"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.
Ping
A position not universally held in the U.S., either before or after the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
Unfortunately, there is nothing in the writings of the founders, nor in constitutional case law that would support this contention.
Ping. You may want to weigh in on the 1898 Wang Ark case.
Both Blackstone and Vattel indicate that conclusion.
Blackstone:
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects.1 Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance, of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.
...
When I say that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law, indeed, stood absolutely so, with only a very few exceptions; so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration,(y) “for the naturalization of the children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles.” And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects:(z) for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father the ambassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2, that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England; and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants.(a) But by several more modern statutes(b) these restrictions are still further taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers (or grandfathers by the father’s side) were natural-born subjects, are now deemed to be natural-born subjects
And Vattel
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
Thus in both cases, natural born citizenship goes with the citizenship of the father.
Guess whose father was not a US citizen?
Good for you David.
Good job.
Exactly so. This is why birther's claims to be defenders of the constitution are bunk. They are trying to twist the constitution because the guy we didn't want, won. The constitutional defenders around here are those of us that call the birthers on their nonsense despite the fact that we don't want Obama either. The constitution is above politics.
The Case Against BO
Would you spend $10 for a birth certificate or
would you spend over $1 mil NOT to show it.
The first thing O did was to enact executive orders sealing all personal records to prevent disclosure....WHY? WHY?? WHY???
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5qdaJcgHGw&feature=player_embedded">