Posted on 11/12/2010 4:53:42 PM PST by Retired Intelligence Officer
I need some help on this. I was reading where Bobby Jindal was born to immigrants here on visas. If he was born in Baton Rouge before they became naturalized citizens, wouldn't that make him ineligible to become President? I am in a heated argument at another website over this and I need answers to this controversy. Any help would be appreciated.
R.I.O.
“In order to be President you have to be a Natural Born Citizen, not a Citizen.”
Also, the sky is blue. What’s your point?
That was the standard adopted by the Supreme Court in 1898 regarding the origin of "natural born citizen" as used in the Constitution.
Other than that the Constitution does not specify what the requirements are to be a "citizen" or a "natural born citizen".
Please cite in US law where it say that. This is an imaginary rule that exists nowhere in US law or in any US court ruling.
Again - If you are a US citizen, you are either: 1) A citizen from birth, aka natural-born citizen 2) A naturalized citizen (via immigration process) Everyone in category #1 is eligible to be President.
So far as I know the phrase “natural-born citizen” does not appear at all in US statutes.
It does however appear in this Supreme Court decision:
1875 opinion of Supreme Court Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett
In his majority opinion stated: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. 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 v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).
It seems to me the matter of Presidential eligibility is still legally undecided. It simply has never been explicitly addressed by Congress or the Supreme Court. SCOTUS had the chance in January 2009, and Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly was the missing 4th vote to hear the Obama case.
Because I am citing what the US law really is, inclusive of the 14th amendment, which nobody writing in 1789 could address.
There are only two types of US citizen - natural-born (aka citizen from birth) and naturalized. Invoking some additional categories has no basis in US law.
According to Jindal, his mother was already four months pregnant with him when they arrived from India.
“Talk to Scalia. Every word in the Constitution has meaning and you can’t just dismiss one because you personally feel it is superfluous. By definition there is no such thing as a superfluous Constitutional word. You cannot simply strike out “natural-born” and keep the “citizen” part. Natural-born has specific meaning and Vattell gives us the most appropriate definition (post 27).”
This argument makes no sense because one hand you say that we should look to the plain meaning and the words and ‘natural’ and ‘born’ are easy enough words to understand.
But, then you say we shouldn’t look to the plain words and that the drafters of the Const. really meant that we should look at an 18th Century treatise, which they didn’t mention by name in the Const., which wasn’t even binding legal authority or even a court case, OK.....
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.There are some around here who see this as inadequate, as it doesn't say "natural born," so he must not be a natural born citizen.
Which is hooey. Jindal's clearly a "born citizen," and as such he doesn't have to be naturalized -- meaning he's already a "natural" citizen. He's "natural born."
The only reason some say otherwise, is because they hate Obama and think this is a clever trick to get rid of him.
“Do you not think that our founders would have been influenced directly by Vattel, since his work is 1758, and probably was read by the likes of Jefferson, et al.”
And Justice Ginsburg has read Karl Marx. Do you think that we should allow her to use Karl Marx as a basis for Supreme Court decisions as well?
Obviously not.
“So, while it is a “catch-phrase”, the founders has some definite ideas what it meant.” They used the phrase in a statement about piracy and maritime powers, so it clearly meant the international conventions concerning piracy and the high seas, nothing more.
Its addressed there.
Because Jindal is a citizen and not a natural born citizen. He is not eligible:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The founders only put two types of citizen in that clause. The only time a citizen could become president was at the adoption of the constitution until the grandfather clause ran out. Jindal fails to qualify and doesn’t meet Article 2 Section 1. His parents weren’t U.S. Citizens when he was born on U.S. soil.
I've read your section, and it goes on to say:
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.
I'm sure you know this, but it also goes on to say:
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.
I did some more searching based on this case, and found the following. In MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 (1874), it says:
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [Footnote 6] that "No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, [Footnote 7]" and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. 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. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
So, it does appear the 14th Amendment grant NBC status to a person, as it goes "further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."
After reading this, I believe I got a bad dose of constitutional law and I stand corrected. While Vattel or English Common Law may define an NBC at the writing of the constitution, the 14th amendment does appear to clarify the situation. My apologies to all, except to the wiseguy with the crack pipe fetish (jk).
The problem is that SCOTUS really needs to put this to rest. Until then, "... As to this class there have been doubts ..." will cause continual rehashing of this scenario.
Now, regarding the long form ...
“If you had to choose, then you weren’t natural born, because you were not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth, there was another jurisdiction.”
This is one of the crookedest arrows in the birther quiver. What says you aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law if you are able to claim citizenship in another country? Nothing and no one. The previous poster who talked about how they “had” to choose between being a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the Netherlands obviously was so required by Dutch, not U.S. law. Either that, or they were being loose when they say they “had to.”
The U.S. government does not recognize dual citizenship. Which is to say they don’t care about it (as regard citizens by birthright, that is). Other countries may require renouncing all foreign allegience to claim full adult citizenship, but we do not.
No jurisdiction issue arises from dual citizenship, and therefore no constitutional issue. If the Founders and the 14th amendment Framers meant to exclude dual loyalty, they should have said so.
So then it pays to be a born on U.S soil to illegal aliens then to diplomats, right?
It doesn't define it of course. Man can accurately interpret who are natural born citizens based on man's history.
You can argue common law but that would still make him a natural born citizen.
I can go better. The common law of these United States is the Law of Nations for over 200 years, and the Supreme Court of the United States has acknowledged as such
The Supreme Court Opinion Sosa v. Alverez-Machain et al.
No. 03–339. Argued March 30, 2004—Decided June 29, 2004*
That's NOT English Common law as "Domestic Law" that the Supreme Court has said here.
“Unless Vattel’s book was in fact agreed by nations to be binding international law (which it wasn’t), the quote obviously doesn’t refer to Vattel’s book, or any other book for that matter.”
I know. If Karl Marx had written a book called “International Law,” would we be under pressure to assume that’s what the law is talking about every time that phrase happens to pop up these days? No.
If you think the Wong Kim Ark decision settled who are natural born citizens, you have misinterpreted it.
That is how I learned. We probably learned more about Constitutional Law tonight than most Lawyers learn in a lifetime.
”In order to be President you have to be a Natural Born Citizen, not a Citizen.”
Correct. And you asked for what the difference between citizen and natural-born citizen is - here it is, clear and simple:
There are two types of US citizen - natural-born and naturalized. If you are a US citizen, you are either:
1) A citizen from birth, aka natural-born citizen
2) A naturalized citizen (via immigration process)
Everyone in category #1 is a natural-born citizen, which they acquired either because they were born in the USA (14th amendment) or because their parents were citizens (multiple US laws on that). All of them are eligible to be President.
This understanding comports with Article II meaning because its intent was to bar naturalized citizens from becoming President.
So Gov Swartzenegger cannot be President, Gov Jindhal can.
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.