Posted on 12/06/2008 7:17:21 PM PST by STARWISE
And there are tens of millions, if not over a hundred million, people who meet the definition of natural born citizen. Thus this isn’t a wholesale discrimination - it just narrows the field for president down to maybe half the population at least.
Fortunately or unfortunately, does that mean we’d get President Biden instead of President Obama?
I think that depends whether the electors get a chance to vote for Obama or not.
That’s a case you could cite in a debate over illegal aliens (for your Arizonan jurists—”undocumented immigrants”) and the 14th Amendment, but what pertinence does it have to Article Two and the issue: Is B. Obama a natural born citizen?
http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html
Well, I can clearly see why he gave up practicing law.
You’re kidding, right?
You see no room for argument in Article II, Section I, the rest of us see *no definition* of “natural born citizen” in Article II, Section I.
The Constitution simply states the standard. It does nothing to explain what it means.
And as for those “citizens at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”? They are all a little bit dead by now. This provision was a one-time grandfathering in of the people who were not natural born citizens because their parents were not Americans, nor had America even existed at the time of their birth.
It in no way opened eligibility to be president up in the future to non-natural born citizens. Once that generation was gone, the only standard for eligibility was “natural born citizen.”
Like I said before...This must have some merit.
The “Obots” seem to be coming to us ,asking questions
The Constitution does not define "natural born". However, with very narrow exceptions, it makes anyone born in the US a citizen at birth, and a citizen at birth is natural born. And a natural born citizen is eligible to be president if over the age of 35. The fact that another country may also claim him as a citizen is irrelevant. Thus, there was no problem with Chester Arthur's eligibility (although his electability might have suffered if he had been caught hiding his background).
A person who was not a citizen at birth may later become a citizen through the naturalization process. However, such a person may not be president.
I would think the Supreme Court would want to hear this case..but I fear that won't happen.
Here is another interesting excerpt:
As mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court had already tackled the meaning of the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause prior to Wong Kim Ark, and unlike the Kim Ark court, did consider the intent and meaning of the words by those who introduced the language of the clause. In the Slaughterhouse cases the court noted “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html
But no one is arguing that Obama is not a citizen. Donofrio claims he is not a “natural born citizen” whiich is mentioned but not explained in the constitution.
No, it’s just confusing. ;)
And here’s why:
First, no one knows for sure what the standard is. The Supreme Court has never squarely addressed what it takes to be eligible for the presidency as a “natural born citizen.” (And it’s not defined in the Constitution.)
Secondly, it’s confusing because if there is a distinction between being “naturally” a citizen (by descent) and “legally” a citizen (by operation of law), both are attained upon birth.
IOW, if your parents are American citizens when you are born, you are an American citizen upon birth simply because they are, and regardless of where you were born.
If you parents are not Americans citizens when you are born, but you are born in the U.S., you are an American citizen upon birth because U.S. law says you are.
So both citizenship statuses are attained upon birth. That’s confusing.
Moreover, there is **NO DIFFERENCE** between these two citizenships EXCEPT in one rather remote and specific circumstance that doesn’t affect most people: one’s eligibility to serve as president.
The argument is that only those who attained citizenship by descent (and, therefore, are at least second-generation Americans) are eligible. Those who attained citizenship by law (such as “anchor babies”) are not eligible (though their children, obviously, might be).
Since these statuses are in all ways the same except in regard to eligibility to serve as president, it’s easy to confuse the two and read caselaw as pertaining to both when it really might only pertain to citizenship by operation of law.
Apparently, Congress can rule Obama is a natural born citizen even if born in Kenya if they so choose.
Of course, this is Wikipedia so it may not be correct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen
Section 8 of Article I confers on Congress the power “to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization...” This power has been construed to include defining the characteristics of a “natural born citizen”, as well as the conditions of “naturalization”.
The 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, provided in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” In addition George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and President of the United States when this bill became law. If Washington disagreed with this definition, he could have vetoed this bill. However, in 1795 the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words “natural born” from this statement to state that such children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the U.S., but are not legally to be considered “natural born citizens” of the U.S. This was done to clarify for those living at that time who was and who was not a “natural born citizen” per the framers intent at that time, since the 1790 Act had introduced confusion into that subject in regards to the use of those words in the Constitution. George Washington was also President in 1795, and thus he was aware of this change. And if he disagreed with the clarification and change in the wording in the new act in 1795, he would have vetoed the Naturalization Act of 1795.
What is your legal and/or constitutional basis for this conclusion?
I’m going to check that out now.
Obama either was or was not a citizen at birth. If he was not a citizen at birth, then not only is he not eligible to serve as president, he's not a citizen at all!
You sound like a lawyer and from your ID maybe you are a military lawyer.
I think your post should be linked when trying to explain this to Obamatrons who come to this site.
It is a confusing issue to most..and perhaps even to some lawyers.
“The `Obots’ seem to be coming to us”
As a political matter, for the past several months we’ve had McCainiacs screaming at us that if we didn’t support the GOP—e.g. “Not voting for McCain is a vote for Obama!”—we’d be stuck with Obama.
Now that we (conservatives and McCain supporters: united at last, or we should be) have an opportunity to toss this unabashed marxist out on his ear—while defending the Constitution, I’ll add—I can’t understand the adamant defense of the man.
Is it a hangover from the attempt by Romneybots, Huckleberries, Paulists and Fredheads to paint Juan as not a NBC? Time to move on!
To give the “Obots” the benefit of the doubt, OK—they are genuinely concerned about the Constitution. If that’s the case, then Article Two says, “natural born citizen”. Let that be the `polestar’ and let’s drop all this: “He was born in Hawaii (we don’t know that he was) or “His Mom was American... “ (see the statute) or “Gee, the liberals will be mighty unhappy ........ screw them and the Hawaiian/Kenyan/Indonesian they rode in on!
You are correct in your statement that he is not eligible if not a citizen. However, the question becomes is he eligible if he is native born but not natural born...and what is the definition of natural born.
The meaning of natural born goes beyond just being born on US soil, but also not having dual loyalties, one where your born and one by parental citizenship.
To be natural born, first BOTH parents must be US citizens, and then to be born on US soil.
Obama, even if he was born in Hawaii, was not natural born because his father, being Kenyan, was a British citizen at the time.
Also, I believe Obamas mother couldn't pass citizenship on to Barack as she wasn't a US citizen the required time.
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.