Posted on 05/30/2012 6:10:45 AM PDT by circumbendibus
Forty-Niner is correct.
Why is this so difficult for some to understand?
In a previous post I admitted that WKA did not actually say Ark was a Natural Born Citizen. This is what I wrote:
"It is not necessary to specifically say “Wong Kim Ark is a natural born citizen”. Logic is sufficient. When the Supreme Court said that EVERY child born in the USA is natural born–except for certain exceptions (foreign diplomat, etc); and Wong Kim Ark was born in the USA and none of the exceptions apply to him, then Wong Kim Ark fits into the category of Natural Born Citizen.
I can say Jimmy has blue eyes. I can further say that you need blue eyes to become president. I never said Jimmy is eligible to become president in actual words but logically Jimmy CAN be president because he has blue eye. LOGIC!"
Now here comes Ankeny and their footnotes are saying almost exactly what I said. See if you can follow. Here is the complete excerpt from Ankeny:
“The Court in Wong Kim Ark also cited authority which notes that:
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. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
Id. at 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quotations and citations omitted). The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States “at the time of his birth.”14 Id. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15
[14] We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.
[15] We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.
Footnote 15 is addressing the children born overseas of U.S. parents.
Furthermore I don't recall EVER anyone saying Ronald Reagan was a natural born citizen either - certainly no court did yet I'm pretty sure he was. Get the point?
Even if you’re right, and you may well be... I don’t pretend to be a scholar on the subject ...
Even if ... this topic should be investigated and decided, it can better be done with Obama out of the equation.
There is too much media and liberal devotion to Obama for anything to happen while he is president.
We need to defeat him in November and somewhere after that have a lawsuit which will end up at the Supreme Court to decide the issue.
And, by the way, for anyone who’s on the fence about voting for Romney, we don’t want an Obama Supreme Court to decide issues like this.
Well, there you have it. Obama is a natural-born British subject.
The DNC's "Fight the Smears" website openly admitted that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed Obama Sr's children's citizenship status.
Obama for Prime Minister, anyone?
WHAT guidance provided by WKA? WKA never stated that all persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens."
That ruling completely defies LOGIC.
“I can’t believe I’m having to give a grammar lesson.”
You aren’t.
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
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.”
Notice they start with the idea that the Constitution, in the NBC clause and the power of naturalization, provides two methods of citizenship (and that is two, not three): “first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself...Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
Those not naturalized are born citizens, because of the NBC clause.
They then go on and say, “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.”
Thus there is no doubt that those born in country of citizen parents are citizens, called NBC or natives. However, there is doubt that this is an all inclusive definition of those born citizens, aka natives, aka NBC.
Some authorities would say no. Others would say yes. But for the purposes of Minor, it didn’t matter, and so “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
Your error, not followed by the courts, is in believing there are two classes of citizens born - one class born to aliens, and the other to citizens.
Thus, in the 1890s, it was possible for someone to doubt the citizenship of WKA, because he was born of alien parents. But citizenship by birth IS NBC, because, as Minor and others point out, it springs from the NBC clause of the Constitution.
And that is why WKA discussed at length the meaning of NBC - because a NBC is a citizen by birth, not naturalization. It was an open question, left that way by Minor, until WKA.
WKA then demonstrated that NBC was rooted in the term ‘natural born subject’, a phrase every Founder was used to using. It then demonstrated that the set of all NBC equaled the set of 14th Amendment citizens - and all were citizens by birth.
The dissent protested that decision, saying that the children of tourists, born while in the USA, should not be considered suitable for the Presidency - but the dissent is, after all, the losing side.
But this is lost on you. As I have often said, if birthers could read, they wouldn’t be birthers. But courts CAN read, which is why no court, no state, and no member of Congress agrees with your legal theory.
Of "citizenship" only, yes. Constitutional natural born Citizen status is more distinctive. It's a deliberately stated difference in the US Constitution. POTUS must be a natural born Citizen, members of Congress need not be so. Minor v. Happersett defines the Constitutional natural born Citizen distinction as born in the US to US citizen parents and it purposely ascribes "the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar" in doing so. No doubt, they were familiar with John Jay's letter to George Washington suggesting such a requirement with the intent of excluding foreigners from the very highest levels of our national government and military to prevent usurpation. Very prudent and COMPLETELY logical for the Framers to restrict the office of POTUS to only those with NO other allegiances.
“Constitutional natural born Citizen status is more distinctive. It’s a deliberately stated difference in the US Constitution.”
Where is it stated in the US Constitution that a NBC is not just a citizen by birth?
It is true that members of Congress can be naturalized citizens.
“Constitutional natural born Citizen status is more distinctive. It’s a deliberately stated difference in the US Constitution.”
Where is it stated in the US Constitution that a NBC is not just a citizen by birth?
It is true that members of Congress can be naturalized citizens.
“ The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen , and by operation of the same principle. [p666] “
“The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a, 'strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject'; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, 'If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.' It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher's case in 1851, and since repeated by this court: 'Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,-it is well known that by the public law an alien, or a stranger [169 U.S. 649, 694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.' Executive Documents H. R. No. 10, 1st Sess. 32d Cong. p. 4; 6 Webster's Works, 526; U. S. v. Carlisle, 16 Wall. 147, 155; Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a; Ellesmere, Postnati, 63; 1 Hale, P. C. 62; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
Historical context. Which is exactly what Minor v. Happersett relies on when they use "the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar." We also know that not everyone born in the US was automatically a citizen at birth. That gives us further insight into the meaning of Constitutional natural born Citizen. Merely being born in the US wasn't enough; there was more to it.
It also helps to know more US History. John Jay's letter to George Washington suggested the natural born Citizen requirement with the intent of excluding foreigners from the very highest levels of our national government and military to prevent usurpation. Very prudent and COMPLETELY logical for the Framers to restrict the office of POTUS to only those with NO other allegiances.
Mistakes like your belief and the unfortunate Ankeny decision happen because many Americans are under-educated when it comes to actual US History, and they're trying to apply an anachronistic belief system to a requirement that was stipulated over 200 years ago.
Now, if some believe so strongly that the deliberately limited status of Constitutional natural born Citizen for POTUS eligibility should be changed to include anyone born in the US regardless of any other foreign allegiances they may owe, then amend the Constitution. You do realize there have been no less than 24 attempts to do so to change the presidential eligibility requirements since the late 19th century, several within the last decade alone:
June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder [D-AR] H.J.R 59
September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [D-MI] H.J.R. 67
September 15, 2004, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA] H.J.R. 104
January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [D-MI] H.J.R. 2
February 1, 2005, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA] H.J.R. 15
April 14, 2005, Rep. Vic Snyder [D-AR] H.J.R. 42
NONE of the proposed Amendments have succeeded. Seems Americans don't want a POTUS with divided and/or conflicting allegiances. Imagine that...
Again, the stated status is "citizen."
Citizen, ONLY.
Not sure why you're having difficulty understanding that.
Nowhere does WKA or any other SCOTUS decision state that a US-born child of an alien/foreign parent is a Constitutional natural born Citizen.
Hey Gin, I see your only contribution is to ridicule people. You called me a drone too and I asked you to put up or shut up. You shut up so I guess you’re just a big bag of hot air.
The question I asked you in a prior thread was:
Vattel wrote: “The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” If Vattel coined the phrase as such, then why didn’t the framers do likewise if they meant it to be that way?
That is the $64,000 question you people cannot answer and it is a total fail on your part.
I know you won’t give a proper answer. You can’t win a debate legitimately so you resort to insults. Nice!
Bwahahahahaha ... nice try, troll. The framers gave us the meaning of natural born and used the term in the Constitution. Vattel didn’t write the United Sates Constitution. But more than one of the men who did help write it gave a clear definition of which children have never been in question as natural born, those who have citizen parents and are born on US soil, or so sid the man who wrote the fourteenth amendment. I’m so sorry that isn’t good enough for you obamanoid trolls, but there it is. Now go suck an egg, you’ve earned it.
Because they used John Jay's suggested terminology of "natural born." Read Jay's letter. The intent is VERY clear: to exclude those owing allegiance to a foreign nation/sovereign from the very highest offices of our national government and military to prevent usurpation, which was a very real threat right after the US declared Independence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
right back at you with your lack of understanding of this:
"...is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a, 'strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject'
A common habbit among you people, you nitpick what you want and ignore what hurts you.
Total fail on your answer.
As I posted in an earlier thread, the Framers did define natural-born in the Preamble.
Remember that writing back then was much more of a form of art than it is today. The Constitution is a tapestry, with each part supporting many other parts. Pull out one thread, and the rest begin to fall apart.
Back to my archives...
A nation's posterity is its natural-born children. They are the next generation who carries forward the culture that defines being an American. When the Framers said that they established the Constitution to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to... our posterity," they meant to create a nation that can be handed down to their children, and their children's children.
PreambleWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"We the People" are citizens of the United States. "Our Posterity" are the natural born who follow -- the children of the People. The Constitution was "ordained and established" to "secure... Liberty" to its citizens and their children.
Whom else was the Constitution established to secure, if not the citizen People and their citizen children?
How else would the Founders attempt to secure the United States of America if not by limiting the qualifications for the highest office to the People and their Posterity that was the reason for establishing the Constitution in the first place?
That language seems plain enough to me. The whole Constitution must be read within the context of the purpose as stated by the Framers in the Preamble: the Constitution was framed specifically to ensure the country to its people and their children - the natural born of the country.
If you are an alien who becomes a naturalized citizen, you become one of We the People, and then your children that follow become the nation's posterity.
Natural-born citizens are the nation's "posterity" that the Constitution was ordained and established to secure.
-PJ
I was taught the same except for the “on American soil” part.
If you are born on a military base overseas while a parent is stationed there, you are a natural born American.
Same as if you were on vacation out of the country and popped out a kid there.
The key wording is “under the jurisdiction thereof”...
Wonder why "born" was underlined? But it still doesn't answer the question because your precious Minor said the Constitution was written in the common language and law - not french.
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.