Posted on 12/06/2008 10:16:07 AM PST by centurion316
What might the phrase “natural-born citizen” of the United States imply under the U.S. Constitution? The phrase has always been obscure due to the lack of any single authoritative source to confer in order to understand the condition of citizenship the phrase recognizes. Learning what the phrase might have meant following the Declaration of Independence, and following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires detective work. As with all detective work, eliminating the usual suspects from the beginning goes a long way in quickly solving a case.
What Natural-Born Citizen Could Not Mean
Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth?
(Excerpt) Read more at federalistblog.us ...
I've always maintained that there is a COLB, and that the Obama team was dangling it as a rope-a-dope that no one picked up on. However, now that he's been elected why is he not releasing it? That is quite suspicious if you ask me. Secondly, I've also been wondering why people in the GOP are not making an issue of it. Some FReepers have said it's because they don't want to be labeled racist (I say 'so what' to that, since as a citizen ...particularly one that was elected to serve the nation ...you should be willing to lay down your life in the service of the nation, and you should not let someone who is not eligible to take the most powerful seat in that nation just because you don't want to be 'called names'). However, we've hashed that out with other FReepers many times, and there is no need to bring that into this thread (although I do fervently believe that, in the same way 19 year old soldiers are willing to lay down their lives for their country, 60 year old politicians should also be willing to lay down their POLITICAL CAREERS for their country. One should not expect people who cannot legally drink to make the ultimate sacrifice, yet politicians are not willing to risk being called names).
Anyways ....no need to drag that here.
The main thing, as far as I am concerned, in regards to this thread is this: reading it I noticed that a lot of the cases and scenarios are from the late 1800s. Is that not an Achiles heel that any adept lawyer on the Obama side can pick on? All the cases regarding citizenship only being confered by the father alone, and those statements being made in the 1800s, does not seem like it would stick in modern-day America.
Is that movie as bad as Junior? That one was a train wreck, horrible but couldn’t stop watching. I never heard of Rabbit Test.
I am interested in the issue, but have no doubt of the outcome: Barack Hussein Obama will be duly elected by the Electoral College and inaugarated as the President of the United States. This will become just another bit of the Constitution consigned to the waste bin of history because its incovenient for politicians.
Republicans will do nothing about this, of that you can be sure. However, if the shoe was on the other foot, the Democrats would be raising unmitigated hell about it.
Ping!
Not, IMHO, if he's a bastard.
Because of the recent drive toward equal rights for men and women, I believe the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of the union between Stanley Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama will have some bearing on this.
As is well known at this time, Barack Hussein Obama "Sr." was already married to at least one woman in Kenya, and already the father of one or more children, when 17-year-old Stanley became pregnant.
However, Kenya, being British Territory at the time, that earlier marriage may have been unrecognized by the Crown as a so-called "Tribal Marriage."
Logically, if Stanley Dunham were not legally married at the time of the Chosen One's birth, wouldn't that tend to make the bastard a citizen? And if indeed, it happened in Hawaii, wouldn't he automatically be a "Natural born" citizen, no matter what his mother's status at the time? Somewhat tangentially, children born in California to single ... or married ... Mexican citizens in this country illegally, are counted as "Natural Born American Citizens," are they not? OTOH, if they were born anywhere else in the world, they would be Mexican Citizens. This seems to be entirely "unconstitutional," and hallowed by some sort of immigration rules tradition, rather than strict law.
If Stanley Dunham was a natural-born American Citizen legally visiting Kenya (one assumes), wouldn't that make any illegitimate offspring solely hers, and passing to them her American citizenship? Whether the bastard could then be considered a "natural born citizen," if born in another country, is certainly an entirely appropriate question!
If Stanley were legally married to BHO, Sr., their child would be a dual citizen, no matter where it happened, right? BHO, Sr. never accepted American citizenship, and so would pass his rights as a British Subject, and then a Kenyan Citizen, onto his legitimate son.
Since all of this is enough to make anyone's head hurt, I shall not go into the Indonesian Chapters. Let SCOTUS clerks field that foul ball.
So many questions. So little time. And I believe perhaps giving new life to that off-color expression, "Lucky Bastard."
Not, IMHO, if he's a bastard.
Because of the recent drive toward equal rights for men and women, I believe the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of the union between Stanley Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama will have some bearing on this.
As is well known at this time, Barack Hussein Obama "Sr." was already married to at least one woman in Kenya, and already the father of one or more children, when 17-year-old Stanley became pregnant.
However, Kenya, being British Territory at the time, that earlier marriage may have been unrecognized by the Crown as a so-called "Tribal Marriage."
Logically, if Stanley Dunham were not legally married at the time of the Chosen One's birth, wouldn't that tend to make the bastard a citizen? And if indeed, it happened in Hawaii, wouldn't he automatically be a "Natural born" citizen, no matter what his mother's status at the time? Somewhat tangentially, children born in California to single ... or married ... Mexican citizens in this country illegally, are counted as "Natural Born American Citizens," are they not? OTOH, if they were born anywhere else in the world, they would be Mexican Citizens. This seems to be entirely "unconstitutional," and hallowed by some sort of immigration rules tradition, rather than strict law.
If Stanley Dunham was a natural-born American Citizen legally visiting Kenya (one assumes), wouldn't that make any illegitimate offspring solely hers, and passing to them her American citizenship? Whether the bastard could then be considered a "natural born citizen," if born in another country, is certainly an entirely appropriate question!
If Stanley were legally married to BHO, Sr., their child would be a dual citizen, no matter where it happened, right? BHO, Sr. never accepted American citizenship, and so would pass his rights as a British Subject, and then a Kenyan Citizen, onto his legitimate son.
Since all of this is enough to make anyone's head hurt, I shall not go into the Indonesian Chapters. Let SCOTUS clerks field that foul ball.
So many questions. So little time. And I believe perhaps giving new life to that off-color expression, "Lucky Bastard."
I also think it's odd that no actual record of marriage between Stanley and the polygamous, drunken, violent Harvard man, and Luo intellectual has been made public.
We could be seeing ground-breaking new legal tactics here ... The Bastard Gambit!
Well, we’ve already been down that road, and it didn’t make a bit of difference.
Bill Clinton’s real father was a documented bigamist, making Bill a bastard by law to match his well earned right to that title by word and deed. The Kansas City Star did an excellent investigation of this matter at the time and published the relevent documents that proved the point.
As I recall, Mr. Clinton served two terms as President. Mr. Obama will serve at least one term no matter what evidence is presented that he is not elibilbe. Politicians do not observe the Consitution anymore, except when it is in their political interests to do so.
Obviously after Obama gets elected and its been proven that he got there by ignoring the explicit requirements of the Constitution AND endorsed by the SCOTUS it then sets a president that future Presidential nominees need not be US citizens.
Schwarzenegger can be elected, a former head of the USSR can be elected, an Italian porn star can be elected, by not enforcing it NOW it opens the door for every clown dog and pony show on earth to take turns sitting in the Oval Office.
This is a very well thought out argument and I tip my hat to the author. Except for a couple of points it seems irrefutable. The argument says you must be a citizen by nature and not by law, and explains this as descending from the citizenship or allegiance of ones father. As an example he states that if my father were a British citizen, my mother an American citizen and I was born in the United States, then I would be a British citizen. It sounds very logical including the part that says by law my father could repatriate me to the UK at his will. He says this makes me a British citizen by nature.
If that is true then many of our founders were not eligible for the presidency. One can say that laws were passed specifically giving exception to those living in the United States at it's inception. But isn't that citizenship by law, not nature and does it not contradict the authors whole argument.
Secondly, there is no such thing as a citizen by nature. Citizenship is not a biological function whereas birth is a natural biological function. It takes a law to say you are a citizen of the country of your biological father. If it were natural, why not the mother? It is simply obfuscation to say that citizenship has anything to do with nature. Citizenship is purely a construct created by law, not nature.
That is not how I read the article. It contends that the original U.S. Citizens were citizens of the various States by virtue of their births in those states and became natural born citizens of the U.S. when those states joined the union, natural connoting their birth right of citizenship and not requiring the invocation of any law. Therefore, those born in the several colonies that subsequently joined the union were natural born.
You are entirely correct, and all politicians, both Democrat and Republican do not wish any limits put on their ability to hold elective office. Since its now proven that anyone can buy an election, politicans will be the last that will wish to have eligibility obstacles placed in their way.
"Therefore, those born in the several colonies that subsequently joined the union were natural born." I certainly agree with your intent and I agree that these men were eligible, but the constitution didn't make them natural born citizens. It just says "a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President" along with natural born citizens. The constitution clearly allowed British citizens living in the colonies to become president. French, Dutch, German, Portuguese & Persian too for that matter. My disagreement with his argument is his definition of natural born, not what the constitution says. He claims natural born means you are by nature born a citizen of the country of your father. How? Is it in the ten commandments? Is it in anything Darwin wrote later? Can a student majoring in biology point to any text book that shows this to be natural. If this is the definition of natural born, then it was defined by law, not nature. Hence, his argument falls apart as he says "If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen."
I'm just saying the definition of natural born simply has to be one defined by law not nature.
On a tangent, Article II, Section 1 does leave a bit of wonderment. How can one be a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution? Weren't they all citizens of Britain, or the British colonies at that time, and then conveyed citizenship in the United States after it's adoption? I say the author wants the term natural born to mean the elimination of foreign allegiance as it supports his conclusion. But didn't this allow for some very pro-British, very anti-US people the chance to be president? This fellow also argues that natural born eliminates anyone with any allegiance to another nation from becoming president, while the second half of the very same sentence allows for this very thing to happen.
Keep in mind that this is simply my argument, with as much validity as any argument. Any law can be argued to mean anything you want, depending upon a person's persuasiveness on a given day and which side of the bed a judge awakens. In the end judicial law is all opinion and should be name judicial opinion instead of judicial law.
Personally I think Obama is qualified but it would sure be interesting watching a genuine constitutional crisis unfold in the immediate future. Not to mention all the fireworks that would be involved. A fortune will be made in newsprint and ink if it comes to pass.
I take your point.
On the matter of the words about being a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, I believe that the United States had been an independent country for some years prior to the adoption of the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation having proven to be an inadequate framework for the Republic.
On a side note, I am a graduate of the University of Missouri. Three of my children are Mizzou graduates. The fourth, a poor lost soul, is a graduate of the University of Kansas. I tried telling her just last Saturday, while sitting at Arrowhead stadium in Kansas City that she is a natural born Tiger and not a Jayhawk. When the Hawks beat the tigers on the last play of the game her antics, celebrations, hooting and general taunting of her siblings and I didn't indicate much love or allegiance to her natural born ala mater.
University of Arkansas - myself, my wife
University of Colorado - myself
Kansas State University - my wife, my son
Did KU and Mizzou play last weekend? Must have missed it.
Thanks for the ping!
I actually posted this article a week or so ago as a thread myself-—but I am very happy to have it back up again. It needs as much visibility as possible.
More discussion here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2137253/posts
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.