Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: DustyMoment
They are considered by American law, in all respects, to be "natural born citizens" of the United States, having been born in an American hospital on American soil.

I'll need a citation for that. Not in any of the legislative or judicial proceedings that I have read is this claim made. In fact, a case for the opposite is made. Wong Kim Ark, for example, required a ruling by our highest court to even be afforded the basic right of citizenship -- natural born citizenship was off the table -- and he was born in San Francisco. "Citizen", yes. "Natural Born Citizen", no. If you have a quote and citation indicating otherwise, I would be pleased to read it. To the extent of my own vast research, the so-called anchor babies have been afforded the status of "citizen" by virtue of birth within the jurisdiction of our nation, but have not been extended the status of "natural born citizen" by any legislative or judicial proceedings.

If Putin were to adopt a natural born American child, there is nothing in our laws to prevent that child from becoming the President

That is not the premise I've laid. Putin, in my scenario, would *father*, not adopt, a child. Adopting a natural born citizen (and potentially jeopardizing the child's singular allegiance) is a completely different argument than that of an alien visitor fathering a child on U.S. soil. Putin, like Obama Sr., is not a naturalized citizen of the U.S. Therefore, he cannot father a natural born citizen of the U.S. If this were a possibility, colonial British agents would have reacquired the United States territories through the office of the President long ago. This was a particular concern of the Founders -- falling back under the British monarchy -- and they did well to curtail the possibility.

We may disagree on the distinctions of the "natural born" status, however, we do seem to agree completely that burden of proof lies with the job applicant, Barack Obama, and not the employer, We the People. He ought to prove he is a qualified applicant for the job or step out of the office.
51 posted on 07/21/2009 7:48:50 AM PDT by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: so_real
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights

1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Upon my first reading of paragraph 1 of this Amendment, I felt self-satisfied that I had provided the proof I needed to prove my point. Then I stopped and re-read it a few times and I begin to see your distinction. Paragraph 1 only addresses "born or naturalized" citizens. In our litigious society, though, "born" is not defined in a way that distinctly addresses what the Amendment means or how it is intended to be implemented.

Perhaps your argument is not as "immaterial" as I initially believed. Thanks for a good discussion and helping me learn a thing or two!!
52 posted on 07/21/2009 9:29:14 AM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson