OK, I HAVE AVOIDED THE BIRTHER ISSUE UNTIL WATCHING ANDERSON COOPER TONIGHT . . .

[MrChips]

OK, so I have read a little, listened a little, and figured that the question of Obama's citizenship and birth would never be answered, so why dive into it. But just now, I listened to Anderson Cooper on CNN (I know, I know, why am I watching PRAVDA?) blabber on and on in a very assertive, denunciatory tone to someone from Arizona over that state's recent passage of a bill requiring presidential candidates to prove their citizenship. Cooper went on ad nauseum about how stupid anyone is who questions Obama, how the birth certificate has been PROVEN to be authentic, that the matter should be settled. But the adamancy in his voice bothered me. Why is he so exercised about it if that is really true? He'd be calm, or so I said to myself. Anyway, anybody else watch this?

[old republic]

That’s pretty neat that you have those kind of stories about your family. I can’t say that I have any 150 year old silverware from my family or any letters from Valley Forge, but I am descended from Revolutionary war Patriots and have copies of some of their Revolutionary War pension applications. It’s pretty neat to get to hear about what they went through and be proud of what kind of people they were. The principles that they fought for in the Revolution need to be protected and preserved, especially in our time when they are so strongly being attacked. By the way, I have a lot of ancestors in the US in the 1600s. Maybe we are distant cousins. ;-)

[TigersEye]

Further to that point, there must be something terribly wrong with all of the rest of his "documents" that have been sealed or are now "missing."

No doubt about it. No one hides records that reflect well on themselves.

0bamas’ hidden records: Why are these off limits?

1 Certified copy of original birth certificate
2 Columbia University transcripts
3 Columbia thesis paper
4 Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
5 Harvard University transcripts
6 Illinois State Senate records
7 Illinois State Senate schedule
8 Law practice client list and billing records/summary
9 Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mother
10 Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
11 Occidental College Transcripts
12 Parent’s marriage Certificate
13 Record of baptism
14 Selective Service registration records
(Did Obama Actually Register for Selective Service?
This supposed revelation of 0's SS records has been debunked here and here.)
15 Schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
16 Passport records for all passports
17 Scholarly articles
18 SAT and LSAT test scores
19 Access to his grandmother in Kenya
20 List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists
21 Punahou grade school records
22 Noelani Kindergarten records are oddly missing from the the State of Hawaii Department of Education.
23 Page 11 of Stanley Ann Dunham's divorce decree.
24 Why isn't Barack Obama still a member of the Illinois bar and where are all of the relevant documents?
25 Why isn't Michelle Obama still a member of the Illinois bar, after only about four years of practice, and where are all of the relevant documents?

Anyone who cares about their country would be very concerned that a POTUS had hidden every scrap of information of his life that he possibly could.

0bamas’ hidden records: Why are these off limits?

[SatinDoll]

You are definitely mistaken about Wong Kim Ark but after looking at the wording Justice Gray used I can understand the confusion - he uses native born and natural born together.

The reason why is this: all people born in the U.S. are native born, but only those whose parents are U.S. citizens can be considered Natural Born Citizens AND native born. What makes it even more confusing is that NBC is not a form of citizenship, merely a circumstance of birth.

Pleae note the capitalized quote in the following:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):

Wong Kim Ark was the son of two resident Chinese aliens who claimed U.S. Citizenship. He was vindicated by the Supreme Court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, BORN IN A COUNTRY OF PARENTS WHO WERE ITS CITIZENS, BECAME THEMSELVES, UPON THEIR BIRTH CITIZENS ALSO. THESE WERE NATIVES, OR NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

On the basis of the 14th Amendment the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A. under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.) but it DID NOT extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” to those whose parents were not citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

If you were correct in your interpretation than any anchor baby born here of illegal aliens can become President. That is definitely false!

In addition, Natural Born Citizenship is NOT a type of citizenship! It is but a circumstance of birth and the only place it appears in U.S. law is in the U.S.Constitution as a requirement for eligibility to serve as President.

I hope this helps in your understanding of the NBC issue.

[edge919]

Satin, you haven’t proven that I was mistaken. You’re making the same argument I was. You’re not reading what I wrote very closely.

[douginthearmy]

I wrote: It doesn’t really matter what the Framers had in mind..

You wrote: WOW. That just says it all. The Constitution no longer matters and yet you swore an oath to defend what doesn't really matter?

I say potato, you say tomato. Did the Framers intend Indian children to be natural born citizens? Did the Framers intend that the children of slaves would be natural born citizens? No. But their intent does not matter. Nor is the Framers' intent EQUAL the Constitution. That is why they are different words with different spelling.

Do you think the Framers intended income tax? Women voting?

[Lmo56]

I don’t think the founders would have necessarily thought that babies born in the US to non-US parents wouldn’t have been US citizens with the right to run for president.

See my post #299, first. Children of non-US citizens [specifically, the father] would not qualify IF the father's country laid claim to the child as it's own citizen.

Now, as for your son ...

Since the Supreme Court has conveniently avoided the question of NBC for 223 years, we have to look to the Founders and what their interpretation would have been.

You have to remember that the lawyers amongst the Founders were trained in British Law, practiced British Law, and agreed with MOST of British Law [with notable exceptions].

I have made a cursory examination of Dicey's Conflict of Laws and have found a citation. Remember, this was written in 1896 - and I will have to get back to you on this. I will try to find the applicable law from the 1700's - so don't get your panties in a wad about what I am about to write:

Rule 24

Sub-rule. British nationality is not inherited through women.

If this was the law in the 1700's your son would probably not qualify - but, like I said, I still have to research this ...

[philman_36]

My dad is a retired physicist (and from the first class of Freepers in the nineties) who currently is a historian and geneaologist who has written a number of books.

You've given everything except who your Dad is (his FReeper name that is) and what he has to say about the issue with your son, which seems totally incongruous with your whole story.
So who is he and what does he think?
I've got an idea! Why don't you ping him to the thread so he can tell us, and you, at the same time!

[rxsid]

What follows, is a bit of information with regards to the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen" (specifically) and NOT about the entire makeup, functions, origins and influences that made/make up our form of government, a Constitutional Republic.

Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to the others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well. And yes, even though most could not speak French, most read French (except, notably, Washington who would defer to Jefferson when such interpretation was needed).

 

NBC in the Constitutional drafts:

June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:

September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483

September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.

 

Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:

Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]

From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):
Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"
To English: "Citizens and natural"

French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
-------------------
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: linked to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they participate with equality has its advantages."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
-------------------
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"

Prior to the Constitution

"This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787. Chitty's notes and the appended commentaries by Edward D. Ingraham, used in lectures at William and Mary College, provide a valuable perspective on Vattel's exposition from the viewpoint of American jurists who had adapted those principles to the American legal experience."

Thomas Jefferson (for one example) had the 1758 version as well as a 1775 version in his own library:
Thomas Jefferson's Library: A Catalog with the Entries in His Own Order (under a section he titled "Ethics. Law of Nature and Nations."

In AUTOBIOGRAPHY by Thomas Jefferson, he states: "On the 1st of June 1779. I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth and retired from the legislature. Being elected also one of the Visitors of Wm. & Mary college, a self-electing body, I effected, during my residence in Williamsburg that year, a change in the organization of that institution by abolishing the Grammar school, and the two professorships of Divinity & Oriental languages, and substituting a professorship of Law & Police, one of Anatomy Medicine and Chemistry, and one of Modern languages; and the charter confining us to six professorships, we added the law of Nature & Nations..." This was 8 years prior the the writing of the Constitution! [See the "Law of Nature & Nations" section of his personal library to get an idea of what he included in this curriculum in America's 1st law school].

Note: Vattel, is one of only 10 "footnotes" in Jefferson's Biography, from Yale.

After the Constitution

The same definition was referenced in the dicta of many early SCOTUS cases as well...some examples:

"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss

A detailed, historical, etymology of the term "Natural Born Citizen" can be found here: http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm

Prior to Jay's famous letter to those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention, we see (one of many exchanges between the founders) a letter from Madison ("father" of the Constitution) to Jay:

"James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from The Law of Nations. Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and "Vattel's Law of Nations, which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.[29]"
From: Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. How the Natural Law concept of G.W. Leibniz Inspired America's Founding Fathers.

Vattel's Law of Nations, built upon "natural law - which has it's roots in ancient Greece, was influenced by Leibniz.
Even Blackstone affirmed the basis of natural law:
"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original” (1979, 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of conceptual naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law."

Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789.
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.

Ramsay REAFFIRMS the definition a Natural Born Citizen (born in country, to citizen parents (plural)) in 1789 A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)

The Naturalization Act of 1790, which states (in relevant part) "that the children of citizens [plural] of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens"

Of course, the Act of 1790 was repealed by the Act of 1795 (which did NOT attempt to define or extend the definition for NBC). What the 1st Congress had tried to do in 1790 was to EXTEND the known definition (of born in country to citizen parentS) to those born outside of sovereign territory, to citizen parentS. Of course, they can't do that. Congress (by itself) doesn't have the Constitutional authority to define (or EXTEND) the term "Natural Born Citizen." Only a SCOTUS decision on the intent of the framers, or an amendment to the Constitution can do that.

It's interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a "Natural Born Citizen" because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790: "Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'". Obama, himself, was a signatory of that resolution knowing full well (no doubt) the requirement has always been about 2 citizen parents.

John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this:

commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

The point is, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" has ALWAYS been about being born within the sovereign territory (& thus jurisdiction) of the U.S. to 2 citizen parents (& therefore parents who do NOT owe allegiance to another, foreign, country).

[Rutabega]

Hmm, not sure why that is incongruous. My dad is super private and pretty paranoid, and keeps his freeper name to himself. My mom doesn’t even know! The only reason I mentioned him at all was to tell you that he is an avid geneaologist.
However, though I am sure you will think I made him up and it won’t matter, he thinks that my son is a natural born citizen.
I think I might know which freeper he is, but I never bug him to tell me, and he doesn’t know who I am (though if he is reading this thread, I am sure he can figure it out!)
I am sure you will not believe that my dad is a long-time freeper, and frankly, can’t say I could blame you, as I don’t know his name around here. If you knew him in real life, you would get it, though. He had a top security clearance for a long time, and doesn’t give out his email address or anything. Very paranoid, and perhaps for good reason.
I think that I have been here long enough to vouch for myself, though, if that’s what you were asking for me to do. If you doubt me, though, and just can’t rest, freepmail me, and I’ll send you a link to his latest book, being sold on amazon. It is not a bestseller, but it did go into it’s second printing, and was a bunch of scandalous stories about the town he was raised in that were published in the local papers about a hundred years ago. He is working on the sequel now.

[Rutabega]

I’ll bet we are. I think when you go back far enough in a fairly sparsely populated area, you’ll find a lot of links!

[old republic]

I admire your zeal to defend our Constitution. I wish more people would defend it to the best of their ability. Our country needs people like that, especially now. When those sworn to defend our Constitution intentionally break their oaths and fail to preserve, defend, and protect the Constitution, they are committing one of the greatest acts of treachery and will deprive the blessings of liberty from ourselves and our posterity. The NBC issue must be settled immediately, and honestly or we in effect no longer have a Constitution that means anything.

I had forgotten that the State Department actively encouraged giving birth in the US. I was under the impression that those born in the Armies of the United States and those born to diplomats were considered to be NBCs even if born abroad. It looks like not even the State Department are sure what an NBC is anymore and need to be on the safe side just in case.

[Rutabega]

No twisting panties here. No court outside of a sharia run country would say that my son was only a German citizen because I had nothing to do with it. Plus, since Germany said he was not a German citizen, or eligible to be one, that would make him some type of limbo citizen of nothing. :)
I am intrested to hear what people have to say about this, so thanks for looking into it!

[conservativegramma]

Did the Framers intend Indian children to be natural born citizens? Did the Framers intend that the children of slaves would be natural born citizens? No. But their intent does not matter.

BS. They intended many things and knew there would be many contested issues that they could not forsee, which is why they set up the amendment system, and a system that would require 2/3 of the states to approve.

First, Slavery was a hotly contested issue even in the 18th century. Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin all put the issue on the back burner so as to be united against a common enemy - the British. When the war was over the constitution was a prudential compromise to insure that a new nation would survive united. Frederick Douglass wrote: [The constitution] was never, in its essence, anything but an anti-slavery government understanding full well that the constitution itself set up a system by which slavery would someday be abolished. Read and Learn

You're obviously a product of our modern education system which has trashed our foundings and re-written American history. Because only someone who has been indoctrinated with this flawed view of our founders, our Constitution, and our history would ever say the 'intent of the framers doesn't matter'.

Secondly, It is only when the opinions and thoughts of the founding fathers are ignored that we end up with unconstitutional rulings like income tax and healthcare.

You don't get to weasel out of what you said - "It really doesn't matter what the Framers had in mind" - nope, you said it, and that statement speaks volumes.

[conservativegramma]

I admire your zeal to defend our Constitution. I wish more people would defend it to the best of their ability.

Thanks, fear is a great motivator. I've never been more afraid for my country in my life!

One of my worst nightmares is me sitting around a fire burning books just to keep warm with only broth to eat, and telling my grandchildren about the old days when America was free and prosperous.

Yikes.....that dream is looking more and more like a premonition as each day goes by. :(

[philman_36]

...freepmail me, and I’ll send you a link to his latest book...
Send away. I'd like to know who your "appeal to authority" is.

[philman_36]

...freepmail me...
I don't have to freepmail you. All you have to do now is pick "Private Reply" and it'll automatically be sent via freepmail.

[houeto]

He could have been born in Chicago and he’s still inelgible.

Sure wish more people would figure that out.

[little jeremiah]

THank you. There are a lot of mis/uninformed people on the thread. I hope they read this carefully.

[missanne]

I will think of your mom and pray for her...God Bless!

[bvw]

I’ll go with Alexander Hamilton for $400, Alex.

Otherwise I agree with MHG. Alexander Hamilton did not know who his father was either. In your case the father is known to you by name and his citizenship status. I could argue for or against the situation with your son, since it is a situation on the border of things. If I were to take your son as meeting the NBC status because you were not married I, myself, would make a extra burden for such exceptional cases — that your son have been raised as an American, and not as a dual-citizen, and that he has had no relationship greater than blood to his father.

Still, I would be inclined to say he does NOT meet NBC status. Nor do I care where the child was born, I look only to the fact that both the parents were citizens of good standing, even if born abroad.