Posted on 10/01/2009 5:44:33 AM PDT by DavidFarrar
I had been discussing the meaning of the phrase "natural-born" U.S. citizen in Al, Sll, C5 of the U.S. Constitution with my learned friend, Loren Collins, when it suddenly occurred to me...
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.ajc.com ...
"Clearly, the writers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind something more than a citizen when they inserted the term “natural-born” citizen into Article I, Section II, Clause IV of the U.S. Constitution. While the place of birth can confer U.S. citizenship, it would take the citizenship of the father to establish a “natural-born” U.S. citizenship."
ex animo
davidfarrar
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
I don’t think he was “natural born”. He hasn’t tried walking on the water yet (that probably will be announced soon) but “The One” could not have come to us in the normal fashion. Hence ... “Not Natural Born”.
As many of us have been saying all along: It ain’t where, but to WHOM.
Bammy ain’t kosher because of his father being Kenyan.
However, if his dad truly was Frank Marshall, then all bets are off.
But we never will know, will we?
He wasn’t born, He was hatched.
So it really comes down to who his father is. He could show the birth certificate, and if Obama Sr. isn’t his father, the whole thing goes away. But then he’s revealed to everyone to be the liar most of already know he is - either way he loses. Sweet.
You’re absolutely right that they did mean something more than “a citizen”, but you’re wrong as to what they had in mind. They meant to exclude NATURALIZED citizens. Your Arnold Schwarzeneggers, Jennifer Granholms, or Henry Kissingers. The modifier “natural born” serves to exclude persons who were not born U.S. citizens. The Constitution does not have any distinction between “natural born” and “native born,” as you said. To the contrary, the federal government has historically used the terms as synonyms.
The idea that “natural born” implies “two citizen parents” is an interpretation that simply is not supported by two plus centuries of American law and practice. Ask a Constitutional law professor. Consult a textbook. If “two citizen parents” was an absolute requirement, the professors would know and the textbooks would include that in the definition.
What is your argument for why “two citizen parents” is the CORRECT interpretation of “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution? What reliable legal sources support that view? Because, as I pointed out before, the overwhelming majority (by which I mean ‘almost universal majority’) of them do not support it.
Makes sense to me. And it seems that he was, in fact, born in Hawaii, so the whole issue is retarded. This energy could be spent much more wisely by showing America what a disaster he and his policies are. This “birther” movement is counterproductive, to say the least.
Don’t we already know who his father is? We all heard Qaddafi say Obama is his son.
Natural-born has NEVER meant non-naturalized. See this thread which presents the Oxford English Dictionary definitions for natural-born and native-born. Note that native-born is presented because the OED suggests that the definition for natural-born be compared with it. This is normally done to highlight the distinction between two words (or phrases) which are very similar in meaning.
ML/NJ
Great post and points. Posey is a congressman in Central Florida, I believe Merritt Island. He has proposed a bill that would require something along these lines. Have you heard about that?
I don’t know the status; haven’t heard much lately.
I can’t help but notice that one of those definitions of “natural born” in the Oxford English Dictionary specifically mentions “natural born American citizen.” To wit:
“Every one who first saw the light on the American soil was a natural-born American citizen.”
Born on U.S. soil makes you a natural born citizen. No parental citizenship requirement stated or implied.
Interesting idea. I would point-out that #2 is tricky since it gets dangerously close to the State of Florida setting additional requirements on presidential qualifications. Don’t think that would pass a constitutional challenge.
OTOH, I think all States should tighten their ballot requirements re: proof of eligibility. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see Obama making some lame excuse for not running for re-election?
“You sound concerned.”
Don’t know what you mean by that... No, I haven’t seen his birth certificate, but I have spent the few minutes of study required to understand what the fuss is about. One fact that doesn’t fit with theories of him born outside Hawaii is the birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper a couple days after he was supposed to have been born. It is available in their archive, and it seems a bit of a stretch to claim his mother submitted fraudulent information overseas immediately afterward.
So you can go with the “natural-born” angle, but as the more knowledgeable poster above me wrote, it’s not going very far.
It helps to understand what the OED is. It is more a history of the usage and meaning of English words than it is a conventional dictionary. Each one of those usage examples you see represents the earliest known usage of the word with the sense being exhibited. So that example in 1876 where natural-born essentially is used exactly the same way native-born could be used is the first known time it was used that way. Before that (like when the Constitution was written) it did NOT have that meaning.
ML/NJ
I think that anything than moves the discussion further into the public realm is a good thing. Forget the birth certificate, let’s talk Constitution!
“One fact that doesn’t fit with theories of him born outside Hawaii is the birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper a couple days after he was supposed to have been born. It is available in their archive, and it seems a bit of a stretch to claim his mother submitted fraudulent information overseas immediately afterward.”
Those announcements were sent out by the DoH rather than submitted by parents. It is likely that Zero’s mother registered his birth with the DoH in order to make sure her son would appear to have automatic citizenship rather than needing to naturalise him (as he was born abroad).
There is no proof that he was actually born on the date claimed; back then, you could just turn up, and say that your child was a home birth and make up a date, with no verifying information.
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.