America’s Two Unconstitutional Presidents

Examiner.com ^ | 12-14-2009 | Dianna Cotter

[Danae]

Students of history know that history repeats itself, and today we are reliving the past of 1880’s. Some of the similarities between the 21st President and the 44th are startling, and the ramifications are huge.

(Snip)

During the campaign of 1880, questions were asked about Chester’s birth place, but just as today, those doing the research were looking in the wrong direction. Arthur’s father, William Arthur was a British citizen at the time of the future President’s birth. Born in Ballymena, Ireland in 1796 he would not become a Naturalized citizen until August 31st, 1843. No one ever checked into his immigration status at the time of his son’s birth. Chester Arthur, 14 at the time his father was naturalized, and would surely have known this. Sound somewhat familiar?

(Snip)

Today, a direct and startlingly similar situation exists between President Arthur and President Obama. The 44th President was also born to a British citizen, not a naturalized citizen of the United States. For the same reasons both Presidents were not eligible for the office, the only difference lay in Barack Obama’s public admission of his father’s status:

[Electric Graffiti]

You posted your article this morning at the Examiner and the Obots are all over it. They're hysterical. Keep up the good work.

"If Obama is eligible to be President then so are the sons of Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if they impregnate an American woman who gives birth on US soil. The very notion is obscene. Such a person might be a US citizen under current policy, but their citizenship is not natural born and they cannot be President and Commander In Chief of the US armed forces."-----Leo Donofrio.

Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.

The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.

I say, that, in order to be of the country,it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."



Is there any question why the founders put the Natural Born Citizen requirement clause in the Constitution?

[El Gato]

If Hugo Chavez declared Sarah Palin as a natural born citizen of Venezuela, with all the rights and responsibilities of that same citizenship, would she be barred from seeking the Presidency?

No, she was born in the US of two US citizen parents, what Hugo might blather about is of no import.

Answer that question, and you have answered the issue with Arthur and Obama in terms of their legal status regarding election to the Presidency.

Not at all, niether of them was born of two US citizen parents. It's a very objective test. The only real exception/ambiguity applies when the child is born of two us citizen parents, but not on US soil. In which case it depends on why they are not on US soil. If one or both are diplomats or soliders then the child is still natural born. Otherwise, probably not.

But in Arthur and Obama's cases, that is not a factor, they don't meet the two citizen parents test.

[Tublecane]

“you still miss the point.

Though you admitted it earlier.”

No I didn’t. I admitted there are two different routes to being natural born citizens: soil babies and blood babies. I did not, and would never, admit that they have different statuses.

“There is mention of two separate and distinct types of citizenship. Citizen, and natural born citizen.”

That two names are used, one denoting soil babies and the other blood babies, is true. I see no indication that these two terms indicate “seperate and distinct types”. I realize that’s what Birthers want them to do. But native born citizens can be, and indeed are, natural born citizens. Just because they have another name does not mean they are in a seperate class. Think of it like a subclass. As in all Texans are Americans but not all Americans are Texans.

“If there was no difference it would be simply citizen. But that is not the case.”

That’s not true. Especially if there were controversy as to how native born citizens are to be classified. And there was, obviously, since that’s what the case was all about.

“The case states that Ark was a citizen, but not a natural born citizen. Why?”

Because, as I’ve said repeatedly, the case was not about his presidential elgibility. They intentionally steered clear of deciding that issue.

“In other words, they are a citizen, but are they a Natural Born Citizen? On that question there are doubts. The SCOTUS has not yet had a specific case to decide it, YET.”

Then tell me, would you, why you said this above: “Being born on American soil does NOT automatically confer Natural Born Status and that was decided by Minor v Happersett in 1875 and by U.S. v Wong in 1895.”?

Those cases decided no such thing, and you know they didn’t which is wh I invoked the word “liar”. That was the qhole cause of our argument, during which you sought to demonstrate that Wong Kim Ark had something to say about it. It didn’t. As I’ve said, it intentionally avoided the issue.

Ah, but you used the word “automatically,” which I guess implies that if native born citizens’ natural born status was automatic, they naturally would have said so in the Ark decision. Except, once again, that was not at issue. They did make mention of the doubt surrounding natural born status. And that’s all you have to cling to: almighty DOUBT.

[Tublecane]

“It is abundantly clear that you didn’t read any of the documentation I provided you.”

Ah, people and their precious links. I suppose it isn’t enough that I refute the reasoning in your post. It’s not like I was responding to YOU or anything. No, it’s me against you and every website you’ve tripped across lately.

I’ve seen your links before (which, incidentally, don’t have much by way of what I’d call actual “documentation”). Birthers trot out the same old Birther sites over and over again, pretending as if they’re some sort of authority.

Just to be thorough, as to the part about the debate over McCain’s eligibility, don’t you think, huh, they might have repeated the point about natural born citizens having two citizen parents because John McCain had two citizen parents? Certainly, none of those quotes states that ONLY the children of two citizen parents are natural born. It simply says the children of citizen parents are natural born citizens. Well, duh. We pretty much all know that.

[x]

But Vattel isn't the only authority on this. Notice that most of Collins's sources are continental European, that is, French or German. The English common law tradition doesn't make so clear a distinction between the children of citizens and those of non-citizens if the children were born in the country.

George D. Collins was a San Francisco attorney. If you read his article, one of his arguments is that Congress couldn't restrict citizenship to the Caucasian and African race if the common law tradition was followed. There was a lot of concern in 19th century California about Chinese immigration.

In the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court ruled against Collins's understanding of citizenship. One of the lawyers representing the government against Wong was George D. Collins.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Birthers would say it matters not at all whether they claimed British citzenship. The issue is that they were able to claim British citizenship, which they believe in itself means they were not “natural born citizens”.

Exactly. It's not what was actually claimed, just the fact a choice existed that is the issue... Borders on a thought crime, in my opinion. We are now judging a man not by what he's done, but by what he might have done.

You’re stretching. But in a sense, I guess it would be possible for him to say all children born eligible for U.S. citizenship are hereafter born citizens of Venezuela.

Yes, and according to the birther mantra, those children would NOT be natural born because the choice was extended to them, regardless of what choice was made.

Again, though, Birthers are concerned with long-standing traditions (namely, the tradition of citizxenship extending to the child from the parent), not with the wacky acts of crazy dictators. No one would listen to Chavez, and rightly so.

I hope no one would listen to him! But the fact that the birthers will ignore such a situation, and pick and choose which "choices" are acceptable, shows the lack of logic in their position.

If the issue truly is the presence of a choice, then any dictator could eliminate our pool of Presidents in the future by offering all children such choice. If the logic holds, that is!

However, if the Birthers are right and being born on U.S. soil is not enough, then I can see it. Just so happens they’re wrong. But the argument is subtler than the credit you give it.

Well, I'm just looking for logical consistency, or even a definition of what a birther considers a natural born citizen. What are the requirements? And can they point to those requirements in any legal decision or historical writing? Otherwise their position is no more tenable than my admittedly absurd situation with Chavez granting citizenship to US children.

[Danae]

Yes, and you have said nothing new here.

It remains to be decided by SCOTUS what NBC is, and the prevailing evidence states that is a citizen born on this soil, with two parents who are citizens.

Until that case hits either the District Court DC with a Quo Warranto and or SCOTUS, its an academic discussion, but one I feel sure of the outcome. Born in the US, of two parents who are citizens.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

What mattered was what she had in the instant of her Birth. It is hereditary, or its not.

So Canada having given Sarah Palin citizen ship at the instant of her birth does not disqualify her from the Presidency. Is that correct?

And if it is heredity, then your position is that both parents must be natural born? Or can they be naturalized?

[El Gato]

Please quote where the decision very clearly states the difference between citizen by birth and natural-born citizen.

Mr. Binney, in the second edition of a paper on the Alienigenae of the United States, printed in pamphlet at Philadelphia, with a preface bearing his signature and the date of December 1, 1853, said:

The common law principle of allegiance was the law of all the States at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the Constitution, and, by that principle, the citizens o the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned,

(namely, foreign-born children of citizens, under statutes to be presently referred to)

such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the States before the Constitution or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the Congress of the United States.

P. 20.

The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666] That last clearly implies a different between "the child of an aline if born in the country" and "the natural born child of a citizen".

In context Justice Gray, for the majority, was saying that Wong was a citizen, becaue he was born in the US but his quote of Binny indicates that he was not a "natural born" citizen. (When Binny was writing, the father's citizenship was what counted because if the father was a citizen, then so was the mother regardless of her status before marriage, unless they were not married)

[El Gato]

So, if another country can prove they claimed Sarah Palin had their citizenship at the moment of her birth, she would be disqualified?

Nope, not if both of her parents were US citizens, and she was born in the US. All of which seem to be the case. If she'd been born outside the country, then she would not be "natural born", unless her parent or parents were serving the country in the diplomatic corps or the military at the time.

The first part comes from Vattel's Law of Nations(1758, although the quotes are from a later, and better, translation from the original French,)book I

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

the second from

§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

[Tublecane]

“Borders on a thought crime, in my opinion. We are now judging a man not by what he’s done, but by what he might have done.”

I can’t agree with this formulation of it, either. It’s not at all a thought crime. It’s not about what a person does, does not do, might do, or might not do. It is a matter of something being passed on naturally. That is, automatically at birth. It happens without your participation.

Since it results in something bad, i.e. not being president, you act as if it’s some sort of involuntary “crime”. But it’s not, anymore than being born in Mexico to Mexicans is a “crime” that bars Mexican children from being president.

“Yes, and according to the birther mantra, those children would NOT be natural born because the choice was extended to them, regardless of what choice was made.”

No, it wouldn’t. They go by “the right of the father” (jus sanguinis), which is old and is part of, I’d assume, every country that ever determined citizenship. In other words, it’s old. Chavez’ crazy fiat would not be recognized by international law. Because there are no precedents and, well, it’s crazy.

“But the fact that the birthers will ignore such a situation, and pick and choose which “choices” are acceptable”

Like I said, jus sanguinis is as old as the hills. And there are traditions rejecting all but jus sanguinis for Birthers to lean on. Not anything set forth in U.S. law, but in Vatell and in various quotes from various learned men and esteemed officials in U.S. history. It’s not so arbitrary as you think. Nor should it be, because, indeed, blood babies are recognized as born citizens, and judging by the controversy surrounding the Ark case and other cases, it was not always so that soil babies were as obviously born citizens as they are today.

“I’m just looking for logical consistency, or even a definition of what a birther considers a natural born citizen. What are the requirements?”

Most of them are pretty explicit: two citizen parents. They are less clear on whether children born outside of U.S. territory count. I don’t know.

“And can they point to those requirements in any legal decision or historical writing?”

Historical writings, yes. Legal decisions, no.

“Otherwise their position is no more tenable than my admittedly absurd situation with Chavez granting citizenship to US children.”

Their position is infinitely more tenable. I’d bench the Chavez scenario.

[Tublecane]

First you offer the quote:

“The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” [p666]

Then you say:

“That last clearly implies a different between ‘the child of an aline if born in the country’ and ‘the natural born child of a citizen’.

What are you talking about? The excerpt clearly states that a soil baby “is as much citizen as” a blood baby. What am I missing?

[El Gato]

had McCain been elected, we would still be going through the same process, trying to remove an ineligible president according to the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution

Actually probably not. McCain had two citizen parents, and he was born when his father was in the service of the country. Vattel, section 217, explicity indicates (in context with preceedings sections) that such persons are "natural born".

For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

[El Gato]

had McCain been elected, we would still be going through the same process, trying to remove an ineligible president according to the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution

Actually probably not. McCain had two citizen parents, and he was born when his father was in the service of the country. Vattel, section 217, explicity indicates (in context with preceedings sections) that such persons are "natural born".

For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

BTW, do you have a citation for that Pickney statement? It's murder for the Obummer crowd, and I would like to use it., IOW, not just when but where, he said or wrote that.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

No you are not. It's not that another nation considers you a citizen, but rather that one of your parents was NOT a US citizen at the time of your birth.

So the definition - in your opinion - of a natural born citizen is:

A. Must have been born on US soil
B. Both parents must be US citizens at the time of the birth

Is this correct?

[FrankR]

"It points out that Arthur, the white guy, got away with it only because he successfully hid the critical fact. "

As I stated in a subsequent post, my research shows that Arthur was born in Vermont USA...therefore is a legal, natural born citizen of the United States.

It doesn't matter what nationality his father was, as long as his son was born in Vermont, then the son - President Arthur - is a natural born citizen and duly qualified to be president.

The blurb you posted from my post was before I found out he was born in Vermont.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

The only real exception/ambiguity applies when the child is born of two us citizen parents, but not on US soil. In which case it depends on why they are not on US soil. If one or both are diplomats or soliders then the child is still natural born. Otherwise, probably not.

Why in both cases? Clearly an embassy is considered US soil, and is recognized as such in foreign lands. It is sovereign, the US owns that soil and can do with it what it wants.

However, US bases are typically NOT considered US soil as they are actually leases on that soil (see Philippines, Cuba, Japan, etc). Thus a military base may be US occupied but it is NOT United States soil and is not recognized as such; it is not a permanent possession of the US, but a temporary acquiescence of the right to use the land by the foreign country. And subject to restrictions on the use of the land as dictated by the foreign country.

So why was John McCain declared a natural born citizen, when he was not born on US soil? Was it because of the status of his parents alone?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Most of them are pretty explicit: two citizen parents. They are less clear on whether children born outside of U.S. territory count. I don’t know

That's part of the problem - I don't think even the birthers know what they're trying to claim. Is it two citizen parents only? How about birth on US soil to one citizen? And my original admittedly absurd example about Chavez dealt with a reference that what disqualified Obama was the fact he gained British citizenship through his father. It was the inheritance of citizenship, and not the nationality of his father, that was the problem.

So I guess I'm curious what the birthers would consider the requirements to be a natural born citizen, and how that differs from any other type of citizenship.

[El Gato]

What are you talking about? The excerpt clearly states that a soil baby “is as much citizen as” a blood baby. What am I missing?

That there is a distinction. Binney did not say something like "the child of alien if born in the country" is as much a natural born citizen as the child of a citizen". He made a clear distinction between "native born" citizen (born in the country) and natural born citizen.

They have the same rights, but being eligible to the office President is not a right, and requires being a natural born, not merely native born, citizen.

[El Gato]

So why was John McCain declared a natural born citizen, when he was not born on US soil? Was it because of the status of his parents alone?

Yes. They were serving the country, subject to it's jurisdiction and dependent upon it.