Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur
[[ Contrary to the misinformation repeated by so many, Chief Justice John Marshall explicitly repeated the definition accepted by the USSC in his response in THE VENUS page 12 U.S. 289 “The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html ]]

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens (that is one or the other, for those in Rio Linda), as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”

Perkins v. Elg's importance is that it gives examples of what a Citizen of the U.S. is; what a native born American Citizen is; and what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. A natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

The issue is divided loaylties and how to avoid them for the highest office. We realize you want anchor babies to eligible, and if your obamessiah gets away with this usurpation that may happen. But ...
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens 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...”

Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Obama, admits on his own website that he held British citizenship at birth due to his Father being a British subject who was in no way an American. Thus Barry is precisely whom Bingham was implying is not a 'natural born citizen' regardless of where he was born, for purposes of Constitutional eligibility.

219 posted on 07/21/2009 6:14:57 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies ]


To: MHGinTN
Contrary to the misinformation repeated by so many, Chief Justice John Marshall explicitly repeated the definition accepted by the USSC in his response in THE VENUS page 12 U.S. 289 “The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

A case dealing with naturalized citizens, not natural-born. Natural-born citizenship is not defined anywhere in any of the majority opinions.

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens (that is one or the other, for those in Rio Linda), as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”

Note the "For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts." So they didn't rule on what constituted natural-born citizenship. And since it was an election law case, that is not surprising.

Perkins v. Elg's importance is that it gives examples of what a Citizen of the U.S. is; what a native born American Citizen is; and what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. A natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

Except that in the Elg case the nationality of the mother is never identified. The father was a naturalized citizen, the mother may not have been. And I'll point out that Elg is referred to as 'native-born' and 'natural born' at different times in the same decision. Are you saying the two are synonymous?

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment...

But, unfortunately, not Justice John Bingham writing for the majority. His opinion on what the Constitution means is no more binding than your's or mine.

252 posted on 07/21/2009 6:34:28 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson