An Original Taxonomy of "Natural Born Citizen" theories.

All very well. I'm sure both Vattel and Blackstone were very influential, but I had come across many referances to Blackstone's commentaries long before I even became away of "The Laws of Nations".

Which to use when there is a conflict is the question. Many of the authors of the Constitution, and many of those who ratified it, were lawyers, and would have been familiar with both, but especially "..Laws of England", since until at 1775, they were English lawyers. But I'm still not sure which to use in this case.

There is the additional factor of the 14th amendment which does define persons born in the United states, and subject to their jurisdiction (which children of ambassadors, members of conquering armies and so forth, are not) as citizens.

But still I could be convinced, or convince myself either way. It's a matter for the courts, and they need to get on with it.

Of course if they do, it's possible, even likely, that they will find that the point is moot, as the presumptive President-elect may turn out not to be a natural born citizen under either English Common law or "Laws of Nations" definitions.

What law governed foreign births on August 4, 1961? What was the definition of a natural born citizen on that date?

The same as it was September 17th, 1787. But of course your latter post abandon's the question of Natural born citizenship and goes to just citizenship. I think it's fair to say that one who is not qualified as a "citizen at birth" is also not qualified under any possible 1787 understanding of "Natural born citizen". The opposite is not true, that is there may well be people who qualify as citizens at birth, who do not qualify as "natural born". I don't think any of those cases will apply to BHO however. The reason I think that is because I think a good lawyer could make the case that anyone actually born in the US is a natural born citizen of the US, especially with one US Citizen parent, even if that person were also qualified as a citizen by birth of some other country. And I think Obama knows that, and would present certified proof to a court if he had been born in Hawaii or elsewhere in the US. He hasn't done so, and it would be both easier and much cheaper to do that, than hire lawyers to prevent him from being forced to do so. Thus I think there is something disqualifying on his BC, and being born outside the US is about the only thing I can think of that it could be. But then maybe I don't have a good enough imagination. :)

First, natural born citizen is a total quagmire—attempts by Congress to pass a law to define the term have all failed.

Congress has no power to pass such a law. If they did, they could redefine other terms in the Constitution, such as "arms", or "bear".

They could pass an amendment, and get it ratified by the necessary 3/4 of the states, but they haven't, other than the 14th amendment clause stating that "All persons 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.

Any citizenship law Congress passes can only be done under their power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization", which means that can make some children "Naturalized at birth", and they have done so. But under the law in effect when BHO was (allegedly) born, (and for many years before and after Aug. 4, '61), if he was not born in the US, then he was not even "naturalized at birth", let alone a "Natural born citizen", an thus unless naturalized later, would be an illegal alien, subject to deportation.

He is however (presumably) married to a US Citizen, so he could get a green card without being subject to any quota on Kenyans or Indonesians, whichever he actually turned out to be.

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Minor v. Happersett supports the Emerich de Vattel interpretation of the phrase “natural born citizen” in Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Senator Obama’s own website admits that he was born with dual citizenship and divided allegiance.

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite in the decision dated March 29, 1875, wrote:

“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.” (88 U.S. 162)

“It was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves . . . natural-born citizens.”

Furthermore, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray in a decision dated March 28, 1898, re-affirmed the Minor v. Happersett interpretation:

“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: ‘The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.” (169 U.S. 649)

Sen. Obama’s website, fightthesmears.com admits that:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.”

Thus under the test of Minor v. Happersett Sen. Obama does not qualify as a natural born citizen.

What law governed foreign births on August 4, 1961? What was the definition of a natural born citizen on that date?

I'm sorry if I seem to be complicating it. You do understand that there are many lawsuits being undertaken simultaneously that are based on these different interpretations,right?

Several of the assert as a matter of fact that they believe that Obama WAS born in Hawaii, but still feel he is not eligible.

In other words Berg's veiw is simply one of many.

And sadly there isn't really a "law" that defines Natrual Born citizen, which is why we have these different interpretations.

Two types of citizenship recognized by US law.

Naturalized, meaning you went through a legal “naturalization” process to become a US citizen.

Natural born, meaning by the natural act of being born you had US citizenship.

Those who are US citizens at birth, and thus recognized as “natural born” citizens, are defined under Title 8 section 1401 of US law passed by Congress under Constitutional authority to define citizenship in Article I section 8.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401——000-.html

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.