Posted on 08/03/2009 9:32:38 AM PDT by Crush T Velour
Some so-called Birthers are resting their arguments on Chief Justice Marshall's supposed reliance a claimed "Vetter's" definition of "natural born citizenship". They believe that that court has not ruled on this issue otherwise. This is not so.
This case I've linked to regarded whether a certain child was a natural born citizen because he was born to chinese immigrant parents in the United States who were in the country lawfully.
The SCOTUS determined that the child was a NATURAL BORN citizen for the following reasons:
1. The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of "citizen" or "natural-born citizen" by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law [of England], the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.
2. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.
Yeah it does. It's the case that said that with few, specific exceptions a person born in the U.S. is a citizen at birth - AKA natural-born citizen - regardless of the nationality of their parents. And regardless of whether they're running for president or not.
And that definition is to be found in what clause of the Constitution?
Do you happen to have a list of the other ones? This is the one that gets cited in court when there are challenges.
The case had nothing to do with the eligibility clause of the Constitution. You want to apply it there to suit your wishes but it does not. 14th Amendment style citizenship (anchor-baby) has no bearing on the Constitutional requirement for president. Show me one place in this ruling that it says it was redefining the eligibility clause. You can’t because it does not exist.
Supporting the law equates being a lunatic like Rosie? If that's what you think of FReepers, then why are you here?The law is not on your side. I'm a FReeper too. Not all FReepers agree with you on this. In fact, I'll warrant that most of us don't.
Obama could have been born in the WH. It still doesn't make him a nautral-born citizen eligible to be President...Two natural-born U.S. citizens.Read the damn 110 year old ruling. You don't know what you are talking about. It's embarrassing. THe Constitution NOWHERE says you have to have two natural born citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. If it were so, it would mean that you have to be the direct decendant ON MOTHER'S AND FATHER'S SIDE of a couple in the US in 1789. Because if you come from immigrants since then NONE OF THEIR DECENDENTS could ever be a "natural born" citizen. It's ludicrous.
If a person becomes a citizen of another country, is he still eligible to be president, if he moves back? Especially if the person returning does not process the documents to become an official US citizen again?
If we could see his long form BC, and the paperwork he submitted to get into his first college, we’d be better able to determine his status.
But it’s not really about all that. Bush II had several memes or labels applied to him that he was hammered with 24/7. It hurt him and diminished his power. Thus the concept of attaching a meme, a concept, on the president was seen to work, have power, be effective politically. And since it was done consistently for 8 years (It’s Bush’s Fault, 911 plot, Bush Lied People Died, and a dozen more) whether or not there was truth behind the chanting, it must be OK, it must be an acceptable technique since few on the left or in the media complained about the massive disrespect or tried to change it.
So here is Saul Alinsky being read by conservatives, and golly listen to the left complain!
How wacked out are you going to get on this? If your claim is true then virtually nobody can be president. We all trace our heritage back to a immigrant from somewhere. By your definition the child of that person cannot be a natural-born citizen since the immigrant is not a natural-born citizen. And then their grandchild cannot be a natural-born citizen. And their great-grandchild cannot. And so on, and so on.
Sure it does. It defines "natural born citizen."
The case had nothing to do with the eligibility clause of the Constitution. You want to apply it there to suit your wishes but it does not. 14th Amendment style citizenship (anchor-baby) has no bearing on the Constitutional requirement for president. Show me one place in this ruling that it says it was redefining the eligibility clause. You can’t because it does not exist.The case determined that an anchor-baby is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. The Constitution says only NATURAL BORN CITIZENS can be President. Ergo...anchor babies can be President of the United States.
It's not complicated.
No it does not. The case had nothing to do with Constitutional elgibility for POTUS - so stop lying.
Show me where the Constitution defines natural-born citizen. Show me where the law defines it. You can't.
What the Ark case said was that a child born in the U.S. was a citizen from the moment of birth, regardless of the nationality of the parents. The Constitution defines only two forms of citizenship - natural born and naturalized. So if you're not naturalized - one who has become a citizen by act of law and not circumstances of birth - then you are natural born. Regardless of whether you call it natural born, citizen at birth, citizen by birth, they all mean the same thing.
You seem to ignore the simple fact that the judge was not ruling on the eligibility clause of the Constitution. The case had nothing to do with that. You are just making that part of this up to suit your own wishes.
I don’t know ANYTHING about your president X.
I don’t know what his name is, or what is parents names were, where he was born, when he was born, who witnessed his birth...NOTHING.
And I don’t believe a single word he says, or anyone associated with him.
Because he’s a stinking liar.
You mean, aside from the fact that this whole thing has to do with the definition of "natural-born citizen?"
Sigh.... the triumph of hope over rationality.
- so stop lying.
LOL! What are you ... about 4 years old?
I dont have to show you where it is defined. The Court should rule on the definition of the term at the time of the adoption of our Constitution and it hasn’t as of yet. Your case did not address the requirements for POTUS under the Constitution at all.
The Constitution describes “natural born citizens” and “naturalized citizens” There are no other types. There is no method for a baby born in the US to be naturalized by having a citizen parent. So such children are NATURAL BORN citizens.
First off, that is not what is in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution has “Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen”. The issue of “Naturalized Citizen” has evolved over the years. That is where the story gets interesting and so tangled up. While there may be no explicit definition, when you put what case law there is into one pot, it becomes obvious that not one of those cases offers up a ruling, a judgement, a line of argument that ever contradicts this definition: A natural born citizen is born of TWO parents who are both Citizens. If one parent is not a citizen, naturalized or otherwise, then the child is “only” a Citizen.
this point has been made over and over and over again. There is nothing prejudicial or racial about it. It is a straight forward concept that some very immature and ill informed legal types cannot accept. They also happen to be the ones who prefer to ignore the U.S. Constitution.
Sorry, but natural born doesn’t mean or imply “born in the USA”, it means that the person was “a U.S. citizen at birth”. (see John McCain)
I agree with the original comment. There are under U.S. law two types of U.S. citizens.
Natural born = a U.S. citizen at birth.
Naturalized = became a U.S. citizen by a “naturalization” process.
Hence the need to prove where he was born.
There are several that have dealt with citizenship status for people born here. Perkins v. Elg is another one. Elk v. Wilkins is another. Minor v. Happersett is often quoted, but that was a voting rights case and not a citizenship case. Then there are other cases from lower courts and state courts.
Go read the ruling posted above my friend.
Natural Born Citizen is a very specific term, and in the context of the constituional writing that terms meaning is very well understood and defined. No child of a parent who owes allegance to another nation, whether that child be born on US Soil or not is a natural born citizen.
The constitution does not simply say “citizen” or “native born citizen” it uses a very well understood and defined phrase of “natural born citizen”. Words have meaning folks, even if you have been taught otherwise by a dumbed down educational system. The framers and authors of the constitution used words for their meanings, not arbitrarily.
Ignoring the historical context of the writing of the constitution to play semantics with it post facto like those who try to argue “natural born” does not mean what it means are guilty of what Madison warned of when he stated the obvious:
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
-James Madison
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.