Replies

See posts by Elle Bee, Spaulding, others; search for keyword naturalborncitizen.

Copy of a post of mine follows:

Hence, the Chester Arthur example is not and cannot be treated as any precedent since the nation was not aware of the truth about his father’s and mother’s non-U.S. citizenship status at the time of his birth.

Interesting, since it appears that the question of applicability of precedent would become the focus when the Natural-born issue is finally acknowledged for a week in the media, and I believe at some point it will be. From a practical standpoint, if this issue makes reelection probabilities dire enough, centrist Dems would attempt to primary nobama out, which would perhaps be the smartest thing for them to do, as the D party could move to the center and the R would have to move more solidly to the right. Except who would the D's select (besides the thoroughly worn-out clintonistas) ? Well, whatever, my real points for comment follow.

Well, I found a reference to a SCOTUS case from 1874 that referred to "natural-born". The link to Justia.com follows the relevant snippet from this women's suffrage case, "MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 (1874)",

"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."

The text I cite above appears to be quite telling in the logic of the actors of today.

If this ruling were the latest precedential ruling, it would make sense then, that the man elected in 2008 and his true backers, whoever they may be, are exerting such tremendous effort to establish the newly-minted State of Hawaii as his birthplace. That birthplace enables him to claim "natural-born" based on being in the second classification of children in the cited reference, those born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. Absent that birthplace fact, he would fail the meaning of "natural-born" cited within this opinion on both counts, as the father he claims is acknowledged to not be a U.S. citizen.

Please comment; I very much look forward to more case research and opinions regarding the precedents of this case. Please keep them research-oriented; are there any legal scholars or "lay" people out there who can do some digging ?

If this holds water, then perhaps this is the case that needs to be presented, "Occam" style.

I am not sure of Mr. Trump's true aims, so I try to write in an unbiased tone regarding his efforts which, so far, appear to have certain commonality with most Americans, however I caution that his overall vision may be less than ideal, as indicated by some simplistic protectionist bandages that he has advocated. In his defense, I would like to remind that the amount of his assets affected by slumping Real Estate may be motivating his desire to see the nation restored.

If Trump has evidence that Barry committed fraud... Barry needs to voluntarily surrender his position as he is not eligible.

Example: If Barry filed for Selective Service FRAUDULENTLY, he would be ineligible.

Example: If his real name is Barry and he FRAUDULENTLY LIED on his IL Bar Application, Barry is ineligible.

There are several, SEVERAL fronts for which Barry is INELIGIBLE. And if/when Trump produces the evidence..... Barry should just voluntarily step down to SPEND MORE TIME WITH HIS FAMILY.

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.

Actually, there are three issues to decide if Obama is natural-born.

1. Is birth in America without relation to parentage enough by itself to determine NBC status? If this is the case, natural-born would be just another term for native-born or citizen at birth.

2. Is parentage relevant? Must a natural-born citizen be born to citizen parents?

3. If so, does NBC status require both parents to be American citizens, or only one? And does the gender of the American parent matter? It would have at the time of the Founding, but I suspect nobody would stand today for citizenship being tied to the sex of the American parent.

And then there is the whole issue of how the 14th Amendment changed, if it did, the meaning of the term.

Personally, I'm going with #1 above until the Supremes rule on the case.

As you point out, Minor indicated "with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, there was no doubt that those born in country of two citizen parents were NBC, but that there was some doubt whether NBC applies to those not born to citizen parents.

Knowing the basis for any of the “doubts” the court referred to would certainly be helpful. However, that discussion itself recognizes the basis for the highest form of citizenship.

On what basis could one conclude the founders did not intend the highest form relative to the two highest offices, and only those two, in the entire government scheme.

As I wrote to my state politician regarding an impotent eligibility bill:

It is possible pursuant to this bill that a candidate born in the U.S. of two visiting foreign citizen parents could have immediately returned to his parent’s native country and remained there for all but the past 14 years. That country may not be an ally of the U.S., the candidate would have received much or all of his schooling there and perhaps even served in that country’s government or armed services.

That sounds the opposite of what the founders would have had in mind for our president and vp..