Replies

He’s the first candidate with one parent as a foreign national, his father, and thus was born with dual citizenship. All of this neatly verified on Obama’s own websites, fightthesmears.com and factcheck.org

Past presidents had foreign parents, but became naturalized U.S. citizens upon the candidates birth.

The framers wanted to limit the presidency to at least second-generation — fearful of usurpers, they wanted one’s allegiance solely to the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has historically defined natural born citizen with case precedent.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark’s importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similiar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn’t, they could not be President of the U.S.

Perkins v. Elg’s importance is that it actually gives examples of what a Citizen of the U.S. is; what a native born American Citizen is; and what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. A natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

Congress for 26 times has tried to change the meaning of natural born citizen as early as the 1790 Nationality Act and 26 times the bill has been defeated, repealed or ruled unconstitutional. The meaning of what natural born citizen is what it is.

Furthermore for the 14th Amendment fanatics:

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

” ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”

Citizenship of parents at the time of a candidate’s birth do matter in regards to “natural born” citizenship status (in contrast to the other two classifications, citizen, and naturalized citizen) uniquely designed for the presidency.

There is no third class of citizenship uniquely designed for the presidency. The natural born citizen clause is simply an exclusion of naturalized citizens, a concept that comes straight out of the English common law, which is what governed citizenship both during the colonial period and after independence.

One's citizenship didn't come from the federal government. It came from the states. In other words, you were only a US citizen by virtue of being a citizen of one of the states.

After independence, all of the thirteen states adopted what are called "reception statutes." These statutes essentially stated that unless modified by a state's constitution or legislative acts of the state, the laws of the state would be the English common law, as the states couldn't just go and create an entire body of law and jurisprudence overnight.

Here's an example from New York's 1777 Constitution:

Such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.

None of the states modified the English common law with regard to citizenship. Therefore what defined citizenship was the jus solis of the English common law, which didn't care what the citizenship of your parents were, unless your parents were in the US as foreign diplomats.

Under jus solis, it's the soil you're born on that determines your citizenship. Not the citizenship of your parents.

The framers wanted to limit the presidency to at least second-generation — fearful of usurpers, they wanted one’s allegiance solely to the United States.

No, they simply wanted to exclude naturalized citizens. This too comes straight out of English common law which excluded naturalized citizens from political office such as the Privy Council, and Parliament.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark’s importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similiar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England.

THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!

Give that man a ceeeeegar!

Again, natural born citizenship under English common law was jus solis. You are a natural born citizen of the country in which you are born, irrespective of the citizenship of your parents, foreign diplomats notwithstanding.

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

” ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”

Bingham's mention of parents "not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty" is the "out" for those who are born in the US to foreign diplomats.

Again, the jus solis of English common law didn't care about the citizenship of one's parents.

Here's a contemporary of Bingham's, speaking on the very same subject (Civil Rights Act of 1866):

Blackstone says:

"The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural born subjects are such as are born within the dominion of the Crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens are those as as born out of it." --Sharwood's Blackstone, vol. 1, p. 364.

The principle here laid down applies to this country as well as to England. It makes a man a subject of England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, "founded in reason and the nature of government."

The English law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects; nor does it do so in regard to naturalization. This law bound the colonies before the Revolution, and was not changed afterward.

And just to show you that under English common law it was absolutely clear that the citizenship of one's parents didn't matter, here's Blackstone once again:

The children of aliens born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural born subjects, and entitled to all of the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.

"Generally speaking" again refers to the "out" granted to children born to foreign diplomats, who, as per Blackstone, "owe not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent."

In any case, we did NOT adopt the constitution of France. We adopted English common law, under which, if you are born in the United States, you are a "natural born citizen" regardless of the citizenship of your parents.