Posted on 10/12/2010 10:42:48 AM PDT by Bridgetteb
“Looking Back at History” Natural Born Citizen Discussions in the Late 1800′s
The definition of Natural Born Citizen and the presidential eligibility issue were researched in the late 1800's. Multiple newspaper articles are presented to show how constitutionalists and scholars in the 19th century addressed the issues by responding to citizen's questions. Copies of articles are shown.
The first article below asks: If a person with American parents is born in a foreign country would he be eligible to the presidency? Note the answer states “parents” not the singular word “parent.”
May 27, 1888 Is a Citizen Born Abroad Eligible to Be President?
continued ...
(Excerpt) Read more at wtpotus.wordpress.com ...
Sure. They were predecessors of the new arbiter of “truth”, the New York Times.
This is a compilation of news stories from the 19th century that give insight into the meaning of those terms (common citizen, natural born citizen, naturalized citizen) and how scholars of that time thought about these issues. They shed some light on original intent. And demonstrate that no LAW can give someone citizenship. If a person’s citizenship derives from ANY law, then that person is not a “natural born” citizen.
Did you even read the full article? If you did, then you will see that it’s unbiased. A variety of opinions were presented.
omegadawn said, “Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 states that those Children born to American citizens( even outside of our borders) are Natural born.”
Does it? If so, then how can one explain that decades later, scholars of the late 19th century wrote otherwise? NO LAW can change the Constitution.
omegadawn said, “The founding fathers felt that loyalty to our nation was derived from the parents. The founding fathers DID NOT recogize JUS SOLI( BORN ON AMERICAN SOIL) as grounds for citizenship. Anchor babies have no right to citizenship as their parents have no allegiance to the U.S.”
Therefore, Obama, being an admitted British subject at birth, was born into the allegiance of another country and is ineligible for the presidency.
Both of your quotes say parents. Plural. Both parents not U.S. citizens, therefore: ineligible. Born on U.S. soil? Fact not in evidence.
The 14 th amendment did not address Natural born Citizenship as required by Article 2. The wording “Subject to the jurisdiction” refers to the allegiance of the parents. If a person born in the U.S. has parents that owe their allegiance to the U.S. , then they are citizens.
Since the passage of the 14th Amendment, there are only two classes of US citizens under the law of the land: (1)Citizens at birth (which is identical to natural born citizens) and (2)naturalized citizens. Citizens at birth can become president, naturalized citizens cannot become president.
Here’s a link to the current law of the land on who is a “National and Citizen of the United States at birth:”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
The following is the key relevant section of the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in the 1898 case of “US v Wong Kim Ark,” the landmark post 14th Amendment decision on US citizenship:
“The 14th Amendment, in the declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, AND ONLY TWO: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by THE MERE FACT OF BIRTH under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”
The Supreme Court went on to declare in the Wong Kim Ark decision that: “The evident intention, and the necessary effect of the submission of this case to the decision of the Court upon facts agreed to by both 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 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 carrying on business, and 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 reasons above stated, this court is of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”—US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)
Wong Kim Ark does NOT apply to the issue of Obama’s ineligibility. The 14th amendment did NOT change the requirements of the Constitution with regard to NATURAL BORN citizenship. It addressed common citizenship. Read the extensive comments at the WTPOTUS blog for clarification. Please don’t just cut and paste someone else’s incorrect arguments.
Yo, are are a government certified idiot on some sort of disability welfare or just pretending to be one?
You’re simply wrong, James. Jurisdiction has various meanings; you’re using the wrong definition. Allegiance. Loyalty. Subjectship. Citizenship. That’s the point.
jamese777: Your own quote says “parents”. Plural. The person in question, born to two non-citizens, was recognized as a “citizen”. A common citizen. NOT a natural born citizen.
The 14th amendment did NOT change the definition of natural born citizen. IF it did, then why decades later were scholars and journalists writing otherwise?
How about a link to this Wong Kim Ark decision so that we know the source of the quotes you provide? Are these quotes part of the RULING or are they extraneous comments by, perhaps, dissenters to the ruling?
Look up “tongue in cheek”, You might be surprised to learn ;0) has other meanings. Wikipedia- “The ironic usage originates with the idea of suppressed mirth- biting one’s tongue to prevent an outburst of laughter”. ;0)
Made you change the subject. “grin”
Why, in your quote, do they mention that the parents are permanently domiciled in the U.S.? Was Obama’s purported father permanently domiciled here? No. As a matter of fact, neither was his “mother”.
Wong Kim Ark does NOT apply to the issue of Obama’s ineligibility. The 14th amendment did NOT change the requirements of the Constitution with regard to NATURAL BORN citizenship. It addressed common citizenship. Read the extensive comments at the WTPOTUS blog for clarification. Please don’t just cut and paste someone else’s incorrect arguments.
To date, no other state or federal court has ruled otherwise.
Why, in your quote, do they mention that the parents are permanently domiciled in the U.S.? Was Obama’s purported father permanently domiciled here? No. As a matter of fact, neither was his “mother”.
Wong Kim Ark’s parents eventually returned to China and Barack Obama’s fathr eventually returned to Africa. That has no bearing on the citizenship status of the child.
In America, we allow people to move about the planet freely without it effecting their children’s “citizen of the United States-at-birth” status.
Here’s the current law of the land:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
You wrote, “The case of child born in the US where one parent is a non-citizen is not a gray border case, it is in the area of settled cases. Such a child may become a citizen by law, but is NOT a natural born citizen.”
That is simply stupid. I suggest you read the decision of the Supreme Court, which disposes of your statement using a two-prong argument: that WKA was a natural born citizen, and that he was a born citizen per the 14th Amendment. And since the Constitution outweighs a treaty with China, the child of TWO foreigners born in the USA is a born citizen, and a natural born citizen.
The decision is here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Of course, like most birthers, you are better at slinging mud than discussing things with reason.
I have been saying this for over a year. I believe that running a naturalized citizen in '12 will force the issue. That citizen will have "standing" to sue for equality under the law when refused a place on the ballot because of NBC status.
I don't believe 0b0z0 will be running for reelection because of the above possibilities and fear of Hillary forcing him out; however, that's another subject.
.....We need to focus on exactly what it is the elected Republicans in the House intend to do with the power they will receive from the voters in 2010.
Not a single repeal bill will ever pass the Senate survive a veto.
One avenue is wide open; defund all passed bills (HC, etc.,) EPA, DOEn, DOEd, HHS, Czars and staffing, 21 0f 22 MO assistants, unions, banks and states' bailouts, return unspent funds to the treasury, etc.
I'm sure I missed a chunk. This will cut the deficit by over a trillion in a matter of weeks.
Correction:
Not a single repeal bill will ever pass the Senate survive a veto.
Should be:
Not a single repeal bill will ever pass the Senate and/or survive a veto.
“I believe that running a naturalized citizen in ‘12 will force the issue. That citizen will have “standing” to sue for equality under the law when refused a place on the ballot because of NBC status.”
Wouldn’t work. No court has held that a naturalized citizen is eligible for the Presidency, and the ruling would simply be that someone born outside the USA and naturalized at a later date as a US citizen is ineligible. That would have no effect on placing Obama on the ballot.
Your words. My agreement. Not a single GOP candidate's word ... or agreement publicly expressed!
No one can say with any degree of certainty what the the GOP elected representatives are going to do in DC. Why is that?
What reason do you provide besides dragging in a maggot infested dead rat of a ruling. In fact as ANY HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL OR GREATER READER who has read this thread is already aware, my summary was based on the redaction, commentary and extracts of a twenty plus year discussion in a New York newspaper. No where in that was Wonk King Ark mentioned.
In your first idiotic post to me in this thread you made the embarrassingly stupid on your part comment that somehow I had not read the Constitution.
That was an stupid comment because you weren’t talking about the Constitution at all you were talking about a dead rat of a decision by the Court. The Court does not have the last say, you know. It is We the People who in the end decide what the Constitution will mean in practice.
By that idiot’s logic you also say that the Constitution says a negro is not a full human entitled to basic human rights because the of Dred Scott. Dred Scott was a defective interpretation of the Constitution.
“Based on the language of Article II, Section I, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude the persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section I purposes regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—
Ankeny et.al v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels.”
Still posting that tripe huh Jamese?
We all know that that discredited decision contradicted itself in note 14....
You sir, are a serial liar!
Begone Troll!
You're missing the point. I didn't say or imply that the courts would rule a naturalized citizen eligible for the presidency.
The "injured" citizen can sue for a ruling that ALL candidates prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are NBCs and therefore, eligible to run for POTUS.
The proof requires that only original documents should be submitted and subjected to forensic inspection and approval. No more shenanigans.
If a candidate refuses, he/she shall be taken off the ballot.
Ultimately, it'll depend on us. We have to keep the pressure and demand action. If some of the new crop starts getting wobbly, we try to recall them immediately, if their states have recall/special election provisions. NO GOVERNORS' appointments should be allowed.
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.