Posted on 04/30/2010 2:25:36 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
No. Some follow the issue because it’s appalling that, as this article points out, there is so little process safeguarding the constitutional eligibility of a President, any president, it turns out.
Personally, I had no idea that some party hack, such as Nancy Pelosi, simply signs some form that says, yep, he’s our guy. Whether it has anything to do with BO or not, in my book, I’d like to see that process tightened up a little for the future. Including some procedure for challenge and judicial review if a threshold question is met.
A citizen MAYBE, and not before the law if he doesn't wish to furnish documentation.
ML/NJ
From your precious WKA cite, please note the use of the word "Citizen" which was the entire purpose of the case to begin with. The eligibility issue is about Natural Born Citizen status of bammie, which he is NOT.
"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"
Get it now?
ML/NJ
I just like to ask questions, so here goes:
1. Was Wong Kim Ark a Chinese citizen at birth? IOW, although he was born in the U.S., did China consider him a citizen because of his parents’ Chinese lineage?
2. Were BO’s parents at the time of his birth “domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein,” as Wong Kim Ark’s parents were?
3. Might answers to these questions make a difference to the legal analysis and result?
Your first example refers to native born citizen...your second also and ignores the issue of parentage. It’s too bad the term is not defined more clearly, but I suppose the letters of the drafters would shed some light. If I was more motivated, I would research them, but alas, I am not. Unless someone cam convince me otherwise, I would say that Obama Sr’s alleged British citizenship would disqualify the junior.
Read all of WKA.
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
The SCOTUS uses common law to say that natural born subject and natural born citizen are the same thing, and note the meaning of the former provides the original intent of the phrase in the Constitution.
“Again, in Levy v. McCartee (1832), 6 Pet. 102, 112, 113, 115, which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the State of New York, where the statute of 11 & 12 Will. III had been repealed, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co.Lit. 8a, that,
if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm...
...In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Sorry, but this is settled law. THAT is why the Supreme Court wouldn’t here the case in Dec 2008.
See post 47 for SCOTUS quotes...
Would anyone here be concerned with Obama’s birth certificate if he had the views of a Maggie Thatcher? Before you answer, think twice. Be honest now.
Go chase your tail with someone else.
Obviously, this language does not apply to aliens in general or aliens only within the kingdom. It applies to "aliens in amity," and then only "so long as they were [also] within the kingdom."
Might "aliens in amity" be similar to the situation of the parents of Wong Kim Ark, who were not just passing through, not just here on a student visa, not just whatever, but at the time of the child's birth "domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein?"
Was it constitutionally redundant (IIRC, this is not my area - lol) for the U.S. Congress to pass laws granting citizenship to "anchor babies"?
"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"
It's interesting to note that the SCOTUS keyed in on the fact that, at the time of WKA's birth, his parents had established"permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business . . .."
Depending on who BO's father was, this may or may not have been true of his parents. As far as I know (and I don't follow this closely, so could very well be wrong), Barack Sr. never established a permanent domicil and residence in the U.S. His ties to the country were quite thin. FWIW.
I would. I watched the McCain Birthers with interest as well. And for the same reasons. The Constitution is the Constitution.
That meant that if one were born outside the UK, or even the Commonwealth, to two British subjects that the child was a natural-born subject. Get to a library and look up "natural-born" in the Oxford English Dictionary. (I would provide a link, but I lost my web space where I had posted this. The OED suggests comparison with "native-born," and even some one educated in a public school could probably understand why the comparison is suggested. I would be happy to fowrard the OED definitions to anyone who wants to send me an email address via FReep mail.)
ML/NJ
Seems to me a child born of a US mother and a British father has dual allegiance.
1 - Don’t know. Might be able to pick it out if I wanted, but I think the quotes I’ve provided show the court doesn’t care about that answer.
2 - Yes.
3 - Not really.
Notice the dissenting opinion:
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
The dissent recognizes that this decision (7-2) meant that children of aliens, if born within the boundaries of the USA, are eligible to the Presidency.
The dissent shows that the SCOTUS made a conscious decision to allow the children of aliens - even if both parents were aliens - to run for the Presidency.
See post 56 for a quote from the dissent, showing the SCOTUS understood the decision to determine the eligibility of one like Obama.
I apologize: here's a P.S. to my post regarding the "in amity" qualifier.
I just want to note that the language goes on to state, "Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects." IOW, again, the point is that this is not, on its face, a blanket natural-born status for the children born in England of ALL aliens, but for children born in England of "aliens in amity" with the Crown.
So, again, to apply this provision, one needs to know the legal scope of what it means to be an "alien in amity."
I might not. But certainly others would and, if they would, I would stand with them.
ML/NJ
Got any quotes from the Founders? I haven’t trusted scotus since they found those eminances and penumbras.
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.