Posted on 12/07/2008 10:47:56 PM PST by The Watcher
What might the phrase “natural-born citizen” of the United States imply under the U.S. Constitution? The phrase has always been obscure due to the lack of any single authoritative source to confer in order to understand the condition of citizenship the phrase recognizes. Learning what the phrase might have meant following the Declaration of Independence, and following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires detective work. As with all detective work, eliminating the usual suspects from the beginning goes a long way in quickly solving a case.
(Excerpt) Read more at federalistblog.us ...
To cite Donofrio's own words from his blog:...in http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2008/12/donofrio-dual-citizenship-natural-born.htmlThe Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn't want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. [I.O. ed., letter by John Jay] The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.
From the article:
One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.
Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth.
Bookmarked it... Thanks for the link!
That has no bearing upon the meaning of the United States Constitution. It is always to stand as written. The only way to change the meaning and intentions of the Consitution is via amendment.
The HYPHEN also makes for DUAL Loyalties.
I’ll ask again - based on this interpretation of the 14th amendment, is Obama even a citizen (assuming he was born in Hawaii)?
My point, once again, remains the same: the writers you quote speak only to the definition of “citizens” as opposed to “non-citizen.” They do not, as you have presented them, draw any distinction between “natural-born citizen” and “citizen by birth, but not natural born.” To them, the latter category simply did not exist.
Considering that the latter category does exist under the 14th Amendment (as it is currently interpreted) - that is, considering that individuals born in the United States to non-citizen parents - please explain how these writers/writings support any distinction between natural-born citizens and citizens by birth who are not natural-born citizens.
Quite frankly, you are using these writers to attempt to prove a point (that there can be citizens by birth who are not natural-born citizens) that the writers themselves would consider absurd.
ping for later.
Barack Hussein OBAMA, Sr., Ph.D.
Stanley Ann DUNHAM
| Husband: Barack Hussein OBAMA, Sr. Birth: 1936, Alego, Kisumu Dist., Nyanza Prov., KEN Death (car crash): 1982, Nairobi, KEN Education: University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI; Ph.D. in Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA Occupation: Senior Economist, Kenyan Ministry of Finance Religion (according to son): "raised a Muslim," but a "confirmed atheist" Tribe: Luo Other Spouses: m1. Helima (no issue); m3. Sarah, who is the woman Barack Jr. refers to as his (paternal) grandmother Father: Onyango11, a.k.a., Hussein OBAMA (1895-1979) — Obama10, Obiyo9, Okoth8, Obongo7, Otondi6, Ogelo5, Kisodhi4, Owiny3, Sigoma2, Miwiru1 Mother: Akuma / Akumu |
| Marriage: 1960; Divorce: 1963 |
| Wife: [Stanley] Ann DUNHAM Birth: 29 Nov 1942, Fort Leavenworth, Leavenworth Co., KS Death: 7 Nov 1995, Honolulu, Oahu, HI Education: University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Oahu, HI; B.A., M.A., Ph.D. Occupation: cultural anthropologist Religion (according to son): raised by non-religious parents and "detached" from religion Transhumance: 1967, from Honolulu, HI, to Jakarta, IDN; 1971, son back to Honolulu, HI Other Spouse: m2. aft. 1963, Lolo SOETORO (2 Jan 1930 - Jan 1987); divorced late 1970s Other Child: Maya SOETORO, b. 15 Aug 1970, Jakarta, IDN; m. Konrad NG Father: Stanley Armour DUNHAM Mother: Madelyn Lee PAYNE |
| Children: |
| 1. Barack Hussein "Barry" OBAMA, Jr., b. 4 Aug 1961, Kapiolani Medical Center, Honolulu, HI [At the time of Barack's birth, both of his parents were students at the East-West Center of the University of Hawaii at Manoa; Barack's stepfather, Lolo SOETORO, was also a student at the East-West Center.] |
| Keywords for search engines: Kenya, Indonesia, Java; USA, US, United States, Hawaii, Kansas, Massachusetts |
| Sources: 1. Barack Obama's Birth Certificate. 2. William Addams Reitwiesner, compilier. Ancestry of Barack Obama. 3. Anon. 9 Sep 2007. "The Obama Family Tree." Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago, IL (PDF file online at suntimes.com). 4. Photograph: Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro, Maya and Barack (online at kansasprairie.net). 5. Photograph: Barack Obama and Half Sister, Maya (online at kansasprairie.net). 6. Miscellaneous sites on the web, including Wikipedia.
DOES Barack Obama Sr's status as "Kenyan Ministry of Finance" affect his status and his son's status as they traveled together? Would both Baracks's citizenship be affected if they were operating as a diplomatic envoys, minister plenipotentiary, or resident representative with the rank of Ambassador or minister plenipotentiary? |
Again, let me be clear...
You said: “Quite frankly, you are using these writers to attempt to prove a point (that there can be citizens by birth who are not natural-born citizens) that the writers themselves would consider absurd.”
No, the current operative interpretation of the 14th Amendment is is absurd, not the point being made about the meaning of “natural born”.
The following is a funny and true story shared by KC Williams who teaches AP Government at Santa Fe High School. In one of KC's classes, they were discussing the qualifications to be president of the United States. It was pretty simple - the candidate must be a natural born citizen of at least 35 years of age. However, one girl in the class immediately started in on how unfair was the requirement to be a natural born citizen. In short, her opinion was that this requirement prevented many capable individuals from becoming president. KC and the class were just taking it in and letting her rant, but everyone's jaw hit the floor when she wrapped up her argument by stating, 'What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified to lead this country than one born by C-section?'
Now that’s a very interesting question.
His father, if he obtained “diplomatic immunity” would have removed Obama from US Jurisdiction. This tends to violate the idea of being SOLELY under the jurisdiction of the US, during his life. And adoption would muddy the water even more.
Also, how do you deal with children (like Obama, for instance) who are the child of citizens of different countries? Under your definition, Obama is clearly not a natural-born citizen of the United States, based on his father's Kenyan/British citizenship. However, it is just as clear, under your definition of natural-born citizenship, that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of Kenya or of Great Britain, based on his mother's American citizenship. As such, under your definition of natural born citizenship, children of citizens of different countries are not natural-born citizens of any country. This is an absurd notion - the idea that a person could be born so easily without a country is, frankly, nonsense, and you would be unlikely to find any legal, Constitutional, or historical support for that proposition.
Except that the "current operative interpretation of the 14th Amendment" is the interpretation of the Amendment that has governed for the vast majority of the time since the Amendment was passed.
“(1) American Citizen + (1) Foreign Citizen + Birth on US Soil = NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
According to your logic, anchor babies aren’t citizens. They are. (Unfortunately).
Here are 2 disqualifiers:
Is Barack Obama Sr. a naturalized American Citizen? If he isn’t and Barack Obama Junior was born in Kenya and didn’t officially claim American citizenship at the age of 18, then Barack Obama Jr. is not an American citizen.
Did Barack Obama Junior (Barry Soetoro) lose his citizenship when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro? If he did and didn’t claim American citizenship by the age of 18, he’s not an American citizen.
Nonsense. Nobody said that Obama’s citizenship would be in question. Only his status as “natural born”.
Your nickname and argument are beginning to look a lot like shallow and expendient liberal coming here to argue. That’s ok, but understand, the lack of intellectual honesty in your argument is obvious.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
* Anyone born inside the United States
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
You said:
Except that the “current operative interpretation of the 14th Amendment” is the interpretation of the Amendment that has governed for the vast majority of the time since the Amendment was passed.
And my answer is... So?
What does that matter? Truth is not defined by how common error is.
Your statement completely defies the whole notion of “natural born”.
The whole point of the term was that the citizenship was NOT defined by any law and solely by birth to two citizens.
The argument I have been making, over and over again, in this thread is that there has never been a class of citizens who were (a) citizens from the moment of birth and (b) not natural-born citizens. That I am aware of, the only legal distinction that has ever been drawn between different types of citizens have been naturalized citizens and natural-born citizens. There has never been any sort of in-between, third type of citizen, as you seem to be suggesting Obama is.
Your nickname and argument are beginning to look a lot like shallow and expendient liberal coming here to argue. That’s ok, but understand, the lack of intellectual honesty in your argument is obvious.
It is one thing to disagree with me - that is perfectly legitimate, and to be expected. Seeing as how the Constitution does not define the term "natural-born citizen," it is understandable that different people would look at the available information and come to different conclusions.
It is another thing to call me intellectually dishonest and imply that I'm a liberal. Not everything is a liberal-conservative thing. Two reasonable conservatives can, and it looks like in this case have, look at the same information and draw opposite conclusions. I have approached this discussion with nothing but honesty and my best judgment, having read the materials available to me.
To be honest, I wish you were right - I worry about what Obama's presidency will do to this country, and would love nothing more than to see him kicked out of office. However, I do believe that he is Constitutionally qualified to serve as President, and so I am not willing to undertake a Constitutional argument that I believe is incorrect, simply to achieve the (admirable) goal of preventing Obama from becoming President.
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.