Posted on 08/08/2009 12:55:05 PM PDT by RobinMasters
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” —George Mason
What might the phrase “natural-born citizen” of the United States imply under the U.S. Constitution? The phrase has always been obscure due to the lack of any single authoritative source to confer in order to understand the condition of citizenship the phrase recognizes. Learning what the phrase might have meant following the Declaration of Independence, and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires detective work. As with all detective work, eliminating the usual suspects from the beginning goes a long way in quickly solving a case.
What Natural-Born Citizen Could Not Mean
Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth?
Unlikely in the strict sense because we know one can be native born and yet not a native born citizen of this country prior to the year 1866. There were even disputes whether anyone born within the District of Columbia or in the territories were born citizens of the United States (they were generally referred to as “inhabitants” instead.) National Government could make no “territorial allegiance” demands within the several States because as Madison explained it, the “powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
(Excerpt) Read more at federalistblog.us ...
John A. Bingham, primary framer of the 14th Amendment, states- “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” Obama’s father was a citizen of the United Kingdom of Colonies (Kenya). Thus, Obama is NOT a natural born citizen.
Excerpt from this article-
“Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained that to be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
Thus, Obama is NOT a natural born citizen.
The US Supreme Court can change (and has changed) the Constitution arbitrarily and capriciously.
Who watches the watchers? What recourse is there?
Good article.
Also, here:
http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2008/12/articles-on-constitutions-natural-born.html
No basis for your statements.
bump
Please point out the Supreme Court having ever changed the Constitution regarding eligibility requirements for the office of President.
And, should you feel that you've identified such a decision, understand the limitations upon Amendment in Marbury v. Madison.
It's not possible for the Constitutional meaning of this term to have been arbitrarily, capriciously or otherwise changed in any manner. A Constitutional Amendment is required, as has been recognized several times in this decade, via bills sponsored with the intent of altering the natural born citizenship clause, or the definition of natural born citizen itself.
Elg defines natural born citizen.
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
Definition was made during the time of the framers. Stay tuned.
there is a SCOTUS case that says it does not just have to be just two citizen parents born in the US.
I don’t know that they meant for it to apply to the eligibility of the US PResident..but it is defined.
Law of unintended consequences
Interesting that this article was just published.
Now that Congress has adjourned and Sotomayor is safely ensconced, Obama is letting his guard down.
I’d love to see a silent coup happen between now and Labor Day. Obama is not a natural-born citizen but he has the MSM behind this evil canard. Unthinkable? So was Madoff. So was the attack on US soil known as 9/11.
The American public does not liked to be fooled. Cap and Tax. Obamacare. Now there is the matter of 0’s eligibility. The sooner he and DNC and MSM are exposed as liars the better.
No he doesn’t. Provide a reference.
I do not believe that your post has its facts straight. Perhaps you are referring to the Wong Kim Ark case, but that case is NOT on point. The supremes never ruled on natural born citizenship in that case, only NATIVE born citizenship.
Where is the difference defined?
Right on! I’m with you!
You wrote-
“Interesting that this article was just published.
Now that Congress has adjourned and Sotomayor is safely ensconced, Obama is letting his guard down.
I’d love to see a silent coup happen between now and Labor Day. Obama is not a natural-born citizen but he has the MSM behind this evil canard. Unthinkable? So was Madoff. So was the attack on US soil known as 9/11.
The American public does not liked to be fooled. Cap and Tax. Obamacare. Now there is the matter of 0’s eligibility. The sooner he and DNC and MSM are exposed as liars the better.”
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.