Posted on 03/02/2010 11:43:58 AM PST by patlin
I was going to write an seperate article regarding this, but due to time constraints, I am just going to post this long hidden from public domain article regarding eligibilty requirements of those attaining to the office of POTUS. You can click the link at the end of the article to further read why a general definition of 'Native born' does not equate to 'Natural born' and how the DRONES try to obfuscate the debate in order to make them sound like they are equal on all levels. _________________________________________________
NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT
By ALEXANDER PORTER MORSE (ALBANY LAW JOURNAL VOL. 66 (1904-1905)
As a wide-spread interest attaches to the discussion of the meaning and scope of the constitutional provision in respect to eligibility for the office of president of the United States, I submit some views in this relation which may be opportune.
The question is often asked: Are children of citizens of the United States born at sea or in foreign territory, other than the offspring of American ambassadors or ministers plenipotentiary, natural-born citizens of the United States, within the purview of the constitutional provision? After some consideration of the history of the times, of the relation of the provision to the subject-matter and of the acts of congress relating to citizenship, it seems clear to the undersigned that such persons are natural-born, that is, citizens by origin; and that, if otherwise qualified, they are eligible to the office of president. In respect to the citizenship of children of American parentage, wherever born, the principle of ius sanguinis seems to be the American principle; that is to say, the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance, is recognized, which is modern, as distinguished from the ancient, and at one time, common-law principle of jus soli. If the provision was as sometimes inaccurately cited, namely, that the president must be “a native-born citizen,” there might be no question as to its meaning. But the framers generally used precise language; and the etymology actually employed makes the meaning definite. Its correspondent in English law, “natural-born subject,” appears in constitutional history and parliamentary enactments; and there it includes all children born out of the king’s allegiance whose fathers were natural-born subjects; and the children of such children (i. e., children whose grandfathers by the father’s side were natural-born subjects), though their mothers were aliens, are now deemed to be natural-born subjects themselves to all intents and purposes, unless their said ancestors were attainted or banished beyond sea for high treason, or were at the birth of such children in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, immigration was anticipated and provisions for naturalization would immediately follow the establishment of the government. Those resident in the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted were made citizens. Thereafter the president must be taken from the natural-born citizens. If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “ native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.
The earliest act of congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization (March 26, 1790) contained the following clause: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born at sea or out of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.” The draft of this act has been credited to Mr. Jefferson, although his authorship has been questioned; and his reputed relationship to it may be ascribed to the fact that he was the author of the original naturalization acts in the Constitution of Virginia, and was an ardent supporter of a wise system of naturalization laws before and after he became President. But whoever drew the act followed closely the various parliamentary statutes of Great Britain; and its language in this relation indicates that the first congress entertained and declared the opinion that children of American parentage, wherever born, were within the constitutional designation, “natural-born citizens.” The act is declaratory; but the reason that such children are natural born remains; that is, their American citizenship is natural—the result of parentage—and is not artificial or acquired by compliance with legislative requirements. The second act of naturalization (January 29, 1795), which was reported and probably drawn by Mr. Madison, chairman of a select House committee, enacted “That the children of persons duly naturalized dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” As carried forward in the Revised Statutes, the provision reads: “All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.” This provision, as its terms express, is declaratory; it is not the statute that constitutes children of American parentage citizens; it is the fact of American descent, the jus sanguinis, that makes them citizens at the moment of birth—a fact which, for sufficient and convenient reasons, the legislative power of the State recognizes and announces to the world.
If there was ambiguity, the rights and privileges of children of American parents dependent upon constitutional guarantee would demand recognition; and constitutional guaranties in favor of such persons might not be restricted or denied by congress.
To return to the constitutional requirement in respect to eligibility for the office of president, let us inquire what was the obvious purpose and intent of the limitation? Plainly, it was inserted in order to exclude “aliens” by birth and blood from that high office, upon considerations which naturally had much weight at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. It was scarcely intended to bar the children of American parentage, whether born at sea or in foreign territory. Where it was said in the old books that an alien is one born out of the king’s or State’s dominions or allegiance, this must be of the limits understood with some restrictions. A forced or restricted construction of the constitutional phrase under consideration would be out of harmony with ‘modern conceptions of political status, and might produce startling results. It remains to be decided whether a child of domiciled Chinese parents, born in the United States, is eligible, if otherwise qualified, to the office of president and to all the privileges of the Constitution. And it would be a strange conclusion, in another aspect, if the child of American parents, born in China, should be denied correspondent rights and privileges in the United States.
A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.
Our conclusion is that the child of citizens of the United States, wherever born, is “a natural-born citizen of the United States,” within the constitutional requirement; and, as such, if possessed of the other qualifications, would be eligible for the office of president of the United States.
WASHINGTON, D.C., March, 19o4
click on link above to go to the article defining the different definitions of 'Native born'.
He was born at Coco Solo (later Rodman) Naval Base Hospital, dead center on the waterway in the zone. There is no uncertainty.
And no, the Apollo 11 landing was not in a hager setting in the desert.
Well, it says: ‘... the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth.” From there it makes an argument that the child of citizens (plural) born overseas are natural born citizens.
They probably saw Anatomy of a Murder. Great movie. These guys are running thru anything that has natural born citizen it it. Roughly 1,250,00 hits if you google it. They are probably into 4 or 5 figures by now.
Probably hitting all the “Natural Born Citizens” the rock band tour dates and t-shirts about now.
parsy, who says “they’re something else....”
OMG!!!! That’s hilarious.
parsy, who is ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Apparently, a DNA test is not out of the question:
Deer Supreme Court,
How are you. Fine I hope. OMG! I hate to write you again but this is an emergency. This stuff is worse than I thought! First it was President Obama, who we found out was British, like George Washington ain’t spinning in his grave. Now I have found out Ronald Reagan, who is dead now, should never have been our President at all!
I just found out in Debrettes Peerage, which is a book where they peer at kings and things, says that Ronald Reagan was a descendant of Brian Boru, who was a King Of Ireland back in 1014. I guess Ireland and Denmark got in a fight or something, probably at one of them soccer games, and you know how them Irish like to drink. Anyway King Boru just up and beat the crap out of them Denmarkians.
But anyway, if Reagan was part of a line of Irish Kings, I am not sure he ever had America’s best interests at heart. I know the Democrats sure didn’t like him and accused him of this all the time. I hate to say it, but maybe they were right.
And, I have been trying to bone up on all this law stuff and LO AND BEHOLD, there is this law case called Wong the Chinaman or something like that. Y’all done it so I figure you have a copy of it laying around somewhere. And they say that “sovereigns” of other nations, which Kings are, can’t be Natural Born Citizens just because they are lucky enough to be born here. A prince is always under the loyalty and allegiance of the throne, or they can get their heads lopped off. I saw that on TV.
And plus I ain’t never heard of Prince Ronnie renouncing his throne! Like Grace Kelly did. We are just lucky we ain’t all having to speak Irish and drink whiskey all day long. Uncle Sam could have been switched out for a leperkan, leppercon, . . . you know that little fruity looking guy on the Lucky Charms box.
This is getting bad. How many other people like this are going to just pop up as Presidents? No wonder our country has been going to hell in a hand basket. A bunch of our presidents is illegal kings and princes of other places.
Please help us start deciding who can run. Maybe you can check out that Cosmetology.com or wherever it is they have all the birth records and start running these guys back at least to 1014 or so to make sure we ain’t electing foreigners on the sly. And DNA tests. And the Funny Name test. It is a crying out loud shame that people get to run for president and we can’t stop them at all.
Plus, we need to start making foreign countries tell us who all their kings are so we can google them. Next thing you know some descendant of that French guy, the Lost Dolphin, is going to slip in and we will all have to start eating rotten cheese and drinking wine.
Thank you,
A Concerned American
Brevity is the soul of wit ... milking a feeble attempt at a joke that wasn’t particularly funny to begin with is a little desperate.
I might need to shorten it up some.
parsy, who appreciates the critical review. (BTW, do you have any ideas on parts I could edit out?)
You came off like a real jerk in your reply to me. I don’t like to think badly of other FReepers, so I will assume that you didn’t mean to.
My post to you was just in way of explanation. I have no dog in this hunt, don’t really care where McCain was born. However, there have been questions regarding his place of birth because the Coco Solo hospital where McCain has said he was born was not built until 1941, well after his birth.
Thus, some have said he was born at the hospital in Colon, not on base. Others claim there was a small clinic on base at the time of his birth.
I don’t know and don’t much care. You were wrong to be snarky to someone who was merely being informative and friendly to you.
My suggestion, start edit with Apparently, end your edit after American.
LOL!
parsy, who set himself up for that
You can, of course, say anything you want to say but that doesn't make much of any of it so.
Although I have never thought the distinction important, McCain was in fact (according to his posted birth certificate) not born in the Canal Zone at all but instead was born in a private hospital in Colon, Panama, about 20 miles outside the zone. He was delivered by a US Military doctor if you think that helps you although I don't.
In my opinion, the Canal Zone is not particularly relevant either--it has never been part of the geographical territory of the several states and thus a person born there is not natural born.
McCain has an additional problem which is that the statute on which he relies for citizenship was enacted several years after his birth and by its terms it is not retroactive.
The issue of Daniel Inoue (Territory of Hawaii) and Ernest Gruening (Territory of Alaska) us also an interesting question. The Liberals made a strong argument to kick Barry Goldwater off the ballot because he was born in the territory of Arizona before it became a state.
Although the consensus among the Constitutional Lawyers of the day was that Goldwater would pass for the reason that Arizona was ultimately incorporated into the several states, the issue was not free from doubt and the Liberals abandoned the argument only when it became clear Goldwater had no chance to win. So, maybe Inoue and Gruening might have a problem.
Bwahahahaha...you really are a DRONE!!!!
KABOOM! Blown up right in your DRONE face.
The WaPo article clearly said the public could not see them. I'm sick of all this hiding of records, especially when it pertains to the births of those that want to represent ‘we the people’ in the highest office of the land.
Yes, I read that. I added "assuming he was born in Hawaii" to restrict my question. That section is irrelevant if he was born in Hawaii--saying "all A are B" doesn't mean "only As are B."
No doubt. But I still haven't figured out what you think has blown up. His mother was married to a Kenyan citizen--that's hardly a secret. So is your argument really that he couldn't derive NBcitizenship from his mother, only from his father?
A lot of people on here trying to discredit the citizenship argument with bad jokes or weak arguments. I would almost think they are Obamabots. I also saw that same Reagan was an Irish King on another Free Republic Article a couple days ago. This website is really starting to get destroyed by people who are not willing to debate facts or viewpoints, but really by people who will die to defend their boyking.
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.