Posted on 08/03/2009 9:32:38 AM PDT by Crush T Velour
Some so-called Birthers are resting their arguments on Chief Justice Marshall's supposed reliance a claimed "Vetter's" definition of "natural born citizenship". They believe that that court has not ruled on this issue otherwise. This is not so.
This case I've linked to regarded whether a certain child was a natural born citizen because he was born to chinese immigrant parents in the United States who were in the country lawfully.
The SCOTUS determined that the child was a NATURAL BORN citizen for the following reasons:
1. The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of "citizen" or "natural-born citizen" by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law [of England], the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.
2. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.
The ruling in U.S. vs Kim Wong Ark contradicts your view of the law.
Kim Wong Ark was ruled a ‘natural born’ and had TWO parents who were not U.S. citizens.
You do if you don't believe the definition provided by the justices in the Ark case.
That only applies if the baby is born outside the US. I read that law last year when that point was first brought up. For that to apply to Obama, you must prove that he was born outside the US.
But stop claiming that “natural born” means you have to have two citizen parents.
This is THE definition despite your prattling. Matters of foreign influence and interference were the reasons for the “natural born citizen” concept in the first place. If you do not have both parents as citizens, you run head long into the contradiction: Dual citizenship.
The founding fathers, unlike you and your ill informed ilk, knew what they were doing. Foreign influence was a problem then, and it is a problem now. SOMEONE has to protect the interests of this country against other countries. That buck stops with the president and that is why that person needs to be “natural born” - untainted by foreign influence.
My grandmother wouldn't be, she had a father born in Italy.
My grandfather wouldn’t be, he had a father born in England.
My other grandmother wouldn't be, her mother's parents came over from Norway.
My other grandfather wouldn't be, he had a grandfather from Germany.
So neither of my parents could be “natural born” by your definition either; thus I would not be a “natural born” citizen either.
Under what scenario could ANYBODY be a natural born citizen by your criteria?
Everyone in the USA of European descent has a parent who had a parent or grandparent or great^n-grand parent who was not “natural born”; and by your criteria they and their descendants would also not EVER be “natural born”.
I think your extremism got in the way of logic and rationality in this case.
Voting rights and dual citizenship. And I have no problem whatsoever with Native Americans having the right to vote. But there isn’t another anchor baby SCOTUS ruling that I know of. The interesting thing about Wong Kim Ark is its language, which seems to indicate that Congress could change the anchor baby rule if it wanted to, but in more than 100 years, hasn’t acted.
No, the Constitution in Article I clearly states that Congress shall establish a uniform rule of naturalization, as opposed to natural-born. Those are the only two forms of citizenship identified. Where the Constitution refers to 'citizen' it applies to both classes. As in a Congressman can be natural born or naturalized.
A natural born citizen is born of TWO parents who are both Citizens. If one parent is not a citizen, naturalized or otherwise, then the child is “only” a Citizen.
And where does case law define that?
this point has been made over and over and over again. There is nothing prejudicial or racial about it. It is a straight forward concept that some very immature and ill informed legal types cannot accept.
Maybe because were immature and ill-informed enough to require something other than your opinion? Point me to the clause of the Constitution, the federal law, or the Supreme Court decision that says a natural-born citizen is one born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents and the case is closed. Otherwise you're the ill-informed one in this arguement.
I happen to agree with your position. But, the majority opinion in Ark goes a long way towards rewriting that definition, if it doesn't get there entirely. And, as others have pointed out, the Constitution doesn't define "natural-born", it just employs it's use. It would be the prerogative of SCOTUS or the legislature to modify, change expand or limit what the contemporary definition is or isn't.
What's important, is it would seem that Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito all think it(Ark)does define it in such a way that it supports Obama's presidential eligibility (assuming of course he was actually born in HI), or they wouldn't have denied cert in the Donofrio case. Roberts made it clear in his confirmation testimony about his reverence for stare decisis. Roberts, nor anyone else on the bench - at any level - hasn't the appetite for revisiting Ark, or any number of cases that upholds or reinforces Ark.
He doesn't seem to want to do that. Other than that COLB he produced way back when.
Nor do I think they will take it up unless someone can produce evidence Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. Once the Taitz birth certificate blows up that'll make it even harder.
The Constitution describes “natural born citizens” and “naturalized citizens” There are no other types. There is no method for a baby born in the US to be naturalized by having a citizen parent. So such children are NATURAL BORN citizens.
***
Jeez - I LOVE it when people put their OWN spin on SCOTUS decisions ...
READ THE SCOTUS DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK !!!
RELEVANT EXCERPT:
” ... The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Order affirmed.”
NOW, WHERE does SCOTUS affirm that Ark is a “natural-born citizen” ???
NO WHERE !!!
It was Ark’s ATTORNEY who asserted that Ark was “natural-born”
The opinion DOES discuss the contradictions in historical common law (Roman, French, and British), BUT the opinion SIDESTEPPED the issue !!!
Per Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, one must be a natural born American citizen to serve as President. Barack Obama is NOT eligible for the Presidency because he is not a natural born citizen. The law that applied during the time of Obama’s birth (in effect from December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986) stated- “If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” We know that Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen (a British Colony) and his mother just 18 at Obama’s birth...” (thus, she would had to have been aged 21 in order for Obama to be eligible). John A. Bingham, primary framer, 14th Amendment, states- “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” Obama himself has stated that he is the son of a Kenyan- Kenya being a foreign sovereignty. Thus, Obama is not a natural born citizen even if he were actually born in Hawaii.
Aside from that, I believe Obama was born in Kenya.
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
-James Madison
Exactly. This thread is merely proof that Crush T Velour and those agreeing with him or her are not originalists. Of course those who do not care about the original intent of the Constitution can claim that this case was meant to redefine Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution even though it had nothing to do with the issue before the Court.
You have a better chance of being named "Queen of England", than this matter has of being heard on the merits. And, even if by some realigning of the planets, a Federal district judge (who's presumably is close to retirement) decides to put his toe in the water, no way does it make it past summary judgment.
Obama already has what he needs - prima fascia evidence that he was born in HI as well as public testimony (and no doubt sworn testimony through an affidavit, if it got that far) that his document is authentic. The only way his long-form birth certificate sees the light of day is if he releases it himself. No court is going to grant a petitioners discovery motion for such a document, given the fact Obama has already provided what he has.
“Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’” From US vs Wong Kim Ark
“Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’” From US vs Wong Kim Ark
***
WHY do you INSIST on cheryy-picking ???
THAT is HISTORICAL data from Benny v. O’Brien (1895), 29 Vroom (58 N.J.Law), 36, 39, 40.
THAT case was argued THREE years PRIOR to Ark AND IS NOT THE OPINION OF SCOTUS IN THIS CASE.
THE OPINION COMES AT THE END OF THE DECISION TEXT AND STATES “CITIZEN” NOT “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
AND, IF YOU INSIST ON CHERRY-PICKING ...
From the Ark case:
2 Kent Com. 258, note.
” ... The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution, and, by that principle, the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned,
(namely, foreign-born children of citizens, under statutes to be presently referred to)
such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States.
P. 20.
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666] ...”
THIS passage CLEARLY indicates that there is a DISTINCTION between a child “CITIZEN” born of ALIEN parents and a “NATURAL-BORN” child of a citizen ...
WHY do you think the distinction was specified ???
Wow, exactly my and many others contention. A U.S. citizen is either born or made so. One is either born a U.S. citizen and thus “natural born” or one is made so by some “naturalization” process to become a naturalized citizen.
And the decision in Wong Kim Ark quotes from previous cases in its ruling that Wong Kim Ark, the child of two non citizen parents, was “natural born”.
‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
TO ALL:
Some may like this video:
Exactly What IS a Natural Born Citizen?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEnaAZrYqQI
STE=Q
And there in lies the rub - what exactly does it mean? And where is this definition to be found?
Actually the Constitution doesn't define either category and therein lies the problem.
Also, just because the Constitution mentions two categories of citizenship it doesn't preclude other categories from exitsting.
However, the Framers and Law of Nations both define natural born as a child born of two citizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.