An Original Taxonomy of "Natural Born Citizen" theories.

One of the confusing issues around the Obama "Natural Born" citizenship issue is that while many people feel that O is not eligible they do not agree, at all, on the reasons for this.

Many of these differences are based on different interpretations of the term "Natural Born Citizen", the qualifier in the US Constitution that Obama must meet.

To help clarify what we mean I have created a taxonomy of definitions based on the more than 50 articles I have read on this, as well as some basic logic.

Many of these have strong supporters here on Free Republic, and some have strong detractors. In the taxonomy section I have tried to present these in a logical order, with all possible cases presented. In the taxonomy section I have limited comments to only relevant court cases and how it effects Obama, without going into my particular views on the merits of the argument.

I'm hoping that this might prove useful to others, as well as for discussion purposes.

NB1:"Natural Born" means child was a citizen at time of birth and father did not hold foreign citizenship (regardless of mothers citizenship) at the time of birth AND person born on US Soil.

Obama would not qualify under this case due to fathers citizenship regardless of whether he was born in Kenya or Hawaii.

NB2: "Natural Born" means child was a citizen at birth AND father did not hold foreign citizenship at time of birth, regardless of birth location.

NB3: "Natual Born" means child was a citizen at birth and both father and mother were citizens AND person born on US soil.

Tenatively floated by liberals as a definition that might have denied McCain the Presidency, him failing the third test of "born on US soil."

Obama would not qualify due to his fathers citizenship, regardless of birth location.

NB4: "Natural Born" means means child was a citizen at birth AND BOTH father and mother were citizens regardless of birth location.

NB5:"Natural Born" means child was a citizen at birth because EITHER father or mother were citizens AND child was born in USA.

Obama qualifies under this one if Born in Hawaii. This one is used by Obama supporters are the "obvious" answer but doesn't seem to have much support in law. It's what those who haven't looked into it think the law SHOULD say.

NB6: "Natural Born means EITHER father or mother were citizens regardless of birth location.

NB7: "Natural Born means the child was a citizen at birth because EITHER the father or the mother were citizens, AND that parent met the legal requirements for imparting citizenship at the time of birth IF child was born outside US Territory.

This is the definition used by Berg in his lawsuit, which is apparently still under discussion at the SC.

NB8:"Natural Born" means the child was a citizen at birth by virtue of birth on US Soil, regardless of the status of their parents.

This is the "soil absolutist" argument. This says "as long as citizen was born on US Soil nothing else matters". This interpretation seems to be the most popular in the media, and will eventually allow anchor babies to run for POTUS.

It is the test commonly used in most other areas of law to determine citizenship. 14th Amendment often sighted in support of this interpretation.

Frequently used by Obama supporters as the ultimate "proof". eg: "he was born in Hawaii, it doesn't matter where his father was from". Detested by opponents of citizenship for "anchor babies", but still the law.

Obama qualifies under this one regardless of any questions about his parents citizenship IF as he claims he was born in Hawaii. If he wasn't then this doesn't help him.

NB 7 acknowledges that there were some circumstances where citizenship ITSELF (not "Natural Born", just of any type) is not automatically imparted to the child if born abroad when only one parent is a citizen. Berg takes this view.

Many of these definitions claim, implicitly and explicitly, that there are three types of citizens. These are: "Natural Born" "Naturalized" and what some have taken to calling "Native Born".

According to the "three type" advocates "Native Born" citizens are citizens by virtue of birth but lack some crucial requirement (birth on US soil) or have some crucial disqualification (father a non-citizen) that does not allow them to run for POTUS.

One practical problem for any of the "Three Type" advocates is that there are no other places in US Law where this distinction is made. Thus, in a real sense, advocates of these "Natural Born" definitions are asking POTUS to define this for the first time in the context of the Obama election. This seems unlikely from a pragmatic point of view.

The "Two Types" advocates have an easier time fitting in with existing law, and most people's common understanding of the law.

They claim there are only TWO types of citizens recognized in law: Natural Born and Naturalized.

For advocates of this position the term "Natural Born" and "Native Born" are equivalent and identical.

This position has a simple test for determining "Natural Born" status: was the person a citizen at birth? If the answer to this is "Yes" then that person is "Natural Born" and eligible to run for POTUS.

This definition fits in with most peoples understanding of their citizenship. Everyone in the USA knows they are either: 1) a born citizen 2) a naturalized citizen or 3) not a citizen. Few people have thought about the "Three Types" classifications, or even heard of it before this lawsuit.

NB7 advocates claim that Obama is ineligible for POTUS because he is NOT A CITIZEN (unless he has secretly been naturalized and is hiding that fact.)

It is both the most disturbing claim (he's not even a CITIZEN!!!) and the most understandable (not requiring reference to obscure 18th century books defining "natural born" or acceptance of three classes of citizenship.

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.

	Father Key	Both Parents Key	Either Parent Key	US Soil Required?	2 or 3 Cit. Types	O Born in USA, eligible?	O Born in Kenya, eligible?
NB1	YES			YES	3	NO	NO

NB2	YES			NO	3	NO	NO

NB3		YES		YES	3	NO	NO

NB4		YES		NO	3	NO	NO

NB5			YES	YES	3	YES	NO

NB6			YES	NO	2	YES	YES

NB7			YES, limited*	NO	2	YES	NO

NB8				YES	2	YES	NO