Posted on 06/14/2009 9:58:45 PM PDT by DavidFarrar
I have recently been bringing this debate over Obama's U.S. citizenship over at Talking Points Memo. Needles to say, I have received some heat for my efforts. But I have received an interesting response. One that I have been unable to get around. I hope I can find some answers here.
(Excerpt) Read more at tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com ...
Why do you lie about your's?
You’re making up words again.
You're making up facts. Again.
Your illiteracy and your hatred of America could have the same root cause. I suggest a CAT scan.
And I suggest you try some heavy duty therapy.
The opinion of someone whom I hold in high regard:
Carefully consider Chief Justice Fuller’s dissenting opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. In it, Chief Justice Fuller firmly objected to the notion, seemingly raised (but not truly pursued) by the author of SCOTUS’s majority opinion in that case (Justice Horace Gray), that the only thing “natural born” ever meant in the first place was that the individual in question was born on U.S. soil: “[I]t is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
The Caselaw of Natural Born Citizen, from Beckwith, freeper:
Natural Born Citizen Chart
People are confused because they don't understand the meaning of the relevant legal terms. This chart that shows the elements for each of the constitutional terms that are used in the Constitution or in Caselaw by the Supreme Court.
C H A R T at http://www.theobamafile.com/NaturalBornCitizenChart2.htm
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..." (http://americamustknow.com/default.aspx)
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. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, that holding is correct.
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.
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”
With all due respect,
The country existed, it was the Republic that was new. But I get your drift. But you are quite wrong. Up until that time (the adoption of the Constitution), all of the 55 “framers” were British subjects, with 46 being born in the ‘colonies’. At that time, the term “naturalized” would have had no meaning to the framers. If you were alive and living in this country at the time the Constitution was adopted by the thirteen colonies, you were a U.S. citizen. If both of your parents were alive and living in this country, you were a “natural born” citizen.
This isn’t rocket science. I daresay it just may be easy enough for the U.S. Supreme Court to grasp this meaning, even if you cannot.
ex animo
davidfarrar
The link is http://polarik.blogtownhall.com
The Seal on Obama’s COLB looks nothing like the seals used on 2007 COLBs, they are even somewhat different looking than the 2006 seals and the 2008 seals.
I am working on an update to my final report where I will be including some special analytical tools for comparing various graphics.
I’ll write more tomorrow.
There is no link in Post 51.
There are court cases all over the place. Parents both citizens, born anywhere, Born in the US, parents don’t matter, and Parents must be citizens, born in the US.
Check out post 62. Supposedly from someone who practices in the federal court system.
I’m not saying there is a case that defines 3 classes of citizenship.
I was talking about how depending on who you talk to, and what you read, there seems to be 3 different ideas about what consitutes a ‘Natural born citizen’
1. Born in the US of two US citizens
2. Born in the US = parents citizenship doesn’t matter
3. Born of two US citizens - where born doesn’t matter
And then there are the ‘special circumstances’.
I know it’s not always the greatest source, but the Wikipedia seems to cover all the different ideas about ‘natural born’ citing cases to back up each claim.
I can’t seem to open your “Why Obama will never show his birth certificate link”. I have allow the “block content” security clearance, but it will not open.
Any suggestions?
ex animo
davidfarrar
You are correct, there isn’t a Supreme Court case directly on point as to what the Constitutional framers meant by “natural born”, at least not yet. As someone here pointed out, there is statutory “natural born” and then there is Constitutional “natural born”, and the two do not necessarily have to match. But, in my humble opinion, if our servicemen and women are serving overseas protecting us from harm’s way, and if they are U.S. citizens, by God, their offspring are going to be “natural born”, it all goes to allegiance.
ex animo
davidfarrar
I would point out that Justice Waitie does not issue a definitive ruling on the natural born citizen definition, merely gives an opinion that some believe the matter is unresolved. Even if true, in any case the Ark decision came along 24 years later and put the matter to rest.
I'll assume that the reasons for your high opinion of Chief Justice Fuller extend beyond this one decision. And I'll also point out that the Ark ruling was a 6 to 2 decision. Chief Justice Fuller may have been more in line with your opinions but 75% of the court was not, and so the definition of a natural born citizen was determined to include those born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship of their parents. And if he was born in Hawaii then that would include Obama.
A natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.
Except that in the Elg case only the father was identified as a U.S. citizen. Then mother apparently was not. 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.
The founders had to grandfather themselves because the knew that when they were born there was no United States so how could they be natural born citizens?
The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen
According to federal law, § 1401 of the U.S. code, if you are born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents then you are a citizen at birth and not a natural born citizen. So if you follow your logic then nobody it a natural born citizen because that status is not defined anywhere. If you follow the Constitution, which identifies only two classes of citizenship, then native born citizen, natural born citizen, and citizen at birth are all synonymous.
You can read it on my blog: http://polarik.blogtownhall.com if you can’t read the one on here.
With all due respect the country did not exist under any form when any of the founders was born. So they could not be natural born U.S. citizens.
If you were alive and living in this country at the time the Constitution was adopted by the thirteen colonies, you were a U.S. citizen. If both of your parents were alive and living in this country, you were a “natural born” citizen.
I don't see how you can reach the conclusion that that is what that particular clause means. The clause is meant to restrict the presidency to people who were born into U.S. citizenship and not who obtained it later in life. The grandfather clause was necessary because otherwise none of the signers of the Constitution, and the political leadership of the time, would have qualified.
This isn’t rocket science. I daresay it just may be easy enough for the U.S. Supreme Court to grasp this meaning, even if you cannot.
I grasp your meaning. I cannot follow what passes for your logic.
The it is a poorly trained practitioner. The Ark case and the Elg case do not say what he claims they say.
I’m not saying there is a case that defines 3 classes of citizenship.
Then if the Constitution does not say that there are 3 classes of citizenship then how can you reach the conclusion that there are?
I was talking about how depending on who you talk to, and what you read, there seems to be 3 different ideas about what consitutes a ‘Natural born citizen’
If we can agree that there are but two forms of citizenship - natural born and naturalized - then the definition is easy. If you are not naturalized then you're natural born. The law defines what constitutes natural born, and the most current definition is Here
Over a million dollars now in legal fees.
Except he travelled to Pakistan for several months as a wandering young adult.
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.