Quantcast

How can a person born a citizen of another Country be eligible for the U.S. Presidency?

Thalightguy 2011/08/20 04:38:19
Related Topics: Born
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~ 2011/08/20 07:15:58
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    A person can't.

    And not one has.
  • SharonJohnson 2011/08/20 06:23:07
    SharonJohnson
    +1
    They can't the spineless in congress and senate are incompetent and will not do anything. They are afraid they will be called racist. Who gives a .... The guilty dog always barks the loudest so these screaming racist are the real racist racist guilty dog barks loudest screaming racist real racist democrat racist racist guilty dog barks loudest screaming racist real racist democrat racist racist guilty dog barks loudest screaming racist real racist democrat racist racist guilty dog barks loudest screaming racist real racist democrat racist
  • Mark In Irvine 2011/08/20 05:23:59
    Mark In Irvine
    +1
    a person born in another country is ineligible to be a US President; a person born in the USA is eligible to be a US President ... it is the place of birth that determines eligibility.
  • Thaligh... Mark In... 2011/08/20 05:31:46
    Thalightguy
    Wrong, that's only an assumption
  • Mark In... Thaligh... 2011/08/20 05:34:39
    Mark In Irvine
    +1
    please explain
  • Thaligh... Mark In... 2011/08/20 05:43:47 (edited)
    Thalightguy
    People assume as much because of the 14th Amendment's 'All persons born'.

    The Founders feared foreign influence they knew naturalized citizens could have divided loyalties so the made it a requirment for the President to be a natural born citizen,

    When the Constitution was adopted all citizens born U.S. citizens were born with sole citizenship to the U.S., dual nationality was not allowed. It was these people that the Founders understood to be natural born citizens.

    The 14th Amendment only changed the definition of who a citizen is, not who a natural born citizen is, to do so would make it unnatural.

    You can not change the original definition, the only way to change the requirment is to go through the complete processs of amending the verbage.
  • Mark In... Thaligh... 2011/08/20 06:01:42
    Mark In Irvine
    +1
    Article II, Section 1, 5th Paragraph, of the US Constitution:

    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.

    "Natural Born Citizen" is the test.
  • Thaligh... Mark In... 2011/08/20 06:03:12
    Thalightguy
    and I showed you the definition as the Founders knew it
  • Mark In... Thaligh... 2011/08/20 06:05:02
    Mark In Irvine
    +1
    i don't think you showed us the definition. i quoted the constitution itself to you.
  • Thaligh... Mark In... 2011/08/20 06:07:30
    Thalightguy
    and who were the natual born citizens at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution?

    All citizens born after the adoption of the Consitution were born with sole citizenship to the U.S. these were the citizens that the Founders understood to be natural born citizens.
  • iamthem... Thaligh... 2011/08/20 07:18:06
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    They were among those who were natural born citizens, surely. But they were not the sole members of the class.
  • Thaligh... iamthem... 2011/08/20 07:19:13
    Thalightguy
    at the time of the adoption of the Consitution they were...
  • iamthem... Thaligh... 2011/08/20 08:15:47
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    Not at all.

    Of course, if we're going to take an absolute and literal textual approach to this, then we run into many other problems, considering that women did not have their own citizenship, as they lost their original citizenship if they married someone from another country. And there are also problems with the race issues involved in citizenship.

    The purpose of the limitation was to ensure that there would be no foreign infiltration. But, the concern was that of a young nation.

    What exactly is the danger right now of even having a naturalized citizen in the office, might I ask?
  • Thaligh... iamthem... 2011/08/20 17:09:39
    Thalightguy
    Your confusing infiltration with atachment, if they did not want infiltration they would of made the same requirement for Congress.

    Many look at it this way...even Justice Scalia, A natural born citizen does not need an act of Congress to make him a U.S. citizen.

    Obama has admitted that he is a citizen of the 14th Amendment..

    The same dangers that the Founders feared when they inserted the phrase into the Clause.

    9/11 proved that it would be foolish to get rid of it...
  • iamthem... Thaligh... 2011/08/21 00:40:50
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    (1) McCain had an act of Congress that declared he was a citizen. So who are you talking about?

    (2) A person can be a citizen under the 14th Amendment as well as a natural born citizen. In fact, one presupposes the other.

    (3) 9/11 is not proof of what you say - as an attack on the nation can happen regardless of who is in office. 9/11 occurred, in fact, when we had a second-generation President in office - son of not only a natural born citizen, but a Presidential one.
  • Thaligh... iamthem... 2011/08/21 02:19:05
    Thalightguy
    A natural born citizen is so at birth without needing an act of Congress, ie: Obama needed the 14th Amendment to become a citizen. SEE Miner v. Happerssett (1875), Justice Scalia Comments in the Oral Arguments of Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS

    9/11 Proved we still live in a World that where Foreigners will stoop to anthing to destroy the U.S.
  • iamthem... Thaligh... 2011/08/21 05:59:53
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    (1) Miner states : "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. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea."

    Jus soli citizenship is based on the land of birth and jus sanguinis is citizenship based on parentag...

























    (1) Miner states: "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. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea."

    Jus soli citizenship is based on the land of birth and jus sanguinis is citizenship based on parentage. In the oral arguments of Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS (No. 99-2071), Justice Scalia made it clear that his view is that natural born citizenship, the requirement to be president, is based on jus soli (birth in the United States).

    Here is the relevant section from the transcript:

    Justice Scalia: … I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?

    They did not want that.

    They wanted natural born Americans.

    [Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token…

    Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?

    [Ms.] Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.

    Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.

    I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.

    I don’t think you’re disagreeing.

    It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?

    (2) Naturalized citizens are not foreigners. They are U.S. citizens. Further, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requires that the individual be at least 35 years old and have been a permanent resident for 14 years.

    Hardly what one would consider a "foreigner."
    (more)
  • Thaligh... iamthem... 2011/08/21 09:52:35 (edited)
    Thalightguy
    Minor: As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

    What part of this do you not understand? They said as to this class 'citizens' there has been doubts, but never as to the first 'natural born citizens'.

    Scalia never denied that it required jus sanguinis and he made his point about not needing an act of Congress... 'and their families' children born here but not 'natural born citizens'.

    Your saying a foreigner could not come and become a U.S. citizen because the have ulterior motives?
  • iamthem... Thaligh... 2011/08/21 11:22:12
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    Your logic is as follows:

    (1) Natural born citizens clearly includes individuals born in this country, of citizens of this country.

    (2) Such citizens do not need an act of Congress to be deemed natural born citizens.

    (3) Therefore, they are the only ones who are natural born citizens.

    That's a fallacious position. Again, the Minor case states that many consider anyone born in this country to be a natural born citizen generally. Scalia also didn't deny that you also have to be white to be a natural born citizen - but that doesn't make it a necessary requirement.

    Obama was not deemed a natural born citizen by any act of Congress - only McCain was. By your logic, that means he was NOT a natural born citizen.

    I'm saying that someone who comes to this country and is a permanent resident for fourteen years and gains citizenship and runs for president and wins (if that were Constitutionally possible) therefore convincing a majority of the people of the nation that he shared similar views as them is, if they have an ulterior motive, perhaps the unique example of the most brilliant conspirator in the history of the world.
  • Thaligh... iamthem... 2011/08/21 13:40:03 (edited)
    Thalightguy
    Your misquoting Minor, I already explained how.

    If it was not for Acts of Congress Obama would not even be a citizen.

    The Resolution that the Senate passed for McCain was non-binding and it did not make him a natural born citizen, you can not make a natural born citizen...you are either born with it or not and neither Obama or McCain was.

    Scalia did hint at the fact that if your citizenship depends on an act of Congress then your not a natural born citizen.
  • iamthem... Thaligh... 2011/08/21 13:48:35 (edited)
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    (1) I quoted Minor. You're misinterpreting it. You're also a little off as the discussion of natural born citizenship was dicta in context, as it was not a deciding factor.

    Also, it has been overruled, and therefore is bad law - it's not the best idea to cite bad law 150 years old as your support.

    (2) What acts of Congress are you talking about?

    (3) So what you're saying is that McCain is not a natural born citizen? How is that the case, when he was born in territory that was under U.S. jurisdiction?
  • Thaligh... iamthem... 2011/08/21 14:02:52 (edited)
    Thalightguy
    Minor was not dicta it was Precedent and was required for the deciding factor. SEE:

    http://naturalborncitizen.wor...

    If it was not for Congress Obama's mother would of lost her citizenship when she married Obama Sr.

    Obama's citizenship depends on the 14th Amendment

    McCain was born at a Panama Hospital it was not U.S. jurisdiction.
  • iamthem... Thaligh... 2011/08/21 16:05:37
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    (1) The issue of the definition of "natural born citizen" was discussed in relation to the right of women to vote even if they are citizens - from the case:

    1. The word "citizen " is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.

    2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.

    3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had.

    4. At the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the states; nor was it at the time of the adoption of the
    Constitution.

    5. Neither the Constitution nor the Fourteenth Amendment made all citizens voters.

    6. A provision in a state constitution which confines the right of voting to "male citizens of the United States" is no violation of the federal Constitution. In such a state women have no right to vote.

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/...

    Whether or not ...













    (1) The issue of the definition of "natural born citizen" was discussed in relation to the right of women to vote even if they are citizens - from the case:

    1. The word "citizen " is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.

    2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.

    3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had.

    4. At the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the states; nor was it at the time of the adoption of the
    Constitution.

    5. Neither the Constitution nor the Fourteenth Amendment made all citizens voters.

    6. A provision in a state constitution which confines the right of voting to "male citizens of the United States" is no violation of the federal Constitution. In such a state women have no right to vote.

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/...

    Whether or not Minor was a citizen of any sort was moot, as the Court determined that the right to vote was not conferred by citizenship.

    In order to be binding precedent, the Court must rely on the argument in making it's decision.

    (2) Regardless, again, the decision states only that someone born to citizen parents is considered, if they are a U.S. citizen, a natural born citizen. However, a child born abroad to citizen parents does not automatically gain citizenship, and can lose it.

    Further, the claim is not that citizen parents are necessary for someone to be a natural born citizens. Your argument only works if the Court claims that ONLY such people are natural born citizens.

    (3) The claim in your link that "parents" plural are necessary is not at all accurate, especially considering that the concept of citizenship was not the same for mothers as it was for fathers. A woman in the U.S. originally took the citizenship of her husband. Therefore, the only matter of concern is the citizenship of the father.

    It is your contention, I assume therefore, that no descendants of slaves can be natural born citizens, nor can any Native American. Considering women don't have real citizenship but through their fathers and husbands, they're in doubt too, correct?

    (4) The 14th Amendment is not an "act of Congress." Amendments must be ratified by state legislatures. Further, an amendment overrides any previous or conflicting law including that in the Constitution. Therefore, Obama's citizenship does not depend on the 14th Amendment - it depends on the Constitution.

    (5) McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, a sovereign U.S. territory at the time of McCain's birth.
    (more)
  • Thaligh... iamthem... 2011/08/21 18:27:16
    Thalightguy
    You didn't read the link I provided, It explains how you are wrong on everything except McCain if you go through the blog you will also find how you are wrong on that as well.

    Once you have done this and still want debate the issue.

    I'll be here.
  • iamthem... Thaligh... 2011/08/21 20:33:41
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    Let's see if I can break this down clearly:

    Claim 1 : ""The Court held that Minor was a member of the “class” of persons who were natural-born citizens."

    This is, in fact, true.

    Claim 2 : "They defined this class as those born in the US to “parents” (plural) who were citizens."

    This is NOT true. These were the facts of Minors case - it described her. The Court stated that there was no doubt that such a person is a member of the class.

    That is an EXPRESS statement that this type of citizen qualifies as a natural-born citizen, but does not describe the class as a whole.

    That would be like saying because the court said "Granny Smiths, are green and sour, have always been considered apples" it means the court is defining the class of apples as having the necessary qualities of being green and sour.

    Claim 3 : "The Court also noted that the “citizenship” of those born to non-citizen parents was subject to doubt. Since Virginia Minor was in the class of natural-born citizens, that doubt didn’t need to be resolved."

    This is true, indeed. However, this statement defeats an assertion that there is a requirement FOR dual-parent citizenship.

    The Court states that there were differing judgments as to whether such a citizen would qualify as a natural born citizen. Because the Court d...































    Let's see if I can break this down clearly:

    Claim 1: ""The Court held that Minor was a member of the “class” of persons who were natural-born citizens."

    This is, in fact, true.

    Claim 2: "They defined this class as those born in the US to “parents” (plural) who were citizens."

    This is NOT true. These were the facts of Minors case - it described her. The Court stated that there was no doubt that such a person is a member of the class.

    That is an EXPRESS statement that this type of citizen qualifies as a natural-born citizen, but does not describe the class as a whole.

    That would be like saying because the court said "Granny Smiths, are green and sour, have always been considered apples" it means the court is defining the class of apples as having the necessary qualities of being green and sour.

    Claim 3: "The Court also noted that the “citizenship” of those born to non-citizen parents was subject to doubt. Since Virginia Minor was in the class of natural-born citizens, that doubt didn’t need to be resolved."

    This is true, indeed. However, this statement defeats an assertion that there is a requirement FOR dual-parent citizenship.

    The Court states that there were differing judgments as to whether such a citizen would qualify as a natural born citizen. Because the Court does not resolve the question, it remained OPEN. Further, considering that a citizen with such characteristics was not the subject of the suit, resolving such a question would be improper.

    In fact, the "restraint" that your site refers to also undermines the argument he makes and you accept. Because the Court did not have the question in front of them, it was judicially improper for them to resolve whether such citizens were natural born citizens.

    In fact, the only thing that Minor asserts is that someone born in the U.S. and has citizen parents is definitely part of the class of natural born citizens. Looking at Cornell's annotated Constitution, we see that the is of what the entire class consists of is STILL a question, left open by the Court:

    All Presidents since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Inde[p.434]pendence. The only issue with regard to the qualifications set out in this clause, which appears to be susceptible of argument, is whether a child born abroad of American parents is “a natural born citizen” in the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute.94 Whatever the term “natural born” means, it no doubt does not include a person who is “naturalized.” Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States” are citizens.95 Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . .. shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . .”96

    This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural–born subjects of the crown.97 There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens.98 Whether the Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a “case or controversy” as well as how it might decide it can only be speculated about.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/an...

    Further, although your friend Leo disputes the holding based on his misconception of Minor, the current precedent states that minor holds nothing about whether any other class of citizens are also natural born citizens:

    Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1.

    Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a “natural born Citizen.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4.

    The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874).

    In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that: 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. Id. at 167-168.

    Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.
    1212. Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens
    or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen
    of the United Kingdom.


    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/o...

    It's very disappointing, as a lawyer, to watch someone with "Esq." after their name so wholly ignorant of basic principles associated with reading case law.
    (more)
  • Thaligh... iamthem... 2011/08/21 22:01:43 (edited)
    Thalightguy
    To allow people with dual nationality to be defined as such takes away from the orgiginal porpouse and that was to prevent people with foreign atachment from becoming President...

    The Founders turned their noses at such things and noted that it was worse than a man taking more than one wife.

    I have to disagree with you on Minor they said there was no doubt as to the first, the only doubt was if a person born here to non U.S. citizens were even citizens at all and that is what they left open...

    The Court in Wong Kim Ark agreed with Minor when it came to natural born citizen, and said the definition is found no where in the Constitution.

    The 14th Amendment does not define the term.
  • iamthem... Thaligh... 2011/08/21 22:14:19
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    The problem, of course, is that at the minimum age (35) they only need to have spent 14 years as a permanent resident of the U.S.

    This means that they can spend upwards of two decades, or the majority of their lives, in another country and still qualify to be president.

    So why would that be the case?

    As to your disagreement, (1) the court is limited in holdings to facts before it, and therefore could not answer the question even if they wanted to, as that would be in essence an advisory opinion, and (2) if the question is open, that means that we do NOT know that there is a requirement of dual-citizen parents. That's what an open question is.

    As to Wong Kim Ark - the case involved citizenship, and not natural born citizenship. That the definition of natural born citizen is not in the Constitution is a well-settled fact.

    The Fourteenth Amendment does not pretend to define the term. However, it is suggestive of two types of citizenship, and we do not know that natural born citizen means anything other than citizens not naturalized (i.e., not entitled to citizenship at birth).
  • Thaligh... iamthem... 2011/08/22 22:39:42
    Thalightguy
    Let's see if I can answer you. You argue that Minor did not really give us a definition of a “natural born Citizen,” but rather only a factual scenario involving Virginia Minor. The Minor Court had to determine whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” so that it could determine whether she had a constitutional right to vote in Missouri under the privileges and immunities clause which extends only to “citizens” and which privileges and immunities are given constitutional protection from state deprivation under the Fourteenth Amendment. To determine whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” or a “natural born Citizen,” the Court had to find a time-tested and accepted legal definition, not just some factual scenario. So, the definition of a “natural-born citizen” laid down in Minor does not simply reflect the facts of the case as you allege but rather is based on what the Court called the “common-law.” In referring to that “common-law,” the Court referred to material elements of a legal rule, not just to facts of a legal problem. Also, I have shown that this “common-law” was not the English common law, which made no reference to the citizenship of the parents, but rather to American common law which grew out of natural law and the law of nations and which became part of Article III “L...













    Let's see if I can answer you. You argue that Minor did not really give us a definition of a “natural born Citizen,” but rather only a factual scenario involving Virginia Minor. The Minor Court had to determine whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” so that it could determine whether she had a constitutional right to vote in Missouri under the privileges and immunities clause which extends only to “citizens” and which privileges and immunities are given constitutional protection from state deprivation under the Fourteenth Amendment. To determine whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” or a “natural born Citizen,” the Court had to find a time-tested and accepted legal definition, not just some factual scenario. So, the definition of a “natural-born citizen” laid down in Minor does not simply reflect the facts of the case as you allege but rather is based on what the Court called the “common-law.” In referring to that “common-law,” the Court referred to material elements of a legal rule, not just to facts of a legal problem. Also, I have shown that this “common-law” was not the English common law, which made no reference to the citizenship of the parents, but rather to American common law which grew out of natural law and the law of nations and which became part of Article III “Laws of the United States” as confirmed by Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 (the “Law of Nations” offenses clause).

    You argue that Minor left open the door for the “natural-born citizen” class to include children born in the United States to alien parents. Minor did not leave open the possibility that the “natural-born citizen” class would be expanded in the future by another court deciding the question that it did not need to decide. The “natural born Citizen” class confirmed by Minor is not a class that can be expanded at will. Remember that “natural born Citizen” is a presidential eligibility requirement. The Founders and Framers would have used finite elements for eligibility (like 35 years of age and 14 years a resident) and not some concept that can morph over time at the will of Congress or some court. That is why as the Minor Court explained there was no doubt as to what a “natural-born citizen” was. Additionally, allowing the “natural born Citizen” clause to be amended by either Congress or the courts is tantamount to amending the Constitution without going through the required amendment process of Article V.

    You maintain that Minor did not require that both of a U.S.-born child’s father and mother be United States citizens in order for that child to be a “natural-born citizen.” How can you reasonably assert that there is no “requirement FOR dual-parent citizenship” when Minor said “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…” First, Minor used the plural, “parents.” Second, as I have explained in numerous of my essays, at the time of Vattel’s writing his treatise, The Law of Nations (1758), and the Founding and the Minor decision, the wife and husband enjoyed unified citizenship which followed the husband. So, “parents” referred to both the father and mother since the father and mother would always have the citizenship of the husband.

    You argue that Minor left open the question of whether children born in the United States to alien parents could be “natural-born citizens.” You are misstating what the Minor court said. It said: “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., 169 U.S. at 679-80.

    The Court, in referring to these other children who were born in the United States to alien parents, said they belonged to a different class from the class to which the “natural-born citizens” belonged. If the Court meant to potentially include these other children who are born in the United States to alien parents within the same class as the children born in the United States to citizen parents, it would have said that “there have been doubts” whether those children (born to alien parents) belong to that same class (that of those children born to citizen parents), not whether they belong to another class. So we can see that the Minor Court distinguished between being a “citizen” (the class about which there were doubts) and a “natural-born citizen” (the class concerning which there were no doubts). Therefore, the question that Minor left unanswered was whether Minor would have even been a “citizen” if she had been born in the country to alien parents, not whether she would have been a “natural-born citizen” if born under those circumstances. Hence, the question left open by Minor concerned the “citizen” class, not the “natural-born citizen” class. And it is the question regarding the “citizen” class that Wong Kim Ark decided under the jus soli naturalization “at birth” principle of Calvin’s Case. Therefore, Wong Kim Ark held that Wong was a “born” “citizen of the United States” under the loser standards of the Fourteenth Amendment, not a “natural born” “Citizen of the United States” under the stricter standards of Article II.

    Finally, you invoke the aid of Cornell’s Annotated Constitution to support your thesis that any citizen “at birth” is a “natural born Citizen.” Cornell concludes: “There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase [“natural born Citizen”] includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute. . .” But this source is wrong in its conclusion. Again, the Founders and Framers would not have left the class of “natural born Citizen[s],” which was the eligibility standard for a would-be president, subject to being expanded over time by Congress or the courts without a constitutional amendment. Simply put, “natural born Citizen” was a natural law concept that was divine, binding, and immutable. The Founders and Framers did give Congress naturalization power which it could use to create or increase the class of “citizens.” But that power did not include the ability to increase the “natural born Citizen” class which was created by natural law and not by positive law.

    Regarding Cornell’s reliance upon the Naturalization Act of 1790 and your attempt to extend its "at birth" logic to those born in the United States, first, this act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795 (which took us from “natural born citizen” to just “citizen of the United States”). Second, the 1790 Act was only retroactive. Third, as I explained above, the Constitution did not give Congress the power to create a “natural born Citizen” through a naturalization act. Fourth, the Naturalization Act of 1790 was just that, a naturalization act, and Cornell itself concedes that a “natural born Citizen” “no doubt does not include a person who is ‘naturalized.” Fifth, the notion that a citizen “at birth” by naturalization statute (or even the Fourteenth Amendment) is a “natural born Citizen” is as oxymoronic as a cold fire.

    Hence, any “citizen of the United States” “at birth” who acquires that status by the Fourteenth Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) (both applicable to those born in the United States to one or two alien parents and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”) or any other Act of Congress (applicable to persons born out of the United States to one or two United States citizen parents), being a status gained by naturalization “at birth,” is necessarily only a “citizen of the United States” and not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
    (more)
  • iamthem... Thaligh... 2011/08/23 00:33:30
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    (1) "You argue that Minor did not really give us a definition of a “natural born Citizen,” but rather only a factual scenario involving Virginia Minor."

    No. I state that the factual situation allowed for the Court to state only that Minor qualified, clearly, as a natural born citizen. That means that a person born in the U.S. of citizen parents IS a natural born citizens, but does not state what IS NOT a natural born citizen. It is not an exclusive definition, in other words, nor could the Court legally give an exclusive definition as it is limited to holding on the facts before it.

    (2) "So, the definition of a “natural-born citizen” laid down in Minor does not simply reflect the facts of the case as you allege but rather is based on what the Court called the 'common-law.'"

    Again, I never said that it was wholly based on the facts. That is impossible, as the Court MUST resort to law, history, precedent etc. in its determination of law. I am saying that the Court is limited in terms of applying the FACTS to the LAW - that is the basic process of legal analysis. In doing so, it is limited in showing how the facts relate to the law, and must not go beyond the facts to include hypothetical situations to make a determination on those hypotheticals.

    As the facts were limited to...











    (1) "You argue that Minor did not really give us a definition of a “natural born Citizen,” but rather only a factual scenario involving Virginia Minor."

    No. I state that the factual situation allowed for the Court to state only that Minor qualified, clearly, as a natural born citizen. That means that a person born in the U.S. of citizen parents IS a natural born citizens, but does not state what IS NOT a natural born citizen. It is not an exclusive definition, in other words, nor could the Court legally give an exclusive definition as it is limited to holding on the facts before it.

    (2) "So, the definition of a “natural-born citizen” laid down in Minor does not simply reflect the facts of the case as you allege but rather is based on what the Court called the 'common-law.'"

    Again, I never said that it was wholly based on the facts. That is impossible, as the Court MUST resort to law, history, precedent etc. in its determination of law. I am saying that the Court is limited in terms of applying the FACTS to the LAW - that is the basic process of legal analysis. In doing so, it is limited in showing how the facts relate to the law, and must not go beyond the facts to include hypothetical situations to make a determination on those hypotheticals.

    As the facts were limited to a person born in the U.S. to citizen parents, the Court ONLY spoke to whether that was a natural born citizen, and it cannot be the holding that they stated anything about someone born to non-citizen parents, outside the country, etc. - it can only be said that the question was left open, and rightly so.

    (3) "The 'natural born Citizen' class confirmed by Minor is not a class that can be expanded at will."

    See above - the class is not expanded because the Court could not define the class beyond the individual facts before it. That the class includes Minor was all they could say. If it commented on people other than Minor, that's an advisory opinion.

    Let me ask - do you know what an advisory opinion is?

    (4) "How can you reasonably assert that there is no 'requirement FOR dual-parent citizenship' when Minor said '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…"

    Look at my apple analogy again. The statement would have to be "[Only] [t]hese were natives or natural born citizens." Stating that a type qualifies as a member of the group is not about exclusivity.

    I'll leave the rest of the discussion alone, as it really is dependent on your understanding of what I'm saying above.
    (more)
  • Thaligh... iamthem... 2011/08/23 06:14:53
    Thalightguy
    I will only address the points of your reply which merit a response.

    (1) Notwithstanding the “natural born Citizen” clause being one prescribing a presidential eligibility standard, you insist that Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” contains no negative, restrictive, or exclusionary words and therefore the power remains in the courts to add to that definition at it may please. Your argument is nothing more than wishful thinking. You provide absolutely no support for your position. Rather, you basically say, without providing any policy reason, that since Minor did not say that no one else who is not a child born in the country to citizen parents may be a “natural-born citizen,” then there can be other types of citizens who can qualify to be “natural-born citizen[s].” It is highly doubtful that the Founders and Framers would have given us a definition of a “natural born Citizen” which the judicial branch of government could change at its whim given the political winds that may be blowing. Rather, they used an idiom and word of art which has only one meaning which Minor told us has never given us any doubt. The clause would not be doubt free if a court could simply come along and change that clause to suit any particular individual. Using your logic, there would be...







    I will only address the points of your reply which merit a response.

    (1) Notwithstanding the “natural born Citizen” clause being one prescribing a presidential eligibility standard, you insist that Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” contains no negative, restrictive, or exclusionary words and therefore the power remains in the courts to add to that definition at it may please. Your argument is nothing more than wishful thinking. You provide absolutely no support for your position. Rather, you basically say, without providing any policy reason, that since Minor did not say that no one else who is not a child born in the country to citizen parents may be a “natural-born citizen,” then there can be other types of citizens who can qualify to be “natural-born citizen[s].” It is highly doubtful that the Founders and Framers would have given us a definition of a “natural born Citizen” which the judicial branch of government could change at its whim given the political winds that may be blowing. Rather, they used an idiom and word of art which has only one meaning which Minor told us has never given us any doubt. The clause would not be doubt free if a court could simply come along and change that clause to suit any particular individual. Using your logic, there would be no stability and predictability in any of our laws and statutes, for someone could simply come along and say that the law did not say that the elements prescribed were exclusive or inclusive. Rather, we must consider the policy that a rule of law is seeking to promote and allow that policy to guide us on whether the given rule is exclusive or inclusive. You have not done so here so your argument must be rejected.

    (2) Does not merit any response.

    (3) Does not merit any response. By the way, it appears that you are the one who does not know what an advisory opinion is, confounding it with dicta.

    (4) See my answer to No. 1 above.

    Finally, please refrain from addressing me in a condescending manner which is so typical of Obots. You have not shown here any superiority in your arguments or intelligence.
    (more)
  • iamthem... Thaligh... 2011/08/30 00:36:40
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    What makes you think that I'm an "Obot"? I haven't attempted any support of Obama here, have I?

    In the end, your first response shows a lack of understanding of legal precedent. I'm a lawyer...I have literally been trained in this. The person you cite has by the courts (and not "Obama courts" mind you) been shown to have no argument...for the very reasons I'm stating.

    What is your deeper understanding of the law that overrides them, and where does it come from?
  • Thaligh... iamthem... 2011/09/02 04:46:56
    Thalightguy
    The Framers of the Constitution called all those who made up the citizenry of the new Constitutional Republic “citizens of the United States.” We know this from reading the following constitutional Articles: Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 provides that, in addition to being at least 25 years old and when elected to be an “Inhabitant” of the State in which he shall be chosen, a Representative must be a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 years. Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 provides that, in addition to being at least 30 years old and when elected to be an “Inhabitant” of the State in which he shall be chosen, a Representative must be a “Citizen of the United States” for 9 years. The Framers provided in Article I, Section 2 and Section 3 the eligibility requirements for then and future Representatives and Senators, respectively, which were, among other things, that each had to be at least a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 and 9 years, respectively. We also know from Article I, Section 2 and Section 3 that a “Citizen of the United States” is a naturalized citizen, for those sections speak of the person being eligible for the offices of Representative and Senator if he or she is a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 and 9 years, respectively. Clearly, such requirements do...











    The Framers of the Constitution called all those who made up the citizenry of the new Constitutional Republic “citizens of the United States.” We know this from reading the following constitutional Articles: Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 provides that, in addition to being at least 25 years old and when elected to be an “Inhabitant” of the State in which he shall be chosen, a Representative must be a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 years. Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 provides that, in addition to being at least 30 years old and when elected to be an “Inhabitant” of the State in which he shall be chosen, a Representative must be a “Citizen of the United States” for 9 years. The Framers provided in Article I, Section 2 and Section 3 the eligibility requirements for then and future Representatives and Senators, respectively, which were, among other things, that each had to be at least a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 and 9 years, respectively. We also know from Article I, Section 2 and Section 3 that a “Citizen of the United States” is a naturalized citizen, for those sections speak of the person being eligible for the offices of Representative and Senator if he or she is a “Citizen of the United States” for 7 and 9 years, respectively. Clearly, such requirements do not mandate U.S. citizenship from the moment of birth.

    Regarding presidential eligibility, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides: “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.” So, these clauses together show that the Framers during the period that the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was in effect, allowed naturalized citizens to be eligible to be President. After the grandfather clause expired, it was no longer sufficient to be simply a “Citizen of the United States” to be eligible to be President, for such citizens also include naturalized citizens. Rather, one had to now show that one was a “natural born Citizen” which was not a naturalized citizen.

    The problem with applying Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is that the Constitution as originally written defines neither a “natural born Citizen” nor a “Citizen of the United States.” Hence, we have to identify the sources to which the Founders and Framers would have looked for their definition of these terms. The historical record and early case law show that they probably would not have relied upon the English common law for these national definitions but rather on natural law and the law of nations to which they normally looked to solve problems of national proportions. This historical record and case law also show that Emer de Vattel was the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite commentator on the law of nations. Vattel said “[t]he citizens are the members of civil society.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). He said that “each citizen on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.” Id. Other than explaining in Section 214 how a “foreigner” can become a “citizen” through “naturalisation,” Vattel did not explain how that membership or entrance into society is acquired. Incidentally, he said that in England, “the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” Hence, historically, our nation has struggled with defining who is a “citizen,” which our Constitution and laws have called a “citizen of the United States.” On the other hand, Vattel clearly told us who is a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., “[t]he natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Id.

    Hence, never in the history of our nation have we had any doubt as to what a “natural born Citizen” is. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875) (“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”). Consequently, our national debate over citizenship has been over who is a “citizen.” This debate has involved former slaves and their descendents, Asians, American Indians, and even the children born in the United States to alien white European parents. But this debate has never been over who is a “natural born Citizen.”

    Because of the doubts over who is a “citizen,” our nation has had to define a “citizen” in Acts of Congress, treaties, the Fourteenth Amendment, and through case law (e.g., U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)). Regarding a “natural born Citizen,” we have defined this class of citizen only through case law which has explicitly or impliedly relied upon Vattel’s Section 212 and which to this day has never changed (e.g., The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring and dissenting for other reasons-explicitly); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring-explicitly); Minor v. Happersett (1875) (impliedly); Wong Kim Ark) (impliedly).

    This means that a “citizen” is defined by Acts of Congress, treaties, and the Fourteenth Amendment (e.g., a child born in the United States to one or two alien parents or a child born out of the United States to one or two United States citizen parents or a child born out of the United States to alien parents who naturalizes to be a “citizen” after birth) and a “natural born Citizen” is defined by American common law. And that American common law definition has been since the Founding and continues until today to be a child born in the United States to a United States citizen father and mother. Finally, we are to keep in mind that the only difference between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” who is not a “natural born Citizen” is that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President and Vice-President.

    If putative President, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii, he can be a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States." But because he was not born to a father and mother who were both U.S. citizens when he was born (he was born to a father who was a British citizen), he is not and cannot be a "natural born Citizen." He is therefore not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.
    (more)
  • iamthem... Thaligh... 2011/09/02 18:00:32
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    "Hence, never in the history of our nation have we had any doubt as to what a “natural born Citizen” is. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875) (“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.")

    AND that case goes onto say that there may be other categories of citizens (mentioning the debate and saying SPECIFICALLY that there was doubt about another category, which literally means that your claim that there was "no doubt" as to who was included as a whole in the category is absolutely wrong - there was only no doubt that one specific class of people DID qualify.).

    You're not showing any evidence that the definition is foreclosed - and historically lawmakers, courts, and government research has disagreed with your assertion.

    That you focus on what, even if true, is a minor technicality and has really never been followed (as we've had presidents in the past that have not fit your definition, setting precedent literally against the claim) shows desperation, not understanding.
  • Thaligh... iamthem... 2011/09/02 20:52:01
    Thalightguy
    I said that there was no doubt as to who was a “natural born Citizen,” and that there was doubt as to who a “citizen” was. There was no need for Minor to decide who a “citizen” was since Virginia Minor, being born in the country to citizen parents, was under “common-law” a “native” and “natural-born citizen.” It left undecided the question of whether a person born in the U.S. to alien parents was even a “citizen,” let alone a “natural-born citizen.” U.S. Wong Kim Ark answered the open question, holding that a person born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth and just as much a “citizen” as a “natural born Citizen” who is born in the United States to citizen parents. Of course, we know that under Article II, it is not sufficient to be a "citizen of the United States" to be eligible to be President, for only a “natural born Citizen” is so eligible.

    As far as the definition of a “natural born Citizen” being foreclosed, yes, it is foreclosed until it is changed by a constitutional amendment. You simply have no reasonable argument showing that presidential eligibility as included in a nation’s constitution should not be limited by a bright line rule. The Founders and Framers said “natural born Citizen,” 35 ye...

    I said that there was no doubt as to who was a “natural born Citizen,” and that there was doubt as to who a “citizen” was. There was no need for Minor to decide who a “citizen” was since Virginia Minor, being born in the country to citizen parents, was under “common-law” a “native” and “natural-born citizen.” It left undecided the question of whether a person born in the U.S. to alien parents was even a “citizen,” let alone a “natural-born citizen.” U.S. Wong Kim Ark answered the open question, holding that a person born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth and just as much a “citizen” as a “natural born Citizen” who is born in the United States to citizen parents. Of course, we know that under Article II, it is not sufficient to be a "citizen of the United States" to be eligible to be President, for only a “natural born Citizen” is so eligible.

    As far as the definition of a “natural born Citizen” being foreclosed, yes, it is foreclosed until it is changed by a constitutional amendment. You simply have no reasonable argument showing that presidential eligibility as included in a nation’s constitution should not be limited by a bright line rule. The Founders and Framers said “natural born Citizen,” 35 years of age, and 14 years a residents. These elements have specific parameters which cannot be changed at whim. These are bright line rules. These material elements do not change with the political winds or because you want to make your friend eligible to be President.

    There are no legal precedents from our U.S. Supreme Court showing that any person who is born in the country to one or two alien parents is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President or Vice President. Chester Arthur, who was born to alien parents, is no legal precedent. The issue of his parents’ citizenship was never raised and argued by anyone or decided by any legal authority. In fact, the United States, consistent with Congressional Acts that had existed since 1790, argued in Wong Kim Ark that a person born in the U.S. to alien parents was an alien. Hence, how can you say that there are any precedents for your position?
    (more)
  • iamthem... Thaligh... 2011/09/02 21:00:19
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    Miner claims that there was doubt as to what classes of citizen qualified as a natural born citizen.

    Please try again.
  • Thaligh... iamthem... 2011/09/03 03:07:36 (edited)
    Thalightguy
    Is that your rebuttal?, It's rather petty for someone who claiims to be a lawyer.

    [edit]

    You said: “Minor claims that there was doubt as to what classes of citizen qualified as a natural born citizen.” This is wrong.

    The Minor Court had not doubts as to who the “natural- born citizens” were. Rather, the Court said that, notwithstanding what “some authorities” contended, there were doubts that children born in the country to alien parents were even “citizens,” let alone “natural-born citizens.”

    From the Court’s language and definitions of citizenship we can conclude that the Court relied upon Vattel for its choice of words and definitions. The Court started by telling us who the “citizens” where. It said that there were no doubts that any child born in the country to “citizen” parents was a “citizen.” It went on to say that these “citizens” belonged to a class of “citizens” called “natives, or natural-born citizens.” Note that the Court’s use of the phrases “natives, or natural-born citizens” and its definition of those terms proves that the Court for its use of those terms and definitions relied upon Vattel at Section 212 of The Law of Nations wherein his “Les naturels, ou indigenes” was translated in the 1797 edition into English as “natives, or natural-born citizens” a...



    Is that your rebuttal?, It's rather petty for someone who claiims to be a lawyer.

    [edit]

    You said: “Minor claims that there was doubt as to what classes of citizen qualified as a natural born citizen.” This is wrong.

    The Minor Court had not doubts as to who the “natural- born citizens” were. Rather, the Court said that, notwithstanding what “some authorities” contended, there were doubts that children born in the country to alien parents were even “citizens,” let alone “natural-born citizens.”

    From the Court’s language and definitions of citizenship we can conclude that the Court relied upon Vattel for its choice of words and definitions. The Court started by telling us who the “citizens” where. It said that there were no doubts that any child born in the country to “citizen” parents was a “citizen.” It went on to say that these “citizens” belonged to a class of “citizens” called “natives, or natural-born citizens.” Note that the Court’s use of the phrases “natives, or natural-born citizens” and its definition of those terms proves that the Court for its use of those terms and definitions relied upon Vattel at Section 212 of The Law of Nations wherein his “Les naturels, ou indigenes” was translated in the 1797 edition into English as “natives, or natural-born citizens” and defined as a child born in the country to citizen parents.

    Minor also told us who the born “citizens” were who followed the first “citizens” who came into being after July 4, 1776 and lived during the Founding. It said that under “common-law” (which given its inclusion of the citizenship of the parents could only refer to natural law and the law of nations which was adopted as American common law and became part of the “Laws of the United States” in Article III), children who were born in the country to citizen parents were “citizens.” It then told us that this “class” of “citizens” were called “natives, or natural-born citizens.” The Court then commented that “some authorities” consider another “class” of persons also to be “citizens,” explaining that these children are also born in the country but are born to alien parents. The Court said that “there have been doubts” whether these children are “citizens.” The Court would never have declared this other class of children, even if it declared them to be born “citizens,” to be “natives, or natural-born citizens” because they did not meet the definition of those terms provided by the Court itself which was a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. So concerning born “citizens,” and consistent with David Ramsay’s explanation of birthright citizenship in the new republic as stated in his, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), the only born “citizen” that the Court was willing to recognize was one that was born to “citizen” parents. The Court went even further than Ramsay and added, as Vattel did in his definition of a “native, or natural-born citizen, that the child also had to be born in the country. The Court called this class of “citizen” a “native, or natural-born citizen.” It was not willing to recognize children born in the country to alien parents as another type of class of “citizen,” let alone declaring that those “citizens” also fell within the class of “citizens” called “natives, or natural-born citizens.” It follows from what the Court said that the Court concluded that all “natural-born citizens” were “citizens” but that not all “citizens” (assuming some other class existed such as those born in the country to alien parents) were “natural-born citizens.” All this shows that the Court had no doubts as to what persons made up the class of “citizens” that it called “natural-born citizens” but that it did have doubts as to whether persons born in the country to alien parents were even “citizens.”

    We also know that U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) answered the question left open by Minor, i.e., whether a child born in the country to alien parents was even a “citizen.” The Court held that a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was under the Fourteenth Amendment a “citizen of the United States.” If Wong had been a “natural born Citizen,” there would not have been any dispute as to his status. But since he needed to be just a “citizen,” the doubts and disagreements exited, with the United States even maintaining that he was an alien by birth and not a “citizen of the United States.” So, Wong Kim Ark created the new class of “citizen” which Minor said was in doubt whether it existed. It never intended nor did it expand the class of persons who are Article II “natural born Citizens.”
    (more)
  • iamthem... Thaligh... 2011/09/13 09:22:41
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    (1) In the opinion, the court states that there is one class that clearly qualifies...that has never been in doubt: one born in the U.S., of citizen parents. It further states that there are other categories that MAY qualify, although there is doubt as to the one other it mentions:

    "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."

    Therefore, the opinion clearly states doubt as to what classes qualify overall, and as to the clear definition, but for one single class.

    Note that the court references authorities above - implying therefore that those asserting that jus soli is the only thing that matters are qualified to do so.

    (2) Again, the statement of the court was obiter dictum in the end, and therefore has no binding authority as the opinion states specifically states that the provision at issue was one that conferred voting rights only on "male citizens." Therefore, the question of whether one is a "natural born citizen" is not an issue important to the case there at hand, because the prohibition dealt with all citizens who were female, no...



























    (1) In the opinion, the court states that there is one class that clearly qualifies...that has never been in doubt: one born in the U.S., of citizen parents. It further states that there are other categories that MAY qualify, although there is doubt as to the one other it mentions:

    "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."

    Therefore, the opinion clearly states doubt as to what classes qualify overall, and as to the clear definition, but for one single class.

    Note that the court references authorities above - implying therefore that those asserting that jus soli is the only thing that matters are qualified to do so.

    (2) Again, the statement of the court was obiter dictum in the end, and therefore has no binding authority as the opinion states specifically states that the provision at issue was one that conferred voting rights only on "male citizens." Therefore, the question of whether one is a "natural born citizen" is not an issue important to the case there at hand, because the prohibition dealt with all citizens who were female, not any subset.

    (3) Vattel did not claim that both parents needed to be citizens of the nation in question - rather, only the father:

    "The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

    Of course, both at the time of the drafting of the Constitution as well as when Vattel wrote, in most cases wives had the citizenship of their husbands conferred upon them.

    (4) The problem of making the parentage a central focus arises, of course, when we consider the children of naturalized citizens. Second-generation Americans, for instance, are raised by people who may have had very little experience with the U.S. prior to having children. In fact, most immigrants do end up keeping a firm grasp on their home nation's heritage and customs - especially in the early years of our nation.

    Such individuals would be defined clearly as "natural born citizens" but would likely have been raised with divided senses of nationalities.

    (5) The issue is further illuminated when you consider the situation where a child of citizen parents born in the U.S. is raised for the majority of their lives abroad. This was often the case with children of diplomats or military officials - people that we consider the best representatives of our country. But to claim somehow that a person who has spent the minority of their lives in the country that they claim to be a "natural born citizen" of has no significant chance of divided sensibilities is ignoring the influence of the world and asserting, somehow, that the parents "Americaness" will be the sole influencing factor. That seems naive.

    (6) Your discussion of Wong Kim Ark is superfluous in the end. The main issue was the fact that the parents were prevented from becoming citizens by the Chinese Exclusion Act. The situation at issue was whether regardless of citizenship of parents, Wong Kim Ark could claim birthright citizenship. And it was wholly based on the Fourteenth Amendment.

    The question that you seem to think was open here and that Ark closed was not left open by Minor at all. First, again, the Minor dictum as it was written was not binding because it was dictum. It also did nothing to change the landscape because the only claim it asserted was that two citizens plus birth in the country equals natural born citizenship - something no one ever doubted. What was left in doubt were other classes of NATURAL BORN citizens...not "citizens."

    What Ark answered was whether birthright citizenship existed, in the affirmative. This becomes important to the question of natural born citizenship because it, in essence, maintains that the U.S. government is forbidden from imputing foreign citizenship to those born within its borders (certain cases, like the children of foreign ambassadors, are exceptions because children born to ambassadors are by legal fiction technically residing in the U.S., and subject to its jurisdiction).

    Therefore, despite arguments from the government that such individuals are "aliens" the Court asserts that they are citizens by their birth. They themselves would be allowed to change their citizenship, but their government cannot. Those born in the U.S. are not granted citizenship, but are already citizens and only their actions can relinquish it.

    The focus therefore is not only on where the person is born, but what that person asserts. The person's parentage ends up being of no importance at all.

    This is not a clear expansion in any way of what might be meant by "natural born citizen." HOWEVER, it clearly indicates that those born in the U.S. are citizens in a way that is quite different from those who seek or are naturalized. The government is PREVENTED from taking action against their citizenship because it is a natural right of their birth.

    Considering that the nationality of the parents was considered unimportant, it indicates the level of importance it has in determining the makeup of our citizenship that Vattel seems to claim is so central to society.

    But, considering that Vattel was European, Swiss specifically, and that the concept of "bloodlines" and the imposition of identity by family is a European notion that we as a nation ran to our "melting pot" partially to escape from...I wonder why it is that you seem so intent on latching onto one of the more unAmerican aspects of his philosophy to argue what the founders wanted for America.
    (more)
  • Thaligh... iamthem... 2011/09/15 03:20:22
    Thalightguy
    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, where the “natural born Citizen” clause may be found, provides for presidential and vice-presidential eligibility standards. These standards are bright line rules for qualification for constitutional offices.

    Our U.S. Supreme Court has never defined an Article II “natural born Citizen” other than as a child born in the country to citizen parents. This definition has existed since the Founding and has been confirmed by various U.S. Supreme Court cases (including Minor v. Happersett (1875), which explained that there are two classes of “citizens,” a class simply called “citizens” and a class called “natural-born citizens” and defining a “citizen” simply as a “member[] of a nation, and nothing more” who owes allegiance to that nation and is entitled to its protection, and a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in the country to citizen parents) up to the U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (which confirmed Minor’s definitions of an Article II “natural born Citizen” and expanded the class of person who fall in the “citizen” class mentioned in Minor which the Minor Court did not need to do because Virginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen,” and who the Wong Kim Ark Court called a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the Unit...

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, where the “natural born Citizen” clause may be found, provides for presidential and vice-presidential eligibility standards. These standards are bright line rules for qualification for constitutional offices.

    Our U.S. Supreme Court has never defined an Article II “natural born Citizen” other than as a child born in the country to citizen parents. This definition has existed since the Founding and has been confirmed by various U.S. Supreme Court cases (including Minor v. Happersett (1875), which explained that there are two classes of “citizens,” a class simply called “citizens” and a class called “natural-born citizens” and defining a “citizen” simply as a “member[] of a nation, and nothing more” who owes allegiance to that nation and is entitled to its protection, and a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in the country to citizen parents) up to the U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (which confirmed Minor’s definitions of an Article II “natural born Citizen” and expanded the class of person who fall in the “citizen” class mentioned in Minor which the Minor Court did not need to do because Virginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen,” and who the Wong Kim Ark Court called a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States”). To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has never changed this American common law definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

    Expanding the class of “natural born Citizen[s]” to include those born in the United States to one or two alien parents, i.e., to include a class of persons who are not born in the country to citizen parents, would be an unprecedented expansion of the “natural born Citizen[s]” class under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 which has been long historically established. To change the constitutional rules regarding qualifications for constitutional offices would require a constitutional amendment under Article V. Hence, our constitutional jurisprudence does not lend itself to expanding the definition of a “natural born Citizen” without a constitutional amendment. Since the definition of a “natural born Citizen” has been well established by our constitutional jurisprudence and would require a constitutional amendment to change, any court ruling on the merits of the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” would be bound by stare decisis and the constitution itself to conclude that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. There exist no modern sound policy reasons showing why a Court should not be bound by stare decisis on the original American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.”
    (more)
  • iamthem... Thaligh... 2011/09/15 04:26:35
    iamthemob ~ the 444th Guru ~
    You have, in the above established the following:

    "Natural born citizen" includes, definitely, people born in the U.S. to citizen parents.

    The Supreme Court's denial of certiori in Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, although it does not create general precedent, not means that in Indiana the official and binding definition under the law of a "natural born citizen" is ANY citizen born in the United States, regardless of citizenship of parents. (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.”)

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/o...
  • Thaligh... iamthem... 2011/09/16 03:11:30
    Thalightguy
    The Framers wrote a Constitution which included presidential eligibility requirements. Why do you think that they would leave those requirements to expansion or alteration at someone's whim without constitutional amendment? On the contrary, since the "natural born Citizen" clause is part of the eligibility requirements to be President (along with 35 years of age and 14years a resident), we can reasonably conclude that the Framers wrote a bright line rule when they included the "natural born Citizen" clause. Hence, the definition of a "natural born Citizen" does not only include all those born in the U.S. to citizen parents. Being a bright line rule, it also excludes from being a "natural born Citizen" all those who are not so born.

    In Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009), court conducted no independent historical research or analysis regarding what the Founders and Framers intended when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution in 1787. In fact, no where in the decision did the court even raise the issue of the Founders’ and Framers’ intent when they wrote the clause in Article II. The Founders and Framers placed their trust in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The Declaration of Independence, para. 1. T...



    The Framers wrote a Constitution which included presidential eligibility requirements. Why do you think that they would leave those requirements to expansion or alteration at someone's whim without constitutional amendment? On the contrary, since the "natural born Citizen" clause is part of the eligibility requirements to be President (along with 35 years of age and 14years a resident), we can reasonably conclude that the Framers wrote a bright line rule when they included the "natural born Citizen" clause. Hence, the definition of a "natural born Citizen" does not only include all those born in the U.S. to citizen parents. Being a bright line rule, it also excludes from being a "natural born Citizen" all those who are not so born.

    In Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009), court conducted no independent historical research or analysis regarding what the Founders and Framers intended when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution in 1787. In fact, no where in the decision did the court even raise the issue of the Founders’ and Framers’ intent when they wrote the clause in Article II. The Founders and Framers placed their trust in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The Declaration of Independence, para. 1. They came to learn what natural law was from studying ancient history and its influence in the then modern world. They knew from studying this history and the great publicists, including Emer de Vattel who was the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite, that natural law became the law of nations. And Vattel in Section 212 of his The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) defined what a “natural born Citizen” is. There he said that the “natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The Indiana state court in Ankeny did not even discuss natural law and the law of nations. The court hardly knew who Emer de Vattel was. This should be an indication to anyone who has seriously studied the Obama eligibility issue of how much reliance we can place on the court’s ruling as to what a “natural born Citizen” is.

    Also, Ankeny relied strictly upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and its historical sources for its decision on what a “natural born Citizen” is. They made a monumental declaration as to the meaning of the clause based solely upon a 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case that did not even involve any dispute regarding the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and which ironically confirmed Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” as stated by Minor v. Happersett in 1875. The court mistakenly said that Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875) “left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.” Minor did no such thing. Minor said that there are two classes of people who make up our citizens, the “natural born” citizens and the “citizens.” Minor only did not rule whether a child born in the country to alien parents belongs to the “citizen” class. Minor told us that there is no doubt what makes up the “natural born Citizen” class, telling us that it is comprised of those born in the country of citizen parents. That definition is based on natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law. Indeed, this confirms that the Founders and Framers gave us only one citizenship definition to be used to determine eligibility to be President. On the other hand, Minor added that there is doubt as to whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents belonged to the “citizen” class. The Framers gave Congress the power to make future “citizens of the United States” through naturalization. Hence, the doubts have been over the definition making persons the parents of a future “natural born Citizen,” not over the definition making the child of those parents a “natural born Citizen.”

    Wong Kim Ark, a Fourteenth Amendment citizenship case, answered the question left open in Minor, which question concerned whether Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen of the United States,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Wong Kim Ark relied upon the English common law, which historically had been used to define British nationality and not American nationality, to define a “citizen of the United States.” But Ankeny mistakenly concluded that Wong Kim Ark ruled Wong Kim Ark to be a “natural born Citizen” rather than a “citizen of the United States.” Wong Kim Ark did no such thing. There is nothing in the Wong Kim Ark decision that suggests that the Court declared Wong Kim Ark an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President. The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happerset (1875) already had told us that there was no doubt as to who could be a “natural born Citizen.” Since there is no doubt and if Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born Citizen,” the U.S. government would not have argued that he was not even a “citizen of the United States,” let alone a “natural born Citizen.” Also, Wong Kim Ark never said that Minor was wrong in defining a “natural born Citizen” in the way that it did under natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law.
    (more)

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/17 07:08:12

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals