Quantcast

"Natural Born Citizen" - Defining the Term

Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA 2012/06/18 14:59:20

  • Posted by kristarrah at 9:31 a.m. Jun. 18, 2012


    It may go nowhere but that doesn't make it any less true. Obama's father never was an American citizen, thus, Obama is not a natural born citizen.

    Our Congress and SCOTUS may lack the glandular fortitude to enforce the Constitution; and clearly Obama doesn't care about the Constitution, but that does not negate our founding fathers' words. In order to be a naturla born citizen, our founding fathers relied on Vattel's influence.

    The term Natural born Citizen appears in our Constitution, in Article 1, Section 2, with these words, “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.”

    Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,

    § 212. Of the citizens and natives.

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. 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.”

    If not Vattel, then where did they arrive at this term. Many of those who ridicule us like to quote Blackstone as authoritative that the United States adopted English Common Law. They like to state that Blackstone’s natural born subject is equivalent of a natural born citizen. There is no doubt that the Founding Father’s were influenced from Blackstone’s Commentary. However, the Framers of the Constitution recognized that it was Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution at will. Blackstone was increasingly recognized by the Americans as a proponent of arbitrary power. In fact, the framers rejected the notion that the United States was under English Common Law, “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” George Mason one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

    As to what is a natural born subject, Blackstone went on to say that any person, freeman or alien, except those of diplomats who were born in the realm of the King of England was a natural born subject. There is a problem with a simple substitution of citizen in place of subject, that some people think are synonymous. In England, not all natural born subjects of the Crown can become the King. This is reserved for a very small subset of natural born subjects called the royalty. This is drastically dissimilar to the American concept that any Natural Born Citizen can become President. Under Blackstone’s subjects only a very, very small subset of Natural Born Subjects could rise to be King, the American Presidency is drawn from the largest class of citizens, the natural born. Like the analogy of a field of clover, the Founding Fathers were not looking for that elusive genetic mutation of a four-leaf clover, they were looking for the common, naturally occurring three-leaf clover to be President.

    But Blackstone is confusing on this issue. Blackstone also writes, “To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.” This use of Blackstone gave Great Britain claim over US Citizens, which lead to the war of 1812, when Britain went about impressing American sailors into their navy because English law did not recognize the right of our Founding Father’s naturalizing themselves into our new country. “Once an Englishman, always an Englishman,” was the reason the British used to impress our citizens into service for the Crown. This law and concept of claim to the subjects to the Crown, regardless of place of birth is still in effect in Great Britain, and had the effect of Congress passing a law that required all the officers and three fourths of the seamen on a ship of the United States be natural born citizens. (Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, February 9, 1813) Further, the Crown passed a law that made it treason for former British subjects, even though they were now American citizens to participate on the side of America during the war of 1812. (Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, February 23, 1813) to If the Founding Fathers accepted Blackstone’s definition of a natural born subject, then impressments of American-British citizens into the Royal Navy would not have been a casus belli, for the War of 1812. The fact that Madison included the impressments of American Citizens as a reason for a state of War clearly indicates that they rejected Blackstone’s definition of a natural-born subject.

    John Jay’s letter to Washington address this dual and permanent loyalty to England that Blackstone introduces. To George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention, Jay writes “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” Jay not only knew of Vattel, , as can be seen from his correspondence with James Madison in 1780 during treaty negotiations with Spain, but he was also a proponent of Vattel as well.

    What further discredits Blackstone as being the author of the Natural Born Citizen clause, is the first immigration act passed by our First Congress in 1790. In chapter III we find direct references to Vattel’s assertion that citizenship is derived from the father, in that citizenship was prohibited to children whose fathers have never gave intent to permanently reside of the Untied States.
    Interestingly in this same act, we also find the clarification of a Natural Born Citizen, as being one “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident in the United States:” Residency was defined in that same act as someone under oath declaring that they wished to remain and live in the Untied States. It should be noted that the Supreme Court was tasked with defining several phrases in this law, and since Jay was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and had reviewed the immigration law of 1790. If Jay was in favor of Blackstone’s definition, he remained silent.

    To add further proof to the intent of the Founding Fathers literal meaning of Vattel’s definition of a natural born citizen being born of two citizens, and in the country itself, and wanting a natural born citizen having no other claim to his loyalty except that of the United States of America, in 1795 the Congress amended the Naturalization Act of 1790. The Naturalization Act of 1795, which was also signed by George Washington, recognized Blackstone’s commentaries on English Common Law, making children born overseas in the lands under British rule, British Subjects. Even if their parents were American. This act removed the words natural born from children born overseas of American parents, so that no other potentate could lay claim to this person, and thus establish “a presence of influence” in the Executive Branch. It was the intent of our Founding Fathers to “naturalize at birth” these children, but not give them the status “natural born citizens.” Also in this act of 1795, we see the importance of complete allegiance to the United States for all people naturalized, as this is the first appearance of the oath of allegiance “to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may at that time be a citizen or subject.” This oath is still in effect today.

    If it was not Blackstone who they relied on for defining the term Natural Born Citizen, then the only remaining source is from Vattel. Many of these detractors say we are reaching to extremes to use Vattel, as the source of a Natural Born Citizen clause. Some of there arguments are that the Law of Nations is a obscure mention to an idea, found in Article I, Section 8. What they fail to mention that this phrase is capitalized, if it was an inference to a general idea, it would not have been capitalized. School children know well the rules of capitalization, and the use of the capitalized Law of Nations would indeed make it uses consistent with a title of a publication. Let us take this and consider if indeed Vattel was a source of inspiration for the Founding Fathers and the Framers of our Constitution. The question we need to understand is were the founding fathers truly influenced by Vattel, or not.

    The answer to this lies with none other than Thomas Jefferson, who penned Virginia’s Citizenship statue in 1779, “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.” As can be seen Jefferson is equating citizenship of the child to that of the parents, and not the land.

    For further proof on the question of Vattel’s influence we only need to look at Benjamin Franklin. In 1775, he observed, the importance of the Law of Nations, on the Founding Fathers and he then ordered 3 copies of the latest editions. The Library Company of Philadelphia which holds one of the three copies, lists the 1775 reference to this book, as “Le droit des gens,” from the publishing house of Chez E. van Harrevelt in Amsterdam, Holland, with a personal note to Franklin from the editor of this edition, C.G.F. Dumas. The fact that this particular volume that Franklin ordered is in French is significant, for at that time French was considered by the “family of nations” to be the diplomatic language, and the 1775 edition was considered the most exact reference of Vattel’s Law of Nations.

    There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers did not exclusively use the English translation, but relied upon the French original. On December 9th of 1775, Franklin wrote to Vattel’s editor, C.G.F. Dumas, “ I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”



    Samuel Adams in 1772 wrote, “Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that `the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution” Then in 1773 during a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the constitution. John Adams as so taken by the clear logic of Vattel that he wrote in his diary, "The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.” These arguments were what inspired the clause that dictates how the Constitution is amended. The Framers left no doubt as to who had the right to amend the constitution, the Nation, (that is the individual States and the people) or Legislature (which is the federal government.)

    In the Federalist Papers number 78, Alexander Hamilton also echoed Vattel, and both of the Adams, when he wrote, "fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness." Then in 1784 Hamilton arguing for the defense in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington extensively used Vattel, quoting prolifically from the Law of Nations. The Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance of the new republic abiding by the Law of Nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel. He ruled that the Statues passed under the color of English Common Law, must be interpreted from the standpoint of its consistency with the law of nations. This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciary branch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution.

    In 1794, then President Washington was faced with the first threat to his Neutrality Proclamation of that same year by the Ambassador of France, Citizen Edmond-Charles Genêt to honor their treaty and support France’s wars with England and Spain. In a very rare agreement both Jefferson and Hamilton using Vattel’s Law of Nations they were able to give Washington the international legitimacy not to commit the United States to war in 1793. Genêt wrote to Washington, “you bring forward aphorisms of Vattel, to justify or excuse infractions committed on positive treaties.”

    At this point there can be little doubt that the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone and Vattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone. The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that the loyalty of a Natural Born Citizen is a loyalty can never be claimed by any foreign political power. The only political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a natural born citizen is that power that governs of his birth. Vattel by including the parents and place removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural born citizen ought to lie, as Vattel’s definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil, and is the only definition that is in accord with Jay’s letter to Washington.

Read More: http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/jun/...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Soojin 2012/06/18 15:59:22
    Soojin
    +5
    The continued whining about Obama's alleged ineligibility has crossed into absurdity. I wonder where the Obama Administration would be if his critics put as much effort into researched, fact-based criticism of Obama's presidency instead of mindless garbage like this.

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

  • KrSpo 2012/06/25 15:13:27 (edited)
    KrSpo
    Be cautious there, Romney was Born to Parents of Mexican decent. And so to be clear, Obama's MOTHER was a natural born citizen of the US.
  • Adakin ... KrSpo 2012/06/28 12:58:39
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    I don't know about his mom, but Romney's dad was born in Mexico. Governor/Daddy George Romney was born to U.S. citizens as Mitt's grandparents moved to Mexico from Utah before George was born, and then moved back to the U.S. after drinking the water and discovering Montezuma’s revenge! :-)

    Mexican Tequila
  • DuncanONeil 2012/06/20 04:03:43
    DuncanONeil
    +1
    Those accepting of Obama as the messiah, will never concede the validity of any other understanding of "natural born" than that they themselves postulate.

    Just shows what the Progressives think of the "Rule of Law".
  • KrSpo DuncanO... 2012/06/25 15:15:58
    KrSpo
    It is amazing how all of you morons discount that Obama's mother IS a US citizen.. I know, that doesn't fit in your plan, so throw it out, right?
  • Adakin ... KrSpo 2012/06/25 22:12:33 (edited)
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    KrSpo, there is a substantial group of legal scholars that support the SCOTUS definition that TWO citizen parents are required for Natural Born Citizen (NBC) status. Of course, there are additional scholars that dispute that definition, but have failed to produce a contrary definition originating with SCOTUS that is contrary to their defining NBC as being born here and having American Citizen Parents.

    None of us "moron’s" have discounted Ann Dunham's citizenship status. I'm sure that if she had chosen to run for POTUS, no one would have questioned her on THAT specific issue.
  • DuncanO... KrSpo 2012/06/27 00:27:19
    DuncanONeil
    +1
    It has nothing to do with it. It takes two US citizens to produce a "natural born citizen". Obama has a mother who is a US citizen and a father that is a citizen of Kenya, subject to the British Crown.
    That obviates his being eligible for President.
  • Adakin ... DuncanO... 2012/06/27 03:43:11
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    And by British law, Obama Jr. has/had the right to claim the all of the rights of a British subject.

    And that, is the primary reason why the Founders mandated NBC status for our POTUS.
  • KrSpo DuncanO... 2012/06/27 04:53:26 (edited)
    KrSpo
    No it does not. Only one parent has to be a citizen for the child to be the citizen. The fact that his mother is a citizen makes him eligible. Well, and the fact that he was born in Hawaii...

    You birthers really need to pay a shrink some bucks to study your 'issue'.
  • Adakin ... KrSpo 2012/06/27 12:09:46
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    KR says: "Only one parent has to be a citizen for the child to be the citizen."

    Actually you are wrong, one parent DOES NOT have to be a citizen... all that is needed is for the kid to be born here.

    I understand that this is a difficult concept for Obamabots to comprehend, but please try to stay on topic. There is no debate over the "child to be the citizen" part...the debate is if the child would be a NATURAL BORN citizen.

    Yes, all children born here are citizens. If the kid is born here of one American Citizen Parent, the child is STILL a citizen. As such, that child can grow up and be qualified to hold ANY elected office in the land... EXCEPT PRESIDENT.

    That's because the Constitution says she has to be a NATURAL BORN citizen and POTUS is the ONLY elected office that has that citizenship status restriction.

    And the definition provided by SCOTUS for Natural Born was by having American Citizen Parents (as in plural). If you want to hire a shrink to study the issue, go ahead. But the only legal validity would have to come not a shrink, but from the justices on the SCOTUS, and those nine justices have already defined the term "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" for Mrs. Virginia Minor in their MINOR v HAPPERSETT ruling.

    Yes KR, just as all trees are plants, not all plants are tr...

    KR says: "Only one parent has to be a citizen for the child to be the citizen."

    Actually you are wrong, one parent DOES NOT have to be a citizen... all that is needed is for the kid to be born here.

    I understand that this is a difficult concept for Obamabots to comprehend, but please try to stay on topic. There is no debate over the "child to be the citizen" part...the debate is if the child would be a NATURAL BORN citizen.

    Yes, all children born here are citizens. If the kid is born here of one American Citizen Parent, the child is STILL a citizen. As such, that child can grow up and be qualified to hold ANY elected office in the land... EXCEPT PRESIDENT.

    That's because the Constitution says she has to be a NATURAL BORN citizen and POTUS is the ONLY elected office that has that citizenship status restriction.

    And the definition provided by SCOTUS for Natural Born was by having American Citizen Parents (as in plural). If you want to hire a shrink to study the issue, go ahead. But the only legal validity would have to come not a shrink, but from the justices on the SCOTUS, and those nine justices have already defined the term "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" for Mrs. Virginia Minor in their MINOR v HAPPERSETT ruling.

    Yes KR, just as all trees are plants, not all plants are trees. Just as all those born here to ONE citizen parent are citizens, not all of those born here are NATURAL BORN Citizens.

    I guess, just like the bankruptcy laws, the immigration laws and the voter intimidation laws, the Obamabots that drank the cool-aid like to selectively pick and choose which laws to uphold and which laws to ignore.
    (more)
  • KrSpo Adakin ... 2012/06/27 13:52:24
    KrSpo
    "The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen" Congressional Review Service 2011.

    Having a single parent that is a citizen fulfills the final "other situations". For your info, SCOTUS has never directly ruled on what a 'natural born citizen' is. That is a claim by the idiot birthers that is not substantiated. It has only been mentioned in passing, but never ruled upon.
  • Adakin ... KrSpo 2012/06/28 13:11:05 (edited)
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    "SCOTUS has never directly ruled on what a 'natural born citizen' is."

    That's true, but SCOTUS did DEFINE (vs "ruled") what a Natural Born Citizen is in their Minor v Happersett ruling when in the narrative, SCOTUS stated that as Mrs. Virginia minor was born here and born to American Citizen Parents (as in plural) she is a natural born citizen.

    You are right that the "ruling" was directed at the landmark womens suffrage case and not in ruling on NBC citizenship status. The the SCOTUS statement on defining why Mrs. Minor was a Natural Born Citizen set the defining precedent on what constitute that specific catagory of of citizenship.



  • Adakin ... Adakin ... 2012/06/28 13:23:33 (edited)
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    KrSpo, please note Senate Resolution 511 where the senate found that John McCain, born in Panama to American Citizen parents, was deemed to be a Natural Born citizen. Read SR-511 and you can see on the final "Whereas" line... http://www.govtrack.us/congre...
    that 'born to American Citizens' (plural) is the same wording as used in the Minor NBC definition.

    BTW, then SENATOR Obama voted in the affirmative for that resolution!

    (Oh, can you provide citation / or link for your quote from "Congressional Review Service 2011"?)

    Thanks! AV
  • KrSpo Adakin ... 2012/06/29 03:09:37
    KrSpo
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Also, would like to point out that it was found that even a child born in the United States to parents of visiting foreign nationals are still considered natural born citizens. As Obama was born in Hawaii, then it wouldn't matter if his parents were from Mars.

    Lynch v Clark
    NY Chanc.Ct., Nov. 5, 1844; 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 3 NY Leg.Obs. 236, 1844 WL 4804
  • Adakin ... KrSpo 2012/07/05 04:02:08
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    "As Obama was born in Hawaii, then it wouldn't matter if his parents were from Mars"

    As far as regarding Barry being a citizen, you are correct. The nationality of the parents are not relevent for those born here to be citizens, but Natural Born is a wholely different catagory of citizenship.

    If the intent of the founders was to have the child of foreign nationals (expecially considering British law that states that a child of a British subject has claim to British citizenship regardless of the location of the actual birth) not be eligible to be POTUS, but could be eligible to hold any other elected office as merely a citizen. But only POTUS has a citizenship catagory restriction imposed upon that office.

    RE: Lynch v Clark NY Chanc.Ct (etc)

    "As James Brown Scott has correctly stated: "It is therefore to be expected that, when terms of municipal law are found in the
    Constitution, they are to be understood in the sense in which they were used in Blackstone's Commentaries; and when the law of nations is referred to, that its principles are to be understood in the sense in which Vattel defined them." James Brown Scott, The United States of America: A Study in International Organizations 439 (1920). There is little doubt that citizenship properly falls under the law of nat...
    "As Obama was born in Hawaii, then it wouldn't matter if his parents were from Mars"

    As far as regarding Barry being a citizen, you are correct. The nationality of the parents are not relevent for those born here to be citizens, but Natural Born is a wholely different catagory of citizenship.

    If the intent of the founders was to have the child of foreign nationals (expecially considering British law that states that a child of a British subject has claim to British citizenship regardless of the location of the actual birth) not be eligible to be POTUS, but could be eligible to hold any other elected office as merely a citizen. But only POTUS has a citizenship catagory restriction imposed upon that office.

    RE: Lynch v Clark NY Chanc.Ct (etc)

    "As James Brown Scott has correctly stated: "It is therefore to be expected that, when terms of municipal law are found in the
    Constitution, they are to be understood in the sense in which they were used in Blackstone's Commentaries; and when the law of nations is referred to, that its principles are to be understood in the sense in which Vattel defined them." James Brown Scott, The United States of America: A Study in International Organizations 439 (1920). There is little doubt that citizenship properly falls under the law of nations and not under the rules of municipal law. Citizenship has always been recognized as a topic that affects United States relations with other nations. On the question of national citizenship, Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583, 3 N.Y. Leg. Obs. 236, 244 (1844), http://books.google.com/books... (whose finding that Julia Lynch, born in New York to “alien parents, during their temporary sojourn” there, was a citizen of the United States, was in effect overruled by a 1860 New York state statute which provided at Sec. 5 that “[t]he citizens of the state are: 1. All persons born in this state and domiciled within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls”), stated that how we define citizenship "has an essential bearing in our intercourse with other nations and the privileges conceded by them to our citizens; is therefore, not a matter of mere state concern. It is necessarily a national right and character. It appertains to us, not in respect to the State of New York, but in respect of the United States. . . ." Given that citizenship affects "the behavior of nation states with each other," Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), the Founders would have looked to the law of nations to define it for the needs of the new nation. Clearly, citizenship is both a national and international matter which affects the relations among nations. The Founders and Framers would have looked to the law of nations to define citizenship in the new nation and not the English common law." http://obamareleaseyourrecord...
    (more)
  • DuncanO... KrSpo 2012/06/30 04:14:08 (edited)
    DuncanONeil
    One parent - a citizen? Yes! But the criteria for President is "natural born. That requires two citizen parents!

    "You birthers really need to pay a shrink"
    ..First of all that is an assumption on your part. I never claim Obama is NOT a citizen. Therefore I can not be classed as a "birther".
  • KrSpo DuncanO... 2012/07/01 15:59:16
    KrSpo
    If he was born in the state of Hawaii, as he was, then this conversation is moot. Being born here automatically makes you a citizen.
  • DuncanO... KrSpo 2012/07/02 00:56:36
    DuncanONeil
    +1
    Why is it so hard to understand? The requirement to become President is not to be a citizen, but to be a "natural born citizen". To be such requires that both parents be citizens. As Obama's father was not a citizen of the US, at any time, Obama is MERELY a citizen, not a "natural born citizen".
  • Diane Spraggs Yates 2012/06/18 19:25:27
    Diane Spraggs Yates
    Obama has a Keyan father never an American citizen !
  • Diane S... Diane S... 2012/06/19 21:37:35
    Diane Spraggs Yates
    Something might of changed my mind what if Frank Marshal Davis was his father? Google it and read ! President Obama won't let anyone see his original records, so people are going to make guesses. That would make him American with a Communist Father a tramp for a mom porn pictures some say they are doctored but who knows for sure????
  • KrSpo Diane S... 2012/06/25 15:15:08
    KrSpo
    +1
    Oh wow, but his MOTHER was a citizen.
  • Diane S... KrSpo 2012/06/25 16:02:18
    Diane Spraggs Yates
    +1
    Yeah and that is why the birther part never really bothered them!!!!!
  • KrSpo Diane S... 2012/06/26 17:37:53
    KrSpo
    It bothered me, because of the millions in government funds it sucked up for no valid reason.
  • Adakin ... KrSpo 2012/06/28 13:28:23
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    "...the millions in government funds it sucked up for no valid reason."

    Can you provide citation for how and why millions in gov't funds were sucked up for no valid reason?
  • Soojin 2012/06/18 15:59:22
    Soojin
    +5
    The continued whining about Obama's alleged ineligibility has crossed into absurdity. I wonder where the Obama Administration would be if his critics put as much effort into researched, fact-based criticism of Obama's presidency instead of mindless garbage like this.
  • Adakin ... Soojin 2012/06/18 16:59:06 (edited)
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    +3
    Hi Soojin, long time no see!

    My "whining about Obama's alleged ineligibility" has nothing to do with Obama himself, but it has everything to do with our adherence to upholding our Constitution and our Rule of Law.

    Obama's term is almost over... if the voters choose to do so, in just a few short months, he will be sent back to Chicago. But what his term in office shows is that our government is sorely lacking in an enforcement mechanism for appropriately vetting FUTURE candidates that would not meet the letter of the law.

    While we have small time criminals spending years in jail for petty crimes, we don't have the judicial fortitude to contest those candidates that by virtue of being "popular" can fraudulently proceed through our elective process without any enforceable scrutiny as to the Constitutional qualifications to hold that office.

    If we cannot properly vet a candidate via the very few and simple restrictions that our founding fathers imposed upon us via the Constitution, why bother with enforcing any laws?
    When our political leaders are allowed to selectively pick and choose the laws they like and disregard the laws they don't like, it’s conceivable that our rulers could eventually create arbitrary laws that would effectively make every citizen a criminal and t...



    Hi Soojin, long time no see!

    My "whining about Obama's alleged ineligibility" has nothing to do with Obama himself, but it has everything to do with our adherence to upholding our Constitution and our Rule of Law.

    Obama's term is almost over... if the voters choose to do so, in just a few short months, he will be sent back to Chicago. But what his term in office shows is that our government is sorely lacking in an enforcement mechanism for appropriately vetting FUTURE candidates that would not meet the letter of the law.

    While we have small time criminals spending years in jail for petty crimes, we don't have the judicial fortitude to contest those candidates that by virtue of being "popular" can fraudulently proceed through our elective process without any enforceable scrutiny as to the Constitutional qualifications to hold that office.

    If we cannot properly vet a candidate via the very few and simple restrictions that our founding fathers imposed upon us via the Constitution, why bother with enforcing any laws?
    When our political leaders are allowed to selectively pick and choose the laws they like and disregard the laws they don't like, it’s conceivable that our rulers could eventually create arbitrary laws that would effectively make every citizen a criminal and then 'selectively’ choose to enforce those laws based upon any unrelated criteria they may choose. Such has been the case throughout history of numerous other regimes where laws were so arbitrarily enforced as to allow the gov’t to prosecute individuals based on any criteria while ignoring similar violations of by those individuals that are favorable to the regime. The very gov't just to the north of where you are right now, Soojin is widely suspected of operating exactly that way.

    While many may argue over Obama’s place of birth, there’s no debating his being born with dual citizenship status as his father was a British subject and under British law, Obama has or did have the right to claim the citizenship of that other nation. That is exactly the issue that our Founders wanted to prevent by specifically requiring Natural Born citizenship status for only one elected office in all of the United States.

    I don’t know how the government of ROK qualifies the candidates that are permitted to run for high office, but I do understand the intent of the Founders of our nation and their desire to have only candidates that have allegiance only to the United States of America.
    (more)
  • DuncanO... Soojin 2012/06/20 04:05:49
    DuncanONeil
    +1
    Only problem is this is fact based. Problem is that the Progressives will accept nothing that will make their leader give up his sandals.
  • ProudProgressive 2012/06/18 15:42:33
    ProudProgressive
    +2
    The "Law of Nations" is not United States law and has no bearing on the subject. The Supreme Court settled the question once and for all in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, holding that a man born in San Francisco to two parents who were both citizens of China was a natural born citizen (or "citizen of the United States from birth", which is the same thing legally).

    Give it up.
  • Adakin ... ProudPr... 2012/06/18 16:24:42
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    ProudProg, I found the part about ""citizen of the United States from birth" from the "Ark" ruling... but can you provide a link, SCOTUS ruling or otherwise legal support for where it provides that a citizen of the US from birth is the same thing "legally" as Natural Born? I've been unable to find the phrase "natural born" anywhere in the "Ark" decision. Please help with citation that supports your statement. I'm a supporter of Sen. Rubio (or Gov's Jindal or Haley for that matter) and this would be a great finding to promote any of these fine political leaders for POTUS someday.

    Thanks AV
  • ProudPr... Adakin ... 2012/06/18 16:28:45
    ProudProgressive
    "Citizen of the United States from birth" is what natural born citizen means. That's like asking someone to define what "round" means. The 14th Amendment clearly establishes that there are two classes of US citizen. Those born a citizen, and those who become a citizen through naturalization. The first class can run for President; the second class can't. Besides, a number of past Presidents have been born to at least one non-citizen (Arthur, Wilson, for example) and the question was never even raised. I'd love to believe there's a reason other than the color of this President's skin that makes this situation different from those, but in four years the birthers have yet to demonstrate any other reason for this endless stream of nonsense.
  • Adakin ... ProudPr... 2012/06/18 17:14:58
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    Can you comment on the Senate's Resolution 511 where regardless of the location of McCain's birth, the wording specifically notes that his two parents being Citizens provided support to the senate's proclamation of McCain being an NBC?
  • ProudPr... Adakin ... 2012/06/18 17:27:39
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    No one questions that someone with two citizen parents born on US soil (and I do consider the Panama Canal Zone to be US soil) is a natural born citizen. What I and many others take issue with is the proposition that ONLY someone born of two citizen parents on US soil can be considered a natural born citizen. A lion is a cat, but that doesn't mean that a tiger isn't also a cat. I do believe that the best interpretation of the requirement is that it can be satisfied in one of three scenarios:

    1. born to two citizen parents, regardless of where.
    2. born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental citizenship.
    3. born to one citizen and one alien parent, not on US soil, provided the citizen parent is at least 18 years old and meets certain US residency requirements.

    Minor v. Happersett established that IF someone is born to two citizen parents on US soil they are a natural born citizen. Senate Resolution 511 reaches the same conclusion. But neither one even tries to limit the definition of natural born citizen to only that particular set of circumstances.

    From the reading I've done, I believe the main concern of the Founders in adding the natural born clause to the Constitution was to prevent the possibility of agents of the British or the French from infiltrating our government...

    No one questions that someone with two citizen parents born on US soil (and I do consider the Panama Canal Zone to be US soil) is a natural born citizen. What I and many others take issue with is the proposition that ONLY someone born of two citizen parents on US soil can be considered a natural born citizen. A lion is a cat, but that doesn't mean that a tiger isn't also a cat. I do believe that the best interpretation of the requirement is that it can be satisfied in one of three scenarios:

    1. born to two citizen parents, regardless of where.
    2. born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental citizenship.
    3. born to one citizen and one alien parent, not on US soil, provided the citizen parent is at least 18 years old and meets certain US residency requirements.

    Minor v. Happersett established that IF someone is born to two citizen parents on US soil they are a natural born citizen. Senate Resolution 511 reaches the same conclusion. But neither one even tries to limit the definition of natural born citizen to only that particular set of circumstances.

    From the reading I've done, I believe the main concern of the Founders in adding the natural born clause to the Constitution was to prevent the possibility of agents of the British or the French from infiltrating our government by sending people over here, having them go through the naturalization process while still retaining their loyalty to their home country, and then taking over our government. Remember that the fledgling United States had no guarantees that our independence would even survive. We were not in a great position to defend ourselves against a major military attack, and there were still even many people here with some loyalty, or at least sympathy, to the idea of reuniting with Great Britain. By excluding from the Presidency someone who could have grown up and indoctrinated into loyalty to another sovereign the Founders tried to ensure that our government would not be subverted from within.

    To be perfectly honest, and with NO reference to the current President at all, I think it would not be a bad idea to eliminate the clause from the Constitution entirely. If someone was born in another country, came here as an infant, lived their entire life as a patriotic American, I see no reason to question their loyalty. On the other hand, you could have someone who was born here, then was taken as a child to another country, raised there, and only after reaching adulthood returned to the United States but still retaining loyalty to the other country. Under the current system the first person can't run but the second person can, and it would seem that the first person appears to be more of a "loyal American" than the second person.
    (more)
  • ally ProudPr... 2012/06/18 17:44:53
    ally
    +1
    This has been brought to their attention many times, spelled out in many ways and still the birthers continue. This only leads to one final concept- they can't abide a black man their White house.
  • Adakin ... ProudPr... 2012/06/19 02:21:17
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    You make an excellent point, and its the most rational defense I've read for ignoring the whole issue of NBC versus "citizen". Thanks. But I must point out that as you say: "A lion is a cat, but that doesn't mean that a tiger isn't also a cat" and you are correct.

    But as the lion and the tiger are both cats, all cats are not lions or tigers.

    Similarly, all Natural Born Citizens are citizens, but all citizens are not Natural Born Citizens.
  • DuncanO... ProudPr... 2012/06/20 04:08:36
    DuncanONeil
    +1
    Wong Kim Ark settles nothing as "Natural born" was not at question in that case.
  • Bella 2012/06/18 15:36:20
    Bella
    +1
    Natural born

    Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "natural born citizens of the United States"

    * Anyone born inside the United States *
    * Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S. as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
    *Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
    *Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
    *Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
    *Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years.

    So even IF President Obama was born in another country he can still be president thanks to his mother's U.S. citizenship.
  • Adakin ... Bella 2012/06/18 16:18:22 (edited)
    Adakin Valorem~PWCM~JLA
    Bella, please help me.

    I compared your statement:

    "Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "natural born citizens of the United States""

    to the actual text of "8 USC § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth" as posted by Cornell University. Law website ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/us... ) and I'm having difficulty finding any wording or verbiage that supports the statement: "people who are "NATURAL BORN citizens of the United States""

    At the above linked Cornell website, using Internet Explorer, I clicked "edit" and "find" and typed in "Natural Born" in the search window and the reply was "TEXT NOT FOUND".

    The Cornell University Law School website for "8 USC § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth" only provides a definition of what a "Citizen" is, and does not provide any reference to a "Natural Born" citizen as you stated. Can you provide the legal source or link for your quote? Something that supports your statement?

    As a supporter of Marco Rubio (my senator) I'm hoping you can provide citation for this so that Sen. Rubio would be qualified to be POTUS.

    Thanks
    AV

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/18 09:37:26

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals