Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur
And where does it do that? Not on the SS-5 form used to apply for a Social Security number or to change citizenship status. So where does it make this distinction? The State Department makes the distinction in U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs, section 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President;”

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

But the distinction between classes of citizen only really matters for eligibility to the office of President. The Constitutional meaning has never been tested in Court, and this should not be surprising. There have not been many opportunities to hear such a case, and only one other were the person actually became President. But his disability, if he had one, was not discovered until well after he had left office. Chester Arthur did take measures to hide the fact that his father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth, although he was born in the US, and of a US Citizen mother... just like BHO may have been. But if BHO was not born in the US, but rather outside of it,then under the law in effect at the time, he wasn't even a "Citizen at Birth", which precludes him being a "natural born citizen". For being a citizen at birth is only a necessary condition for being a "Natural Born Citizen", not necessarily a sufficient one.

181 posted on 06/23/2009 11:00:56 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies ]


To: El Gato
“...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
Do you know if the passage is in the 1795 version exactly the same as above? If memory serves, the phrase 'shall be natural born' was removed int he 1795 version, but not from the passage you cited. It is instructive as to what the founders considered natural born to mean. It would also address Barry Soetoro's dual citizenship at birth due to his Kenyan father.
185 posted on 06/24/2009 7:37:03 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson