Being born in the United States does not even make one a 'NATIVE' citizen.

nobarack08 | Feb 12, 2010 | syc1959

[r9etb]

BOTH parents were citizens of the United States when you were born

By that standard, George Washington was not eligible to be president. Indeed, even Abraham Lincoln was not eligible by that standard, his mother and father having been born in 1778 and 1784, respectively, before the Constitution was written.

And yet they both served, and their eligibility has never been in question.

[EnderWiggins]

"There is only one that matters, the qualifications for POTUS. That defination has not been specifically defined by the SCOTUS, and because of this, the only defination we have is what the founders intended. That the President be a child of two parents who were citizens and be born on the soil of the US or its territory."

Too bad that's not what founders intended.

[Danae]

Then you should not be holding this conversation. WKA is Wong Kim Ark, one of the few cases that ever touched on Natural Born Citizenship, and stated clearly that Wong was a citizen but not a Natural Born one, thereby making the LEGAL distinction between the two.

[EnderWiggins]

You appear to have never actually read the decision.

Please do so, and pay particular attention to the several times Judge Gray defines natural born citizen.

[usmcobra]

Totally relevant, it describes not only the naturalization of citizens but exactly what a Natural Born Citizen is.

A Natural Born Citizen is born to US CitizenS ANYWHERE ON THIS PLANET OR "BEYOND OUR SHORES".

The page prior to this one describes the Naturalization of New Citizens immediately after the founding of this country and enacts the process by which they can become citizens. This law that you deem irrelevant is the very basis for the citizenship of countless millions of Americans whose ancestors became citizens after the founding of our country.

It spells out the Naturalization process, who is a natural born citizen as well as who is not a citizen by birth and most importantly it was written by the Founding Fathers of this country.

But all that is irrelevant to you.....

[syc1959]

WKA’s parents were under the jurisdiction of foreign law, it has been viewed as a flawed decision.
I have posted four other Supreme Court cases that directly conflict with WKA.

An Act of April 9, 1866 established for the first time a national law that read, “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” Rep. John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, said this national law (Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes) was “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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.”

[Danae]

Well, DUH. Good grief... this is remedial. Why do you think that they grandfathered in the founders and original citizens created at the time the constitution was ratified?? Maybe because there would not be a Natural Born Citizen until 1811 or so? Maybe?? You think?? 35 years of age and all that?

"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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Its not like they didn't think of that! Sheesh...

[EnderWiggins]

"Totally relevant, it describes not only the naturalization of citizens but exactly what a Natural Born Citizen is."

No, it does not. It extends the label to children of citizens born overseas. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

"A Natural Born Citizen is born to US CitizenS ANYWHERE ON THIS PLANET OR "BEYOND OUR SHORES"

Or born on US soil to anybody who is not a foriegn diplomat or occupying army.

[Danae]

I have read it several times. In full I might add.

You seem to be missing the SIMPLEST of points. If there was no difference between the two... WHY MAKE THE SPECIFIC DIFFERENTIATION? Hum? If you are talking a single thing, why name it twice and state that one is not the same as the other? Your logic fails. Vattel has it correct, and it is well known (see Benjamin Franklin letters) that the founders had coppies of Vattel.... yea, thats the definition they used.

[tutstar]

bump

[tutstar]

Racism? You’ve got to be kidding. You sound just like a Dem Rat! Anyone who says anything derogatory about the Messiahhhhhhh is a Raaaayyyyycccciiissssttttt!

[EnderWiggins]

"WKA’s parents were under the jurisdiction of foreign law, it has been viewed as a flawed decision."

Only by Birthers.

"I have posted four other Supreme Court cases that directly conflict with WKA." Only in your fevered imagination. You do not display that you understand those cases at all, let alone that they contradict Wong Kim Ark. With the expedition of Dredd Scott perhaps, but at least you've been smart enough to not go there.

And since Bingham was speaking about 80 years too late, his opinion has no authority over the meaning of Article II.

[Danae]

Sorry, just have to LOL again at that one....

[usmcobra]

"Or born on US soil to anybody who is not a foriegn diplomat or occupying army"

Show me where the first Congress of the United States or any of our founding fathers made that distinction.

[EnderWiggins]

Wong Kim Ark made no distinction. But the distinction is obvious. "Citizens" includes both naturalized and natural born citizens. And naturalized citizens cannot be President.

I sometimes think Birthers have never seen a Venn Diagram.

One last time with feeling: De Vattel never defined "natural born citizen." Period.

[Danae]

ROTFLMAO Prove that!

*cough*Federalist68*cough*

[r9etb]

Well, DUH. Good grief... this is remedial.

And yet your logic says otherwise. The problem is not mine.

[EnderWiggins]

None of them did explicitly make that distinction because it was already part of centuries of English common law. Quoting again from the Supreme Court Decision in Wong Kim Ark:

"The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."

[Danae]

Ping to thread, its the end that’s interesting... and this newbie poster, who seems to think that he is all that with constitutional definitions, and history. Maybe he is... maybe he is a SCOTUS judge incognito... (giggle) Seems to know more than SCOTUS who interestingly enough has never decided exactly specifically what NBC is... golly.... he also seems to miss that until they DO we don’t have ANY guide at all, but a pretty damned good indication we have an unconstitutional government. EnderWiggens, joined Jan of 2010.

[Danae]

Not at all. Re-read what I wrote.