Thomas Breaks Tradition: Forces Supreme Court to Look at Obama Citizenship Case

THE AFRO-AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS ^ | 12/3/08 | James Wright, AFRO Staff Reporter

[calenel]

"I would run. I”m a citizen, just born in italy so i don’t qualify."

Were you a citizen at birth? If so, you are natural born. How about the other two requiremetns? 14 years a resident? 35 years old? Those can be acquired with time.

[Tublecane]

“No, anyone that is merely BORN in the US cannot be President.”

True. However, everyone born a citizen of the United States can be president.

[calenel]

"To all those that think mccain becomes president BIDEN becomes ACTTING President until a valid candidate can be selected by the CONGRESS."

This might be a place for one of them renegade commas. But I think I get your point. McCain can only become President if enough Electors switch (but that is true for Mickey Mouse as well, and I dare anyone to challenge his natural born American status) or if it falls to the House, where the House members would have to vote for McCain or nobody (assuming nobody but Obama and McCain get EVs). If there is no qualified President-elect to take office, the VP-elect becomes Acting President - not President, but Acting President - until a President qualifies. Assuming that there is one or more Faithless Electors, whomever they cast their vote for also makes the House's short list (up to three total). It has to be someone that received an EV, though.

[calenel]

"No, I need someone to point out exactly where the legal difference between the two is defined."

I've been asking for this for a month and not one of the people regurgitating the "a citizen at birth but not a natural born citizen" crap has provided such. Because it is an imaginary distinction.

[Tublecane]

“And yet that is exactly what we are debating, and why the Founders put requirements in place for the job.”

Not exactly. I was saying that not being able to be president hardly makes a difference in the life of a child not born a citizen, considering how hard it is to be elected president. To understand why it’s a fair trade-off to favor the interests of the nation over the interest of non-natural born citizens, you have to realize the distinction I’m using between naturalized citizens as a class and naturalized citizens as individuals. The chances that one person among the entire population of naturalized citizens is significant, whereas the chances that one particular natuaralized citizen could do the same is nill.

The qualification exists in the first place because the Founders didn’t think it was worth risking an enemy in the presidency, even if it wasn’t that likely. Of course, back then it was a lot more likely that foreigners could be elected, since the monarchies of Europe had so much money, and, given the state of mass media, starting out with a famous name would be a huge advantage.

[Tublecane]

“The chances that one person among the entire population of naturalized citizens is significant, whereas the chances that one particular natuaralized citizen could do the same is nill.”

I meant to say: “The chances that one person among the entire population of naturalized citizens could be elected president is significant, whereas the chances that one particular natuaralized citizen could do the same is nill.”

[calenel]

Check out Perkins vs. Elg pages Page 307 U.S. 328-331.

Perkins vs Elg eliminates the "two US citizen parents" [328, 329], "two US born parents" [329] and "Parents can renounce children's citizenship" [329] arguments. It validates the "citizen at birth by virtue of being born in US" argument [328] and "dual citizenships are okay" [330, 331] positions.

[calenel]

"That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen"

There is no such provision, unless, as St.George himself believed, 'native-born' and 'natural-born' are the same. Isn't the whole basis of the mythical 'born a citizen but not a natural born citizen' or 'native born but not natural born' that there is a distinction? You can hardly base such an argument on the writings of someone who used the terms interchangeably. He does not create this third class. He does say, in effect, that "we should not elect foreigners to the office", however, dual citizens are not foreigners.

[Red Steel]

Did the case in question explicitly state that it chose the word “native” instead of “natural” for specific reasons?...

“You doubt it”

LOL!

Here what the case says in quotes:

"Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the facts in foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873, in the city of San Francisco of California and the United States of America, and was and is a laborer

The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873, in the city of San Francisco, in the state of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the emperor of China. They were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and are still enjoying a permanent domicile and residence therein at San Francisco. They continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China; and, during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China.

Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to wit, in California, within the United States and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence; n d neither he, nor his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him [169 U.S. 649, 653] therefrom. In 1890 (when he must have been about 17 years of age) he departed for China, on a temporary visit, and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto by sea in the same year, and was permitted by the collector of customs to enter the United States, upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States. After such return, he remained in the United States, claiming to be a citizen thereof, until 1894, when he (being about 21 years of age, but whether a little above or a little under that age does not appear) again departed for China on a temporary visit, and with the intention of returning to the United States; and he did return thereto, by sea, in August, 1895, and applied to the collector of customs for permission to land, and was denied such permission, upon the sole ground that he was not a citizen of the United States.

It is conceded that, if he is a citizen of the United States, the acts of congress known as the 'Chinese Exclusion Acts,' prohibiting persons of the Chinese race, and especially Chinese laborers, from coming into the United States, do not and cannot apply to him....."

-end of excerpt-

After the facts of the case presented by Justice Gray, he delivers the majority opinion starting at Roman numeral I. Wong is never mentioned in his majority opinion of the court until he gives his disposition at the end of his writings, in Roman numeral VII. The only sentence that specifically mentions Wong Kim Ark as “native born citizen” is the one in bold above, in the fact section.

In Justice Grays opinion, it is full of historical details in the minutia; acts, doctrines, old statutes, and cases to the point of ad nauseum. He gives a dissertation on allegiances and the types of citizens from old Europe to the Emperor of China until he gets to section IV. Where he goes onto explain native-born citizens (of old France) who are “independently of the origin of the father and mother, and of their domicile”. This is the part of his opinion where judge Gray applied the law to Wong vs. U.S. in the case.

Wong Kim Ark vs. U.S. has nothing to do with answering the question who can be a "natural born citizen" What it does is establish who can be a "native-born citizen" by virtue of being born in the United States. The opinion of the court is a narrow judgment.

[Red Steel]

See my post above #669 for info.

[editor-surveyor]

Journalists? - Where?

[Tublecane]

“Wong Kim Ark vs. U.S. has nothing to do with answering the question who can be a ‘natural born citizen’ What it does is establish who can be a ‘native-born citizen’ by virtue of being born in the United States. The opinion of the court is a narrow judgment.”

It hardly matters to me that the judgement was narrow; I of course knew in the first place that the presidency was not at issue. What I was looking for was whether or not the justices consciously used the term “native born” to mean something different from “natural born.” It appears that they did not. Most likely, it’s a matter of pure chance that they used the word “native” instead of “natural.”

Nothing from your post, or any case law I’ve ever read, tells me there is a difference between a native born citizen and a natural born citizen. Both refer to a citizen from birth. If Mr. Wong, born of two non-citizens on American soil, is a citizen from birth according to the 14th amendment, then I submit that he (and Obama, for that matter) are elligible for the presidency.

[Windflier]

Wong Kim Ark vs. U.S. has nothing to do with answering the question who can be a "natural born citizen" What it does is establish who can be a "native-born citizen" by virtue of being born in the United States. The opinion of the court is a narrow judgment.

Thanks, RS. I'm glad there are people on this forum who know of these decisions, and are willing to share them with the rest of us. It's very educational, and helps to understand the current imbroglio better.

[SerafinQ]

becasue we need to have justices appointed that realize this and rule based on teh law and not personal preferences

[Red Steel]

If Mr. Wong, born of two non-citizens on American soil, is a citizen from birth according to the 14th amendment, then I submit that he (and Obama, for that matter) are elligible for the presidency.

The Supreme Court in 1898 used the term to describe the citizen status of 'native born' instead of 'natural born' for a good reason, and to cite a key clause in the 14th Amendment with the meaning of “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Because of this clause in the 14th Amendment they withheld bestowing natural born citizen on Wong Ark because of his ties to the Empire of China through his alien parents. Therefore, they gave a narrow ruling, for which Wong Ark could never be president of the United States.

[danamco]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4FqVRWgrNw

[Tublecane]

“The Supreme Court in 1898 used the term to describe the citizen status of ‘native born’ instead of ‘natural born’ for a good reason, and to cite a key clause in the 14th Amendment with the meaning of ‘Not owing allegiance to anybody else.’”

You must be refering to the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause. Nothing about the clause in itself implies that children born on American soil to parents with foreign allegiances are not natural born citizens. You’d have to find language to such an effect somewhere else in the Constitution. Since the 14th amendment is the only place in the Constitution that defines citizenship, and since the presidential qualifications clause does not define “natural born citizen” as seperate from the people born as citizens in the 14th amendment, I still see no reason why Wong, Elg, or Obama aren’t qualified to be president.

I’ve read a quote either on this thread or somewhere else that said, “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.” Be that as it may, such language is not in the 14th amendment. In fact, I have not read such language anywhere in the Constitution, in federal law, or in case law. Language baring citizens with “parents...owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty” from being president simply does not exist, so far as I know.

“Because of this clause in the 14th Amendment they withheld bestowing natural born citizen on Wong Ark because of his ties to the Empire of China through his alien parents.”

Where do you get that? I have seen no evidence that they used the term “native born” instead of “natural born” because they consciously decided Wong was a citizen but not elligible to be president. They granted Wong Ark citizenship under the 14th amendment because of where he was born, which makes him both a natural born and a native born citizen. I have searched and searched the internet, and could find no reliable source to tell me that there is a difference between “native born” and “natural born,” because those terms mean the same thing, i.e. citizen by birth (via “the right of soil”).

[BP2]

I don’t think you ever responded to my earlier question of a specific reference for the change in the definition of ‘natural born’ from that found in the dictionary: ‘having an attribute or quality from birth’. Do you have one?

Yep ...

The following reference is by Emer de Vattel (April 25, 1714 - December 28, 1767). He was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political philosophy. He is most famous for his 1758 work, "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns." This work was his claim to fame and won him enough prestige to be appointed as a councilor to the court of King Augustus III of Saxony.

From p. 183 of "The Law of Nations":

NOTE the words "born", "parents" and "citizens".

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Now here's a copy of the famous letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention where he suggests the President be a natural born Citizen.

Notice how John Jay has Underlined the word "born". On the Constitutional drafts, he underlines born" in nearly all instances.

And now, my standard disclaimer to all of the new TROLLs around here: Welcome to FR. Now read, and learn. You have much to learn. Facts are about to become part of your world. That will be uncomfortable at first. Maybe even painful, depending on how tightly you cling to your delusions.

[Tublecane]

“The Supreme Court in 1898 used the term to describe the citizen status of ‘native born’ instead of ‘natural born’ for a good reason, and to cite a key clause in the 14th Amendment with the meaning of ‘Not owing allegiance to anybody else.’”

I think I just noticed a logical problem. If, as you argue, the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause requires that a child’s parents not owe allegiance to another country, why would the court decide that Wong Ark was a U.S. citizen? That is to say, how do you exclude Wong Ark from being president using text from the 14th amendment when the exact same text was used to give citizenship?

If the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause did not keep him from being a citizen, then how could it keep him from being president? Again, no part of the Constitution offers a different definition of natural born citizen than the definition of a “native” born citizen offered under the 14th amendment.

[STARWISE]

Great job .. have you forwarded this research
to the attorneys on the citizenship cases?
I bet they would appreciate it ... 9 days
and counting.