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

Skip to comments.

Defining Natural-Born Citizen
The Federalist Blog ^ | August 8, 2009 | P.A. Madison

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 ...


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: article2section1; barackobama; bho44; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; colb; naturalborn; obamanoncitizenissue
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: Publius6961
Who watches the watchers? What recourse is there?

Thomas Jefferson's answer to that question, in his letter to To William S. Smith, from Paris, Nov. 13, 1787

The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.

21 posted on 08/08/2009 3:12:34 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
Elg defines natural born citizen.>from the decision:

The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg. who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here,
...
The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants, declared Miss Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States,"

So, Miss Elg was born in the US, of naturalized citizen parents. So, if that is the definition, born in the US of citizen parents, Obama doesn't fit it.

22 posted on 08/08/2009 3:28:40 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
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.

Actually, IIRC, only *citizenship*, which W.K.A was ruled to have, via the 14th amendment and by virtue of his birth in the US. The term "native born" does not appear in the opinion. "Natural born does, but only in a quote from a paper by Binney "on the Alienigenae of the United States, printed in pamphlet at Philadelphia, with a preface bearing his signature and the date of December 1, 1853".

The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.

Thus it makes a distinction between the child of an alien born in the country, and a natural born child. They have the same rights, but are not the same.

The actual decision does not mention "natural born", just citizen. The final (and summary) paragraph from the decision:

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

23 posted on 08/08/2009 3:52:04 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
I think the problem comes when the Court is making the case for Elg’s citizenship. They invoke Wong Kim Ark as legal precedent.

Although there are aspects concerning treaties and how citizenship might devolve from the parents’ shifting jurisdictions that are germane in both instances, Ark wasn't a natural born citizen and it's unclear as to how he was any kind of citizen at all, except citizen by empathy of the court.

24 posted on 08/08/2009 4:05:06 PM PDT by Perchant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Perchant
I think the problem comes when the Court is making the case for Elg’s citizenship. They invoke Wong Kim Ark as legal precedent.

They invoke it for the proposition that nothing a parent does can remove the citizenship of the child.Ark wasn't a natural born citizen and it's unclear as to how he was any kind of citizen at all, except citizen by empathy of the court.

He was a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment, this case being *after* that was passed. He was born in the US. His parents, like BHO Sr, were not citizens, but as I understand it, they were here legally. But not natural born, because his parents were not citizens, although that was not at issue in the case, so it was not ruled on. The quote were "natural born" appeared was in support of him, as the child of aliens born in the US, being a citizen.

25 posted on 08/08/2009 4:37:26 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american
Good post. Article 2 Section 1 Cl. 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires the POTUS to be a natural born U.S. citizen. A natural born U.S. citizen is one that is born on American soil to U.S. citizen parents.

Therefore, since OBAMA’s father was from Kenya and a British citizen then OBAMA does not meet the requirements for POTUS.

Even if OBAMA submits a long form birth certificate that shows his birth in Hawaii he is still not qualified to be POTUS and he knows this. Maybe this is why he is in such a hurry to past his socialist programs because judgment day is coming for this dude.

26 posted on 08/08/2009 6:24:05 PM PDT by txoilman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: txoilman

You have the same opinion as me. Obama certainly is rushing his Marxism, Socialism and Communism through Congress. It’s likely that he know’s that he’s NOT a natural born citizen which could get him multiple charges of perjury.

You wrote-
“Good post. Article 2 Section 1 Cl. 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires the POTUS to be a natural born U.S. citizen. A natural born U.S. citizen is one that is born on American soil to U.S. citizen parents.
Therefore, since OBAMA’s father was from Kenya and a British citizen then OBAMA does not meet the requirements for POTUS.

Even if OBAMA submits a long form birth certificate that shows his birth in Hawaii he is still not qualified to be POTUS and he knows this. Maybe this is why he is in such a hurry to past his socialist programs because judgment day is coming for this dude.”


27 posted on 08/08/2009 6:32:34 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
Slapping my own forehead....

Just realized that Birthers failed to exploit a rare, sparkling, political opportunity....

Why didn't we rancorously demand that Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee ask Sotomayor to define “Natural Born Citizen?”

28 posted on 08/08/2009 8:23:18 PM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: real_patriotic_american

“FREE THE LONG FORM!”


29 posted on 08/08/2009 10:05:46 PM PDT by Dryman (Now, Back to Lurking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
Is there already a constitutional definition of "Natural born Citizen"?
This seems to be logical. Anybody care to poke holes in this line of reasoning

This was posted on Citizen Wells and and Natural Born Citizen.

>>>You Article II s.1′er guys are just going to love this………THE CONSTITUTION DOES INDEED DEFINE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS BORN OF 2 US CITIZEN PARENTS AND ‘IN COUNTRY’, further it defines allegiance by patrilineage!!! Greg Goss wrote: The Constitution and de Vattel’s Law of Nations has the answer to any questions regarding citizenship abroad and any laws crossing national boundaries:

EXCERPT 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1: No Person except a natural born Citizen, OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212: The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:

EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8: The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time. http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm ————

US Citizen is defined by the 14th amendment. Natural Born Citizen is defined by The Law Of Nations, which is cited in the Constitution as its very basis Not only does the Law of Nations state that a natural born citizen is born in country of two citizen parents, it ALSO says that the patrilineage determines allegiance, meaning Barack’s father who was British/Kenyan determined Obama’s citizenship.

30 posted on 08/08/2009 10:32:57 PM PDT by JGA2Z (give me Liberty or give me death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JGA2Z

I’ll be you may have something there. :-)


31 posted on 08/09/2009 10:27:49 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters; All

This is lengthy, but includes the pertinent passages from Blackstone, Vattel, and the British Nationality Act of 1948. Otherwise, you would have to get it off the ‘Net yourselves ...

In order to understand the concept of “Natural Born” citizenship, it is necessary to understand NOT ONLY who is a “Natural Born” citizen, but ALSO the traits and characteristics of a “Natural Born” citizen …

FIRST:

We look at the question of the applicability of English Common Law to the United States Constitution, vis-à-vis SCOTUS.

From Wheaton v. Peters (January Term 1834), Minor v. Happersett (March 29, 1875), Smith v. Alabama (January 30, 1886), and United States v. Wong Kim Ark (March 28, 1898):

Although SCOTUS has ruled that there IS NO Common Law in the United States, it has ALSO ruled that Common Law ought to be consulted in cases where original intent necessarily needs to be construed.

SECOND:

We now look at the question of a “Natural Born” subject in English Common Law vis-à-vis Blackstone.

From Commentaries on the Laws of England
Book I, Chapter X: Of the People, Whether Aliens, Denizens, or Natives

“… Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth … Natural allegiance … cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, … the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own … put off or discharge his natural allegiance … and cannot be divested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters; and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince …

… Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien … for so long time as he continues within the king’s dominion and protection: and it ceases, the instant such stranger transfers himself from this kingdom to another. Natural allegiance is therefore perpetual, and local [allegiance] temporary only …

… An alien born may purchase lands, or other estates: but not for his own use; for the king is thereupon entitled to them. If an alien could acquire a permanent property in lands, he must own an allegiance, equally permanent with that property, to the king of England; which would probably be inconsistent with that, which he owes his own natural liege lord …

… And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once …

… The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such …

… A Denizen is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject … A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them … And no denizen can be of the privy council, or either house of parliament, or have any office of trust, civil or military, or be capable of any grant from the crown.

… Naturalization cannot be performed but by act of parliament: for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the king’s ligeance; except only that he is incapable … of being a member of the privy council, or parliament, etc. …”.

THIRD:

We now look at the question of whether a person may sever ties with his Sovreign (more on this later in the “CONCLUSIONS” section).

From Law Of Nations
Chapter XIX: Of Our Native Country And Several Things That Relate To It

§ 220. Whether a person may quit his country.

“ … 1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born; they are under an obligation to show themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers … They ought, therefore, to love it, as we have already shown, to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible, by serving it in turn … But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen … may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it …”.

FOURTH:

We now look at the question of a “Natural Born” subject in English Common Law vis-à-vis The British Nationality Act of 1948.

From Part II, Section V:

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:

CONCLUSIONS:

What does this ALL mean ???

1. The Founding Fathers DID NOT consider English Common Law to be the controlling law in the Colonies. For if they DID, as “Natural Born” English subjects, they NEVER could have severed ties with England without the Sovreign’s consent (per Blackstone).

2. The Founding Fathers seem to have borrowed from Vattell as justification for the severance. This seems to verify that the Founding Fathers DID NOT ENTIRELY rely on English Common Law when founding the United States.

3. Blackstone states that the children of foreigners born on English soil are, GENERALLY SPEAKING, “Natural Born” subjects.

4. HOWEVER, Blackstone ALSO declares that a “Natural Born” subject CANNOT serve two masters.

5. Therefore, per Blackstone, a child of a foreigner appears to be a Denizen rather than a “Natural Born” subject – assuming that the foreign father’s country recognizes the child as one of its citizens (dual nationality).

6. Per Blackstone, a Denizen enjoys MOST of the rights of a “Natural Born” subject – except that he CANNOT hold high office.

7. The British Nationality Act of 1948 recognizes OBAMA as a British subject AND the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution recognizes him as a United States citizen (dual nationality), IF he was born in Hawaii.

8. As a dual national, OBAMA COULD NOT have fit the definition of “Natural Born” as the Founding Fathers knew it.


32 posted on 08/09/2009 1:26:04 PM PDT by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last

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.

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

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