Posted on 10/15/2009 2:13:26 PM PDT by Danae
This is my own work, I own any associated copyrights to it.
... What is a Natural Born Citizen? ...
“§ 212. Citizens and natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. -Emer Vattel (English language version, “Law of Nations” (1797) Book I, c.19, § 212 http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm http://home.earthlink.net/~dybel/Documents/LawOfNations,Vattel.htm#I-%C2%A7212
Who is Emer Vattel? He wrote the book "Law of Nations" which was originally published in France in 1758. ...
************** There is a great deal more in the article at the link.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Thx for the clarification on that. This is the first day I have ever heard this term.
Post 14 contains a nice list of ugly TROLLS, but is Curiosity one of them ? He admitted that BO is scum, but then questions the validity of the posts ?
Bumperoo!
I agree that the “two citizen parent” requirement of NBC is a load of bunk, but its funny how the “he is the son of Malcolm X “posts had sort of dried up.
“AFTER-birthers ignore any and all facts.”
NO NO NO. We are paid to discover whatever facts you birthers may come up with. So, we have gotten “money for nothing and our chicks for free” because you guys haven’t come up with any “facts” yet.
Please get at least ONE FACT so we can continue to get paid.
parsy, who needs Christmas money
Are you Dianna Cotter ?
The Question in "Wong Kim Ark":
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents 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 by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
The judgement in "Wong Kim Ark":
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.
Pretty much everything in between is dicta. The case concerned citizenship, not natural born citizenship. It was decided on the basis of the 14th amendment. It does not say that Mr. Wong was a natural born citizen, for that was not the question before the court, merely that he was a citizen.
That said, part of that dicta quotes the following statement:
"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 making a distinction between "child of an alien" "born in the country", and a the "natural born child of a citizen", but states that both are just as much citizens. "That principal" being birth in the country. The conclusion is that the author at least thought that there is a distinction between "citizen born in the country" and "natural born citizen", one being a subset of the other. That quote comes from a paper written in 1853. Others quoted in the dicta indicate that natural born subject and natural born citizen are the same thing, with US Citizens being subjects of the government. Well, I'm no subject of any King, Shah, Czar or President.
The purpose of the NBC clause in the Constitution was not to protect any individual right, it was to protect the country from foreign influence. Someone with a foreign national parent would certainly be subject to such influence.
It's a fine quote and all that, but the Supreme Court seems already to have dismissed it.
They've never been presented with a case where "natural born citizen" status was at issue.
There is one thing which really put the issue "over the top" for me. That is a little "thought experiment" of asking "would the founders have wanted the son of a European royal, though born in the US, to be eligible to be the commander in chief", the answer being Hell No! avoidance of foreign influence, especially that of foreign nobility, was the whole reason for the provision. And it still is.
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, . . in the House on March 9, 1866:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [plural, meaning two] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”
Still have not cashed my first check, not sure the bank would cash a 3 cent check. LOL
but its funny how the “he is the son of Malcolm X “posts had sort of dried up.
~~~~
Those of us who rightfully seek official confirmation and
verification of his Constitutional eligibility want the
truth .. whatever it is .. be it MalcolmX, Barack Sr.,
Frank Davis, Stanley Dunham .. and be it Chicago, Hawaii,
Kenya, or Kansas ...
the incontrovertible, conclusive truth.
The American people deserve no less.
Dear “Drew-Wrong-Conclusion”,
I usually don’t bother responding to ignorant trolls, but your Obamessiah was a co-sponsor of Senate Resolution bill 511 (along with several Demon-crats) who determined ‘unanimously’ that John McCain was a “natural born citizen” because he born on a U.S. Naval base and was the child of American citizens (plural ! ) and Hil-lar’-y-ass also consented to this ruling !
The only mistake they made was that they forgot to consult with you and your buddy, Non-Sequitur before passing this Resolution !
He was a Swiss. He likely spoke French, since Neuchatel, Switzerland where he was born is in the French speaking part of Switzerland, and quite close to the French border as well. But then again, he likely also spoke German, which more Swiss speak as a first language than speak French as their first language, since about the time he wrote "Law of Nations", he went to what is now Germany for employement.
Sorry to get back you so late.
I don’t care if you ping your group. I could see others pinging theirs and thought it was funny.
It was almost as if you could see the planes taking off their respective carriers.
If you look back through everyone doing it on this thread or other threads it’s funny.
Yep!
Come on, Mr. Vendome....he’s the magic Negro, don’tcha know....
LoL!
Oh, I get it!
You guys must not be getting paid for this because you’re making sarcastic comments pretending you’re getting paid, but it’s really only joking so that means…you’re really not getting paid!
Right?
GREAT Analysis!
No. Anyone has Standing to remedy actions contrary to the actual text of the Constitution:
“Chief Justice Warren determined that the only critical one in this case was whether there was a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment” to the House to determine in its sole discretion the qualifications of members.563 In[p.695]order to determine whether there was a textual commitment, the Court reviewed the Constitution, the Convention proceedings, and English and United States legislative practice to ascertain what power had been conferred on the House to judge the qualifications of its members; finding that the Constitution vested the House with power only to look at the qualifications of age, residency, and citizenship, the Court thus decided that in passing on Powell’s conduct and character the House had exceeded the powers committed to it and thus judicial review was not barred by this factor of the political question doctrine.564”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag27_user.html
Powell v. McCormack
4. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over petitioners’ action. Pp. 395 U. S. 512-516.
(a) The case is one “arising under” the Constitution within the meaning of Art. III, since petitioners’ claims “will be sustained if the Constitution . . . [is] given one construction and will be defeated if it [is] given another.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678. Pp. 395 U. S. 513-514.
(b) The district courts are given a broad grant of jurisdiction by 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), over “all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy . . . arises under the Constitution . . . ,” and, while that grant is not entirely coextensive with Art. III, there is no indication that § 1331(a) was intended to foreclose federal courts from entertaining suits involving the seating of Congressmen. Pp. 395 U. S. 514-516.
5. This litigation is justiciable because the claim presented and the relief sought can be judicially resolved. Pp. 395 U. S. 516-518.
(a) Petitioners’ claim does not lack justiciability on the ground that the House’s duty cannot be judicially determined, since, if petitioners are correct, the House had a duty to seat Powell once it determined that he met the standing qualifications set forth in the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 517.
(b) The relief sought is susceptible of judicial resolution, since, regardless of the appropriateness of a coercive remedy against House personnel (an issue not here decided), declaratory relief is independently available. Pp. 395 U. S. 517-518.
6. The case does not involve a “political question,” which, under the separation of powers doctrine, would not be justiciable. Pp. 395 U. S. 518-549.
(a) The Court’s examination of relevant historical materials shows at most that Congress’ power under Art. I, § 5, to judge the “Qualifications of its Members” is a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment . . . to [that] co-ordinate political department of government” (Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 369 U. S. 217) to judge only standing qualifications which are expressly set forth in the Constitution; hence, the House has no power to exclude a member-elect who meets the Constitution’s membership requirements. Pp. 395 U. S. 518-548.
(b) The case does not present a political question in the sense, also urged by respondents, that it would entail a “potentially embarrassing confrontation between coordinate branches” of the Government, since our system of government requires federal courts on occasion to interpret the Constitution differently from other branches. Pp. 395 U. S. 548-549.
7. In judging the qualifications of its members under Art. I, § 5, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications expressly prescribed by the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 550.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/395/486/index.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.