Replies

His claim? Do you know what the CRS is? It is not a person but the research group that our congress depends upon for its interpretation of the law!

The most recent CRS memo on eligibility was written by Jack Maskell. The memo is HIS opinion, but is obviously superceded by the three Supreme Court decisions that were unanimous in affirming that NBC = all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.

I only know of two, natural born and naturalized.

What you "know of" doesn't define the full limits of citizenship. I just gave you a third type of citizenship directly from the Minor decision. Here's another part of that same passage. Maybe you'll understand this better:

He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens.

Do you understand?? The "original citizens" were citizens by association, not by naturalization nor by birth, per se. The 14th amendment ADDED two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and naturalization for those persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which the Ark court defined as "resident aliens." If such person were already citizens, then there was no need for the 14th amendment.

Mr Bingham wrote in 1862:

He didn't write that. This was from a debate; a few sentences later he added a qualifier that the natural-born citizens were those born "of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty ..." this description alone precludes Obama from being a natural-born citizen. Thanks for pointing it out.

Furthermore you mention Luria as if it helps your argument.

It does. You conveniently omitted the citations for the bolded sentence:

Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.

You'll notice, there's absolutely NO reference to Wong Kim Ark, so the court is NOT citing Ark as a precedent on presidential eligiblity, but it DOES cite Minor; and we already know that Minor defined natives as "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens."

Maybe I’m going at this all wrong with you. When you say “NBC = all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens” you are of course correct. Of that there is no question. But the rest of Minors statement refers to Indians, blacks, Chinese, gypsies, and such; a matter the Minor court left unsettled.

But can NBC be obtained in other ways as in just by being born in America? How would you explain this:

“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”

Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)

or this

“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application.” Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866):