no.. I was quoting someone else. When Heritage.org and Mark Levin get heated over this issue it's time to listen. There are more Constitutional scholars on birther threads than walking the halls of the Supreme Court. These guys will argue preConstitutional British common law because of the Founding Fathers' "intent" and they expect people to listen to them.
Unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise, there are only 2 types of citizens. Those who were not born citizens but earned citizenship sometime after birth (naturalized) and those born with citizenship whether here to foreign parents or abroad to US parents. If you gained citizenship at birth you are a natural born citizen and all this crazy talk otherwise is nothing but wasted bandwidth.
Your misinformed opinion only.
That’s not necessarily the case. The Foreign Affairs manual published by the State Department, states that American citizens (specifically non-naturalized) born abroad to two American citizens may not be natural born citizens eligible for the presidency under the Constitution. It cites the fact that the courts have never ruled definitively on the issue.
I can provide a link to the manual if you’d like to read it for yourself. But the fact that a government agency indicates there may be a difference between a citizen (non-naturalized) and a natural born citizen provides sufficient reason, IMO, to question Obama’s status.
We need a SCOTUS ruling.
If you gained citizenship at birth you are a natural born citizen and all this crazy talk otherwise is nothing but wasted bandwidth.
Are you sure about that? How have you come to such a conclusion? Your scenario makes the child of two illegal aliens a natural born citizen despite neither parent being an American Citizen which is a precursor to be a natural born citizen.
If I were you, I would choose my words more carefully - such as:
" ... If you gained citizenship at birth you are a natural born citizen ..."
You are merely stating your opinion about this - back it up with documentation. And remember, the definition of "natural born citizen" that counts is the one that the Founding Fathers knew - not modern interpretations of it.
Please be advised that there are many posters on this thread that HAVE done the research into this AND are more than willing to rip you a new one if you can't back up your statements with documentation. And they WON'T use Vaseline ...
To enlighten yourself before proceeding, I would suggest reading ALL of the following: Calvin’s Case [1608], the British Nationality Act of 1730, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws Of England, and Dicey’s A Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws as they pertain to citizenship/subjectship.
There are 3. Natural Born Citizen is different than naturalized or just citizen(because you were born on US soil). The 3rd only applies to POTUS and VP. It has to do with allegiance. Why wouldn’t the founders just say ‘citizen’ if they wanted to include just citizens? There are no less than 4 US supreme court cases that sought to challenge this and in each case the challenge was lost. Think about it. I know many people are born here to one US citizen parent but the whole family lives over seas and are subjects of that country. Do you want these people to become president? I am not a constitutional scholar but I do know that you can find this on the web in many places. In any case, if anyone doesn’t agree with this part of the constitution, there is remedy for them. Its called a constitutional amendment.
Have to agree with you there. In fact, I'd take it a step further and suggest that there are more constitutional scholars here on Free Republic than walk the halls of any court, SCOTUS or otherwise.
Unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise...
First, yes, SCOTUS needs to get off its duff, protect the constitution and firmly rule on this issue once and for all. Secondly, they have declared the definition of natural born outside of the Constitution on several occasions to have been born of citizen parents plural. Means both. Congress backed this definition up with their senate resolution regarding John McCain in 2008, declaring him natural born because McCain's parents (again plural) were both (plural again) citizens. Obama signed it.
I'm old enough to remember back in the day in High School Government class every Senior had to take, that this was discussed and it was common knowledge back then that natural born was higher than native born. And that natural born required both parents to be citizens. One of the things that aggravates me the most about this whole birther issue is the complete and total lack of knowledge about our founding, our government, and our constitution being taught to kids today. Liberals have totally revised our history and our foundations.
Here is an excerpt from a blog which clearly explains this issue and explains why the birthers have a rational basis for questioning Obama's Eligibility:
- On March 9, 1866, Representative John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th Amendment, said the following in a speech before House of Representatives - [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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.
- Occasionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has used the word "citizen" in reference to individuals who were either not born in the United States or not born of U.S.-citizen parents. Such individuals were U.S. citizens by law or by naturalization. But the Supreme Court has never referred to such persons as natural born citizens. In those few cases in which the Supreme Court has declared an individual to be a "natural born citizen", the individual was always U.S.-born to U.S.-citizen parents. For example, in Perkins vs. Elg (1939), Marie Elizabeth Elg was born in the United States in 1907. A year before her birth, her father became a U.S. citizen by naturalization, and her mother acquired U.S. citizenship through marriage. Thus when Miss Elg was born, both of her parents were U.S. citizens. The Supreme Court referred to Miss Elg as a natural born citizen.
- Emmerich de Vattel's, Law of Nations 1756 and used extensively by our framers in drawing up our Constitution stated the following - The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. (Vattel §212) Benjamin Franklin had a copy of this book, Jefferson did, you may have noticed threads here on FR where Washington did and his book is overdue from the library!
- In 1874, in Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court implicitly acknowledged the definition of natural born citizen which had appeared in the 1797 English translation of Vattel's Law of Nations - "...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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." (Minor vs Happersett, 1874) Other cases which referred to natural born as the child of TWO citizens:
- The Venus 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814)
- Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
- The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Act of April 9, 1866)
- The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873)
These are all cited and explained at Attorney, Mario Apuzzo's blog
All of the sources tell us what our framers intended with the natural born clause in the Constitution. And all of these sources give the birthers a solid case and that the case is one that has been thoroughly researched. Birthers are not idiots or nutcases despite what the media would have you believe, they are constitutionalists who deserve to be heard.
BTW: Thank you for your service!