planned it. LOL


116 posted on 04/28/2012 3:13:57 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
“Irion was pleased the court recognized the significance of the claims.“The court made several very positive statements about our case,” he noted.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

These cases almost always start out in this manner. Then the judges fold like rag dolls.

I pray that God will raise up one good judge with a massive set of gonads.

117 posted on 04/28/2012 3:19:36 PM PDT by wintertime (Reforming a government K-12 school is like reforming an abortion center.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
Don't you understand what happens to these judges that suddenly wimp out? They are “visited” and told that anybody and everybody they know and love will be killed if they don't comply. Same happens to our good intentioned new representatives. Our government has become a criminal organization, plain and simple. We are dealing with very bad crooks here who have the ability to get away with murders.
118 posted on 04/28/2012 3:24:35 PM PDT by In God I trust
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Also, add the “constitutional scholar” Mark Levin, and his radio colleagues Beck, Ingrham, Medved, and Rush.
119 posted on 04/28/2012 3:30:09 PM PDT by wintertime (Reforming a government K-12 school is like reforming an abortion center.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: In God I trust; New Jersey Realist

Ah, yes. Except tht doesn’t explain the Supreme Court decision in 1898, which explored the meaning of NBC (from an original intent point of view) and concluded that everyone born in America, whose parents were not ambassadors or an invading army, was born a citizen - and that was the meaning of NBC.

I realize birthers disagree with that statement. However, every court, every state & every Congressman agrees.

“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”

The Supreme Court didn’t distinguish between the meaning of NBC & the 14th. Instead, it said they meant the same thing - that with a few exceptions, anyone born in the USA was born a citizen. And if you are born a citizen - thus a natural born citizen - you can run for President. The dissent made note of that meaning:

“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

There is a reason the Supreme Court has rejected case after case, and why no court has demanded Obama’s removal - and it isn’t black helicopters, or midnight visits from special agents. It is because that is the settled opinion of the Supreme Court on what NBC meant to the Founders and ratifiers, in a decision that has gone unchallenged since 1898.

However, if you want to read a reasonable objection to what the Court decided, go to the link below and read the dissent.

From the dissent’s introduction:

“The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words “citizens of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule

was in force in all [p706] 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;

and

that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States.

Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment is held to be merely declaratory except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond he control of the legislative power.”

Dissent

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html

I think this is the meat of the dissent:

“The words “not subject to any foreign power” do not, in themselves, refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that nevertheless they may be subject to the political jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to any foreign power, are citizens.

The allegiance of children so born is not the local allegiance arising from their parents’ merely being domiciled in the country, and it is single and not double, allegiance. Indeed, double allegiance, in the sense of double nationality, has no place in our law, and the existence of a man without a country is not recognized.”

Opinion:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html


120 posted on 04/28/2012 3:48:22 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
So, in your opinion, it is only necessary that one have a single citizen parent in order to be a "natural born citizen"? It makes you wonder why our Founders bothered.

Again, there are only two types of US citizens as defined by law and supported by court precedence – those born on US soil regardless of the parent(s) citizenship status or those born abroad to one or two citizen parent such as to those born to US diplomats or to members of the US military serving abroad – all natural born citizens and “naturalized” citizens that being those not born on the US or meeting the above conditions who have to become “naturalized”.

I also seem to recall that there were many German immigrants in the U.S. at the time of World War II who were subject to being conscripted into the German Army. Am I wrong about that?

I’d really like to see some evidence for that claim. Are you saying that many Germans who had immigrated to the US before WWII and where legally living here, a great number perhaps for many years, even those who had become citizens, were forcibly conscripted into the German army? What, did the SS and Gestapo knock come knocking on their door in New Jersey or Indiana or Iowa in the middle of the night and forcibly drag them out of their homes, force them to board a German ship and join the German Army and force them to fight against the country they chose to come to and live in?

Someone who has legally immigrated here and is a documented resident alien is subject the laws of the United States – all of them. The only exception is registered diplomats from other countries who are still bound to the laws of their country. In fact as my father was not yet a naturalized citizen a year after Pearl Harbor he was drafted – by the US Army, as I understand, he couldn’t refuse, even if he had wanted to, based on his status.

Yes, there were some German Americans who sided with the Nazis, belonged to the German American Bund during the 1930’s. And many of them faced harsh consequences for their actions when war was declared. And a good number of them by that time had already renounced their membership and were no longer involved and demonstrated their allegiance to the United States. Overall they represented a very small percentage of Americans with German ancestry – most of whom were completely and unquestionably loyal to the US. Don’t even get me started on the internment of US citizens of Japanese descent, many who were US citizens for several generations – that’s an whole other topic of conversation.

Charles Lindbergh for example, the American born son of a Swedish immigrant and an American born citizen, became a spokesman for the antiwar America First Committee and expressed what was deemed to be pro-Nazi sympathies. It should be pointed out however than after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor; he tried to be re-commissioned in the USAAF. He was refused but went on to be a consultant to the USAAF and aviation companies involved in the war effort and went on to fly combat missions as a civilian aviator.

121 posted on 04/28/2012 4:14:55 PM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Thank you! Excellent posts and excellent and reasoned and thoughtful explanations.


122 posted on 04/28/2012 4:26:40 PM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue
Thanx! Yes, to the liberal mind, everything comes down to discrimination. The idea of ‘discriminating’ against, for instance, anchor babies [by denying them the right to become POTUS one day] is literally more horrifying to them than murder [or at least, the murder of a conservative—though to a liberal mind the murder of a minority or otherwise protected class might be worse]. After all, evil conservatives are into discrimination, while high-minded liberals are egalitarian above all; ‘nuff said.

In fact, even if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Framers’ plan to protect and preserve the Republic involved discriminating against the babies of foreigners, it wouldn't matter to liberals. They would simply (1) deny to the death that actually *was* the Framers’ intention, and (2) work day and night to undermine any and all resulting restrictions. Better to “fundamentally change” the USA as we know it than to hurt the feelings of an anchor baby, doncha know.

The one good aspect of it all is the way liberals self-identify w big flashing neon signs in this debate. A conservative will look at original intent, and if he or she is persuaded the Framers did indeed intend to ‘discriminate’ against some in order to preserve the Republic, we will accept and support that. A liberal will look only at the inconceivably unfair concept of discriminating against [for instance] anchor babies, and go ape-poop over it.

Liberalism: it's a mental disorder.

123 posted on 04/28/2012 6:08:16 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The Supreme Court didn’t distinguish between the meaning of NBC & the 14th. Instead, it said they meant the same thing - that with a few exceptions, anyone born in the USA was born a citizen.

This is a Fogger fabrication (= "outright lie"). The SCOTUS clearly made a distinction between NBC and the 14th amendment.

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."

The court considered the 14th amendment of the constituton and said that the Constitution (which INCLUDES the 14th amendment) does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. The court said it was "committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment" ... those are TWO very clear statements that EXCLUDE NBCs from having anything to do with the 14th amendment.

124 posted on 04/28/2012 6:37:43 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“The court said it was “committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment” ...”

Edge, as I have pointed out to you before, you edit that remark to make it mean the OPPOSITE of what they actually said. That makes you a liar.

Here is the quote, including the part you delete:

“That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court...”

Edge, you really need to stop LYING about what the court wrote...


125 posted on 04/28/2012 6:42:52 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue; Fantasywriter; DiogenesLamp
"That was a great post, and #115 fit the narrative perfectly."

"As such, the Framers did NOT want the spawn of America's foreign enemies to occupy the one office in which they could do the greatest damage.

Any interpretation of NBC which does not act to prevent, to the greatest extent possible, the potential for divided loyalties in the person to be entrusted with wielding the presidential levers of power is contrary to the intent of the Framers who inserted that language which "at common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar" into Article II, Section I, Clause V of our founding document.

Yes, it is discriminatory, and with very good reason: to prevent someone like "Obama" from getting in there and wreaking destruction upon the Republic from within. Outside enemies can be guarded against quite effectively. Treachery from within is a much more difficult thing to stop, and is exponentially more dangerous.

126 posted on 04/28/2012 6:54:27 PM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
Good post. The only thing I'd change is the word ‘discriminatory’. Libs have so co-opted and loaded the term that it fails to accurately convey the Framers’ intention, imho. I would say it's “restrictive”. Now even the wildest-eyed libs can buy into that term. If they don't want it to be okay for, for instance, a ten-year-old to be POTUS, then they've got to sign on to an age restriction.

Well, if you can put certain restrictions on this, the highest office of the land, then restrictions can't innately be wrong/bad. Nor is it wrong to point out the vast difference between a baby raised by Americans vs. one raised by foreigners. One is raised as an *American*. Odds are, the other will be raised w divided loyalty At Best.

At worst, you've got Obama. He is not that singular, however. Many, many foreigners hate the US. And by hate I mean virulently and violently. The problem being, it's easier to cover this stuff up w a foreign or half-foreign entity. That is, it's easier to hide from voters the anti-Americanism of an individual who's been raised by non-Americans, or by an American on foreign soil.

For instance, take Bill Ayers. Liberals love to point to him and say his kids would be eligible to be POTUS. True, but we all know his history. The odds of a well-known domestic terrorist's kids being able to sneak past voters, Obama-style, are too remote to factor.

Yet we all see how it worked w Obama. A true hater of America—and a fervent lover of our enemies—made it in via the ignorance of the average voter. The difference being, liberals love having an anti-American in office, and therefore support the idea of foreigners spawning yet more future POTUSs, while conservatives look at Obama as the ultimate validation of the Framers’ restriction. He is, iow, the exact candidate they tried and intended to spare us. We brushed their restrictions aside, and now we get to watch Obama flush the country down the toilet.

But hey, at least we didn't ‘discriminate’.

127 posted on 04/28/2012 7:23:59 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
"The only thing I'd change is the word ‘discriminatory’. Libs have so co-opted and loaded the term that it fails to accurately convey the Framers’ intention, imho."

Agreed, although it's unfortunate that it has been so co-opted, because it's a perfectly serviceable and suitable word to describe how the relevant clause is intended to operate. It discriminates, as in makes a distinction, and also discriminates negatively against office seekers not having the highest level of presumed loyalty to the nation.

"Obama as the ultimate validation of the Framers’ restriction. He is, iow, the exact candidate they tried and intended to spare us. We brushed their restrictions aside, and now we get to watch Obama flush the country down the toilet.

But hey, at least we didn't ‘discriminate’."

Just so.

128 posted on 04/28/2012 8:21:13 PM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter
Fantasywriter said: "I probably expressed the above sub-optimally, ..."

I think you did quite well.

To those who think our Founders were motivated by a concern regarding "discrimination", I would simply point to the Thirteenth and Nineteenth Amendments to the Constitution; freeing one class of persons from slavery and another from being disenfranchised.

The Constitution required Amendment because there is no doubt whatever that our Founders did not recognize slaves as freemen or women as being suitable voters. That our Founders might have discriminated against some babies because of the nationality of their parents with respect to who may become President, seems rather obvious.

129 posted on 04/28/2012 9:32:25 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Edge, as I have pointed out to you before, you edit that remark to make it mean the OPPOSITE of what they actually said. That makes you a liar.

It does NOT mean the opposite. The only person who is lying is you. 18 Supreme Court justices agreed on the definition of natural-born citizen: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. The court said the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. This statement therefore EXCLUDES children born in the country of citizen parents from the operation of the first sentence of the 14th amendment. It means EXACTLY what I said. Learn it. Understand it. Comprehend it. And then, quit telling lies to Freepers.

130 posted on 04/28/2012 10:13:07 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Your statement:

“The court said it was “committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment” ...”

The REAL statement:

“That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court...”

Since you have been aware of this for over a year, that makes you a deliberate liar. Period.

Deliberate. Liar. Period.


131 posted on 04/29/2012 5:28:26 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; edge919
Regarding Minor v Happersett, what the court actually said:

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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

Virginia Minor herself had citizen parents, so answering the question of the children of aliens was not necessary to decide this case. The Court explained:

For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

As the court was not ruling on her citizenship status only confirming it for purposes of determining her eligibility to vote, as they conceded that she was a citizen, what the court stated regarding citizenship was a dictum.

Dictum:

In United States legal terminology, a dictum (plural dicta) is a statement of opinion or belief considered authoritative though not binding, because of the authority of the person making it.

There are multiple subtypes of dicta, although due to their overlapping nature, legal practitioners in the U.S. colloquially use dicta to refer to any statement by a court that extends beyond the issue before the court. Dicta in this sense are not binding under the principle of stare decisis, but tend to have a strong persuasive effect, either by being in an authoritative decision, stated by an authoritative judge, or both. These subtypes include:

dictum proprium: A personal or individual dictum that is given by the judge who delivers an opinion but that is not necessarily concurred in by the whole court and is not essential to the disposition.

gratis dictum: an assertion that a person makes without being obligated to do so, or also a court's discussion of points or questions not raised by the record or its suggestion of rules not applicable in the case at bar.

judicial dictum: an opinion by a court on a question that is directly involved, briefed, and argued by counsel, and even passed on by the court, but that is not essential to the decision.

obiter dictum in Latin means "something said in passing" and is a comment made while delivering a judicial opinion, but it is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential (although it may be considered persuasive).

simplex dictum: an unproved or dogmatic statement.

In English law, a dictum is any statement made as part of a judgment of a court. Thus the term includes dicta merely in passing (referred to as obiter dicta) that are not a necessary part of the reason for the court's decision (referred to as the ratio decidendi). English lawyers do not, as a rule, categorise dicta more finely than into those that are obiter and those that are not.

Whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens” was not a question before the Minor Court because Mrs. Minor was unquestionably born in the US to US citizen parents, whereas Wong Kim Ark was not. The determination of his citizenship required the 14th Amendment, whereas Mrs. Minor’s did not.

The dictum stated in Minor v Happersett regarding citizenship is and never was a binding opinion and in fact the whole ruling was made moot with passage of the 19th Amendment.

In a nutshell what the SCOTUS said in Minor v Happersett was, yes she’s a citizen without question, and on a side note (dictum), there is some question regarding whether persons born in the United States to non-citizen parents are natives or natural-born citizens but we are not discussing or ruling on that as it has no relevance in this case. The court in Minor v Happersett never answered the question as to whether the law included as native or natural born citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents, they only mentioned it in passing that they were among some legal authorities, questions regarding that opinion.

As they did not make a ruling as to the citizenship status of those born in the US to non-citizen parents, the dictum, the dictum did not even have any persuasive effect as to future cases as they never made a ruling on that issue – only mentioned that it might be in question.

132 posted on 04/29/2012 5:40:16 AM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

Thanks, WT. Your points are excellent. They will not impact the ‘don’t you dare discriminate against anchor babies’ crowd, however. This is not a cool, calm rational discussion for them, in which facts and logic carry the day. This is fundamentally emotional, because it’s about the essence of who they are. I.e.: they are the morally superior non-discriminators, battling the xenophobes who hate innocent babies. As such, no fact or logical argument will penetrate their self-righteous carapace. They must keep the non-discrimination principle inviolate, and everything else will simply have to fall—or be forced—into place around it.

Lost in the minutia of their legalism is the abject lunacy of their position. They are arguing that the Framers put in the NBC restriction specifically to prevent discrimination against the offspring of foreign enemies. Iow, there is no other rational for the Framers using such specific language in this one place unless it was to codify who can and cannot be prevented from occupying the WH. The non-discrimination crowd is saying the Framers worried that if one of our enemies—say King George—managed to sire a child that happened to be born on US soil, people would discriminate against the offspring. So they inserted NBC to make sure the children of King George and any other foreign enemy could assume the helm of the new Republic, providing daddy arranged an American birth.

This is batdung crazy. Absolutely certifiable. More than anything, though, it’s a tribute to the degree to which liberalism has taken over the US MSM and our classrooms. It has become the default worldview even for many who don’t consider themselves liberal.

For instance, take this scenario. A few generations back, you ask a WWII vet if a ‘natural born US citizen’ means: ‘the half foreign son or daughter of a foreign enemy who happened to be born on US soil’, they would look at you like you had both loose screws and horns/a pointed tail. I.e.: an evil lunatic.

A few scant generations later, and the people who believe the Framers proactively protected the ‘right’ of foreign enemies to sire future POTUS occupy [in their own minds] the moral and intellectual high ground. I.e.: t engaged in a noble fight against jingoistic wingnuts, and it’s one they have no intention of losing.

This is the very essence of modern liberalism. It takes an absurd, even insane principle [such as moral equivalence] and not only defends it as a given, but paints anyone who challenges it as ignorant and racist. Anyone who’s ever tried to talk a liberal down from this intellectually suicidal bridge knows it simply cannot be done. If they’re wrong about discrimination being the ultimate/only real sin, then their entire world view falls. They can’t go there, so anger and increasing irrationality are their responses to challenges.

The only effective way to claw back from this madness would be to eradicate the worst of leftwing nutbaggery from our public educational system. No Republicans are even mentioning this possibility, so it looks pretty bleak. Meanwhile, the non-discrimination NBC crowd goes merrily on their way, arguing that Obama is exactly who the Framers wanted, when they penned their restrictive clause.

Insanity: there’s no reasoning w it.


133 posted on 04/29/2012 7:06:30 AM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

on their = on its

More caffeine.


134 posted on 04/29/2012 7:29:32 AM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Sorry, but the ONLY deliberate liar is you. The REAL statement means EXACTLY what I said it does. Read it. Learn it. Comprehend it and then, quit lying about it.


135 posted on 04/29/2012 11:46:59 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA
Wow, you've shown you really don't understand the Minor case nor the concept of dicta.

Virginia Minor herself had citizen parents, so answering the question of the children of aliens was not necessary to decide this case.

Well, no, that's not what the court is saying. The court did answer the question of the children of aliens in the following paragraphs because the question, as the court understood it, was for more than just Virginia Minor. Read and learn:

The direct question is, therefore, presented whether all citizens are necessarily voters.

See the part where it says "all citizens"??? This is why the court considered the wives and children of aliens in these paragraphs:

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States ....
And here:
As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath; [n10] and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or [p169] who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. [n11]

From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, ...

Now, the other part you ignore is that the Minor's citizenship status was a part of the holding. Minor made an argument based on the 14th amendment, which the court unanimously rejected:

The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship ...

The part underlined above is the citizen clause of the 14th amendment. Read how the court responds to Minor's argument:

in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.

The court deliberately used the NBC clause from Article II to reject Minor's 14th amendment argument. They didn't need to solve the doubts about citizenship of children born without reference to the citizenship of the parents for Minor, but they did solve those doubts anyway, by citing the passages I mentioned above. The most important part of this case, however, is that the court clearly showed that natural-born citizens did NOT need the 14th amendment to be citizens.

The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her.

What's noteworthy is that the court didn't address this issue simply about Virginia Minor but to women as a class. The court unanimously held that women did not have a right to vote, but as their citizenship was defined, they did have a right to run for president ... except for those who rely on the 14th amendment to be citizens, which is what we learned in the Wong Kim Ark decision. That latter decision affirms that Minor's citizenship is part of the holding, and not just dicta.

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ...

Virginia Minor did NOT argue she was a citizen through her parents, nor did the Minor court say that she was born of citizen parents, but the Ark court DID say she was born of citizen parents. Why would they do this??

136 posted on 04/30/2012 12:05:29 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Wow, you've shown you really don't understand the Minor case nor the concept of dicta.

Nothing in your post contradicts what I said nor does it prove that the court in Minor v. Happersett ever made a ruling on the supposed NBC clause in the Constitution. The court rejected her 14th Amendment argument only because they interpreted that her citizenship was not in question. The court in Ark did the very same. The court in Minor v. Happersett did however ignore the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th, wrongly IMO, and the 19th Amendment made the whole ruling moot when women were deemed to have equal protection under the 14th and were granted the right to vote.

The court deliberately used the NBC clause from Article II to reject Minor's 14th amendment argument.

The NBC clause in Article II does not state anything about the citizenship of the parents. It simply states:

“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.”

This clause was necessary at the time of ratification so as to allow all citizens, even those who were not born on US soil but even to those who became citizens before ratification the very same citizenship status and granted them all eligibility to hold the office of POTUS.

If the Framers had in mind and intended that a natural born citizen meant something other than having been born in the US, intended that there was some sort of “third” type of citizenship of those born here and predicated on the citizenship status of their parents, they would have clearly stated so.

Call me a Constitutional “purest” but I believe the Constitution says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t.

Furthermore, the 14th states 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.”

Note that the 14th defines citizenship in only one of two ways; born or naturalized in the United States. It does not say those born in the United States to non-citizen parents, excepting those born to foreign diplomats have to undergo some other sort of “naturalization” process or meet any other test of their citizenship.

137 posted on 04/30/2012 5:49:04 AM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA
Nothing in your post contradicts what I said nor does it prove that the court in Minor v. Happersett ever made a ruling on the supposed NBC clause in the Constitution. The court rejected her 14th Amendment argument only because they interpreted that her citizenship was not in question.

If this were true, the citizenship part of the decision wouldn't have continued for the next six paragraphs. Second, they could have accepted her 14th amendment argument in which her citizenship also would not have been in question, yet they did NOT do this. Why not simply accept her argument??

The NBC clause in Article II does not state anything about the citizenship of the parents. It simply states:

Ummmm, the court explained what the term NBC meant according to the nomenclature of the founders. If the 14th amendment defined or redefined natural-born citizenship, then the court didn't need to go outside of the Constitution to define NBC, yet they clearly did:

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.
This clause was necessary at the time of ratification so as to allow all citizens, even those who were not born on US soil but even to those who became citizens before ratification the very same citizenship status and granted them all eligibility to hold the office of POTUS.

If the Framers had in mind and intended that a natural born citizen meant something other than having been born in the US, intended that there was some sort of “third” type of citizenship of those born here and predicated on the citizenship status of their parents, they would have clearly stated so.

The Framers had just signed a treaty in 1783 with Great Britain that preserved British subject status for those persons born in the U.S. whose parents were loyal to the crown instead of becoming U.S. citizens. That's part of the reason for the "time of the adoption of this Constitution" clause. Not everyone who was in the U.S. automatically became citizens when the Constitution was adopted. This is confirmed in the Shanks v. Dupont and Inglis v. Sailors Snug Harbor rulings. Justice Story explains the concept nicely below. In the part underlined about "natives or otherwise"; natives would refer to those persons born in the U.S.

The Treaty of 1783 acted upon the state of things as it existed at that period. It took the actual state of things as its basis. All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; all those who then adhered to the British Crown were deemed and held subjects of that Crown. The treaty of peace was a eaty operating between states and the inhabitants thereof.

The next paragraph in this decision is instructive because it tells us where the court looks to for the citizenship status of those persons who are in question. It's not to the common law or to municipal law:

The incapacities of femes covert provided by the common law apply to their civil rights, and are for their protection and interest. But they do not reach their political rights nor prevent their acquiring or losing a national character. These political rights do not stand upon the mere doctrines of municipal law, applicable to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations.

See the last part where it refences the law of nations. This is where the Minor court got its definition of natural-born citizen. What you call a third type of citizenship is simply a class of naturalization. The Minor court told us specifically there are TWO classes of citizenship at birth. One is with doubts and the other, NBC, has no doubts.

As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first [class].
Furthermore, the 14th states 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.”

The problem is that the Supreme Court decided unanimously in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that the 14th amendment does not include NBCs, based on upholding the Minor decision:

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."

If the 14th amendment included NBCs, the Minor court AND the Ark court had a perfect opportunity to say so. Instead, they made a distinction between the classes of birth citizenship, one that was defined outside the Constitution and the other defined by the Constitution in the 14th amendment.

Note that the 14th defines citizenship in only one of two ways; born or naturalized in the United States. It does not say those born in the United States to non-citizen parents, excepting those born to foreign diplomats have to undergo some other sort of “naturalization” process or meet any other test of their citizenship.

Actually it does; that's what the subject clause is there for, and the court defined this in Wong Kim Ark as the parents having permanent residence and domicil in the United States. This was a stated factor of Wong Kim Ark's parents throughout the decision:

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, ...
- - -
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 ...

Elsewhere in the decision, it talked about aliens being domiciled in order to satisfy British common law and later, the subject clause:

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 ...
- - -
Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.
- - -
The same rule must be applied to both races, and unless the general rule, that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted, the Fourteenth Amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose ...
- - -
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.
- - -
Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.

There's a a very specific emphasis on residence, which would on its face exclude temprorary visitors. In order to have residence, an alien must be accepted into a country for an indefinite stay. Obama's father was not a permanent resident in any sense of the word, and going by the Supreme Court's principle on femes covert, neither was Obama's mother. He fails not only to be a natural-born citizen, but also 14th amendment citizen ... but of course, he's never legally proven he was even born in the United States to begin with, so it would all be moot anyway.

138 posted on 04/30/2012 7:23:07 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
"That’s exactly right. My children at any time can apply for English citizenship! My wife later became U.S. citizen so my children meet the two citizen parent clause according to the birthers on this site. My children are eligible to become President and they are eligible to become British Subjects. How crazy is that?"

The person must be a "natural born Citizen." It's the circumstances at Birth. Not what happens later in life (in becoming a natural born Citizen).

Related Supreme Court Cases:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Synopsis: Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens and said: “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’
Note: That quote comes from the 1797 London edition English translation of Vattel's Law of Nations.

Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830)
Synopsis: The majority cited Vattel on the right of election to change one’s allegiance and thus citizenship in the context of the new nation being formed after revolution. The Court found on principles consistent with Vattel’s jus sanguinis and not on the English common law rule of jus soli, that simply being born in New York, after July 4, 1776 and before September 15, 1776, when the British took possession of New York, was not sufficient to establish one’s status as an American citizen, for a child of minor years is incapacitated from making any citizenship election but rather followed the citizenship held or chosen by the father. On the contrary, relying upon principles of the English common law, Justice Johnson and Justice Story, who wrote separate minority concurring opinions, would have found the child born in New York during the same time period a citizen of the State of New York, regardless of the citizenship of his parents. Id. 136 and 164. This case shows what the majority rule was on citizenship and that it followed the Vattelian doctrine that a child when born took on the national character of his or her father (meaning father and mother under the doctrine of merger of the wife’s citizenship into the husband) and did not acquire his or her citizenship from the territory in which he or she was born.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830)
Synopsis: same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel, stated: “If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.”

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
Synopsis: Justice Daniels concurring cites Vattel and The Law of Nations and provides his definition of natural born citizens and takes out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively, stated: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.” Again: I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .”

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875)
Synopsis: Even though the Fourteenth Amendment had already been passed, Minor did not rely upon that amendment to define either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen.” Rather, it applied the American “common-law” definition of those terms. Providing Vattel’s law of nations definition of a “natural-born citizen,” but without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, it laid down the definition of a “natural-born citizen” as follows:

“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 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. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” Id., at 167-68.

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which "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," and "The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared

Page 112 U. S. 102

to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898)
Synopsis: It distinguished between an Article II “natural born Citizen” and a Fourteenth Amendment “born . . . citizen of the United States.” It relied on the English common law and Calvin’s Case (1608) to hold that a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was a “born . . . citizen of the United States” under the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment. But concerning a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen,” it cited Minor and quoted its American common law definition of a “natural-born citizen.”

In the House of Representatives

John Bingham, "father of the 14th Amendment", the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!

"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)).

The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!

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))"

No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears the ALL where in agreement.

Then, during a debate (see pg. 2791) on April 25, 1872 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 (generally. they were not trying to decide if he was a NBC). 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. And, since they knew he was, without a doubt, a natural born Citizen...he was, of course, considered a citizen of the U.S.)

Being born with two (or more) allegiances contradicts the known definition and the intent for the "natural born Citizen" requirement for the commander of the armed forces. Obviously.

Only the progressives are interested in changing the meaning.

139 posted on 04/30/2012 12:48:00 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
"Thanks for the reply. I feel your pain. It is very confusing.
...
What a freekin development this is!
"

Indeed.

For me, I was completely ignorant of this history prior to 2008. I simply had no idea, no experience or teaching in this stuff.

In a way, Barry usurping the office of the Presidency has created a new generation of far...far more historically and politically informed citizens. That's a great thing for the long term survival of our Republic and posterity.

140 posted on 04/30/2012 12:53:12 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Exactly!

Which is precisely why I stated:

The question would come down to whether or not the children were 1) born on a base that was considered "sovereign territory" of the U.S. and 2) born with sole allegiance to the U.S.

Back in the 1700's, there really was no such thing (in England or the U.S.) as 1) a wife with a different citizenship as the husband...who (the wife) could pass her foreign citizenship onto their child via the foreign country's own laws...resulting in a child being born with multiple citizenships and therefore multiple allegiances owed. It just didn't happen back then. Additionally, so far as I know, there would have been no such thing as a sovereign military base on foreign soil. Such a base would have been considered conquered territory. Not land that was leased or loaned.

Ultimately, SCOTUS must determined...specifically, if someone born with foreign citizenship and therefore allegiance owed to another country, is a "natural born Citizen" for AII,S1,C5 requirement purposes.

From my research, the framers of both the Constitution as well as the framers of the 14th Amendment would say no.

141 posted on 04/30/2012 1:13:41 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

“Why? Does anyone honestly believe that SCOTUS would decide this case in any other manner than one that affirms Obama’s eligibility?”

You are absolutely correct. we have cowards in all 3 branches of government, who are too afraid to speak the truth and act accordingly.


142 posted on 04/30/2012 3:04:37 PM PDT by IWONDR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
Does anyone honestly believe that SCOTUS would decide this case in any other manner than one that affirms Obama's eligibility?

The current SCOTUS would have to come up with one hell of a legal argument to make Obama eligible since there's nothing to actually prove he is a natural-born citizen. Eighteen Supreme Court justices agreed on a definition that precludes Obama from being eligible. It is a legal precedent that the current court SHOULD be compelled to follow.

143 posted on 05/01/2012 7:08:43 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

“Separate classes of people is exactly what this is and there is no way in 2012 that SCOTUS would craft such a decision in the unlikely event one of these cases ever reaches their desk. Unlikely because the whole notion is so absurd that none of these cases ever get out of the starting gate.” - D68

You are proposing that the constitution be amended, without going through the amendment process. The framers clearly established that there was a difference between aliens, citizens by law and natural born citizens. If you don’t think classes of people should exist in our constitution with regard to presidential eligibility, there is a process to follow to remove the requirement.

As of now, that NBC requirement stands, and the SCOTUS is *REQUIRED* to rule according to that language.


144 posted on 05/01/2012 10:16:42 AM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

You posted:

The House of Representatives definition for “natural born Citizen” was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!

“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)).


If you are the birther side of this issue I would remove this reference because a few sentences before what you quoted Mr. Bingham said:

Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether white or black are citizens by birth – natural born citizens.”

“of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty” does not mean of citizen parents,” no where even close!

Here are a few more quotes from that period:

“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)

“The Constitution in speaking of natural-born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations and as old as political societies themselves, that the people born in the country constitute the nation, and as individuals are natural members of the body-politic. If this be a true principle, and I hardly think it will be denied, it follows that every person born in the country is at the time of birth prima facie a citizen ; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great dis-franchisement strong enough to override the “natural-born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to raceor color or any other accidental circumstance. That nativity furnishes the rule both of duty and of right as between the individual and the Government is a historical and political truthso old and so universally accepted that it is useless to prove it by authority. In every civilized country the individual is born to duties and rights—the duty of allegiance and the right to protection.” Rep. Bowen. The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 3. pg. 96 (1869)

“It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term “citizen.” It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1117 (1866).

“As matter of law, does anybody deny here, or anywhere, that the native-born is a citizen, and a citizen by virtue of his birth alone ... Sir, he has forgotten the grand principle both of nature and nations, both of law and politics, that birth gives citizenship of itself. this is the fundamental principle running through all modern politics both in this country and in Europe. Everywhere where the principle of law have been recognized at all, birth by its inherent energy and force gives citizenship. There for the founders of this government made no provision - of course they made none - for the naturalization of natural born citizens.... Therefore, sir, this amendment, although it is a grand enunciation, although it is a lofty and sublime declaration, has no force or efficiency as an enactment. I hail it and accept it simply as a declaration....” Senator Morrill, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. p. 570 (1866).

“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born....I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

Many, many more, but as you said, Mr. Bingham’s statement was read into the Congressional Record without contest.


145 posted on 05/03/2012 10:36:35 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA

I am totally on your side. Don’t believe a word the birther sect tell you. They are liars or very misguided. There is overwhelming evidence that if you are born in this country you are a son of the land, a natural born citizen. You should be proud of your dad. When pushed to prove their point, not a single birther can prove that a NBC requires two citizen parents. They are beyond contempt to denegrade any citizen of this country, and there are only two kinds of us - NB and naturalized.


146 posted on 05/03/2012 1:54:23 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-146 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson