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 ...
There was never any question that Clinton’s father was an American citizen at the time of Billy’s birth.
There was never any question that Obama’s father was NOT an American citizen at any time.
Therefore, Obama did not receive citizenship by descent from his father (i.e., “natural born”). If that is what the law requires, as opposed to receiving citizenship by descent from his mother or from both parents, then Obama is not a natural born citizen and, therefore, is not eligible to serve as President of the United States.
I am so sorry I missed it then. Thank you.
Believe me, no problem! I just wanted to marry up the two discussions. I am getting busy on the new thread myself right now. And I’m glad you saw the article this time. It’s a very, very good one.
Thanks again.
This is not a complete statement. In this example, you would be a British citizen (IF so under British law) and you would be an American citizen by operation of law based on the place of your birth.
You would not, however, be a "natural born citizen," because you did not attain American citizenship by operation of nature (by descent from your father or from your father and mother).
What is confusing is that that there are no differences between being a citizen BY birth (that is, by operation of nature) and a citizen AT birth (that is, by operation of law) EXCEPT in one highly unusual, specific and important respect: only those who are citizens BY birth---that is, by descent---(as opposed to AT birth--that is, by law) are eligible to serve as president.
The practical reason for this seems to be to limit the presidency (and the office of Commander in Chief) to those individuals who were at least second-generation Americans.
More here if you're interested:
Citizen by birth ("natural born"), citizen by operation of law, naturalized citizens. [ #22 ]
Limiting the presidency to those who are at least second-generation Americans. [ #108 ]
Like these words from Justice Gray?:
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. 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."
This idea may be recognized at law, but it was not defined by law.
No country in the history of the world has ever denied citizenship by birth to the children of its citizens. This was considered a "natural" right, a characteristic that descended from one's father naturally, meaning on its own, without any help from or approval needed from a sovereign.
As I've posted elsewhere on this point:
When two robins mate, they produce robins. When two Americans mate, they produce Americans.
That is the “nature” of things, pure and simple. One could say that is the “law of nature.” It "naturally" happens by the act of birthing. It has never been countenanced that a man, apart, perhaps, from legal fictions such as slavery, could be born without a country.
No one needs a preacher (or a lawyer, for that matter) to reveal that robins birth robins and Americans birth Americans.
That is all.
Everything beyond that is made up by man and, thus, is not by operation of nature, but by operation of law.
How can you determine who are citizens by act of law if you do not first define by law who are not? In otherwords, how can you legally define a naturalized citizen without first defining who is a natural born citizen? And that is what Congress has done over the years, defining citizens at birth as opposed to naturalized citizens. So why shouldn't their definition apply to presidential candidates?
Hmmm. Pretty much sounds like. Now.
My answer to your question is here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2144085/posts?page=26#26
They are native born citizens, not natural born citizens.
They are citizens AT birth, not citizens BY birth.
They attained citizenship because our laws deem persons born in the U.S. to be U.S. citizens.
A natural born citizenship attains citizenship by descent from his American parents, regardless of his birthplace.
Boo, sorry for the italics. MB.
Your earlier thread and your comments therein are very interesting, sorry that I missed it first time around.
Agree, required reading.
So to continue your analogy a bit further, you can by law turn a robin into an eagle? Or that the offspring of a beagle and a poodle is not a dog?
We're talking citizenship not species. Citizenship is an act of man, not nature, and man defines what constitutes citizenship. And you can go back far before this country was established and find that the accepted rule was that a person born in the country was a citizen of that country. You can go back to Edward Coke in the 17th century who's writings influenced much of England's common law that everyone seems so fond of, and who wrote "...if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm..." And since the ratification of the 14th Amendment, even before then, the accepted principle was that children born in the country were citizens at birth.
With respect to your comment as why GOP did not make Natural Born Citizen an Issue. GOP knew that its nominee, Senator McCain, under the same definition of NBC was not eligible. There were several lawsuits challenging Senator McCain eligibility long before the first lawsuit was filed against Obama.
With regard to your second point that how 1800 law sticks in modern day: In the absence of any amendment or any case law, the 1800 law applies
Yes, it is a very good article. I’ve just finished perusing the comments at the source article — excellent, as well.
lol. Ah-yes, but then there is the term "Native American Indians". I recall a time when these were referred to as "Indians" in all public ed textbooks. PCisms wrought about "Native American".
Just had to throw this into the mix. And yes, I do understand the distinction between "native" and "natural law" being discussed here. I once heard a leftwing discussion forum on perpetrating the notion that under American laws, the only ones who really were qualified to run for POTUS in this sovereign nation would be "Native American" Indians. This, however, is a function of liberalism, and not law.
Back to your post: the robin then is also Native (pre establishment of governing laws). Therefore, an American Indian can be both "native" and "natural born" provided his/her father is natural born American.
ruminating aloud...
Then the Federal government will be illegitimate and so will be anything it asks its citizens to do. Presumably, we can stop paying Federal Income.
Legal union (Marriage) of Stanly Ann Dunham to the sperm donor is irrelevant. In other word sperm donor counts and not the legality of the union. On 12/4, two attorneys discussed this topic on Plains Radio.
If Barack sr. is not the sperm donor, then Mr. Obama needs to disclose who his father is.
Just my opinion, but I don’t think that Stanley Ann and Barack Sr’s being married, or not married would make any difference in Obama Jr’s citizenship.
Obama Sr was his father. He would have passed British citizenship to his son, whether he was married to the kid’s mother, or not.
Similarly with Stanley Ann, the fact that she was unmarried at the birth of her son would not have stopped her conveyance of US citizenship to her child (though not Natural Born citizenship).
Another fact to be aware of, is that Barack Obama has freely admitted that he held British citizenship at birth. It’s on his website, and the quote has been posted here many times.
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.