Posted on 07/23/2009 2:37:34 PM PDT by real_patriotic_american
The Fourteenth Amendment and a “natural born citizen”
A common misunderstanding of “natural born” citizenship comes from the Fourteenth Amendment, but a strict reading of the fourteenth amendment is quite clear that this only conveys an at birth naturalized citizenship. Those born in the United States at the time of adoption and afterwards were only citizens. Those who wrote the amendment knew exactly what they were doing. Because of the distinctive use of “natural born citizen” and “citizen,” in Article II, Section 1 the simple fact that being born in the United States does not make one a “natural born citizen,” it only makes one “a citizen.”
The Fourteenth amendment states in Section 1,
Section 1 - “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Obviously missing is the conveyance of “natural born” status to these citizens. In fact what is obviously included in the text is the term “naturalized.” This section has several clauses, the first deals with citizenship.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
The second deals with prohibiting the states from passing laws denying the protection of citizenship from any citizen, “natural born” or naturalized.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The fifth section details something very important, it reads
Section 5 – “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Article 1, Section 8 enumerated the powers Congress has. The only power Congress has over citizenship is found here. It reads,
“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”
To make the freed slaves citizens, naturalization was the only power the 14th Amendment granted Congress to use. Look it up in the Constitution. Congress had no intention and no authority to making everyone born under the 14th Amendment “a natural born citizen.” This is born out by Congressional records regarding the debate of the Fourteenth Amendment. By the chief architect of Section 1 of this amendment.
“I find no fault with the introductory clause, 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 not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.
There is no doubt that anyone born under the 14th Amendment who is not subject is a “naturalized citizen,” or just “a citizen,” as the Amendment states. They are not natural born citizens.
To further understand why this is so, is to look at the first clause carefully.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
The words “born or naturalized” are joined with the conjunction “or,” and logically an or implies either of the two are equal. What they are equal in is being a citizen. Not “a natural born citizen.” This expressly negates the idea that simple birth of a person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” confers the coveted “natural born” status. If the term “citizen” did in fact convey a “natural born” status, then who were naturalized would be considered “natural born.”
Obviously, this is not the case, as it would mean that people like Kissinger, Albright and Schwarzenegger could run for office. Clearly, the Fourteenth Amendment is not conferring “natural born” status on anyone, it only confers simple citizenship and the universal rights given to all citizens, “native born” and naturalized. In fact, several Supreme Court Cases since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment restrict citizenship claims based on being born geographically within the United States, and bestows the coveted “natural born citizen” title to the children of citizens, while affirming simple citizenship to the children born to aliens.
1. The Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 (1873) The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. “The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
2. Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.”
3. Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. “This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
4. Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) Affirms that “natural born citizen,” is the child of an existing citizen. “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
5. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U. S. 325 (1939) In citing a long series of cases, involving minors removed from their US domicile by their foreign born parents, the Supreme Court distinguishes the difference of “a native born person” of two naturalized citizens can become President. This distinction of citizenship is not made to the others, only that their Jus soli citizenship is intact if at the age of majority they reclaim it.
As you can see from the intent of the Founding Fathers to the Supreme Court decision that “a natural born” is the child of citizens. A natural born citizen is not the child of an alien. In this there is no doubt. The question now that we seek answered is that Barack Hussein Obama, II is both the child of an alien who never had any intention on becoming a naturalized citizen and the child of a citizen minor. If Barack Hussein Obama, II was in fact born in Hawaii, he is a citizen under Jus soli and afforded all rights any citizen has. But he is not a citizen under Jus sanguinis, because we have laws that dictate how Jus sanguinis citizenship can be transferred. If Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot claim citizenship under Jus sanguinis then he is not a natural born citizen.
While many patriots will argue with clear conviction “natural born” should be narrowly interpreted as to mean both parents must be citizens, giving birth to that child under the jurisdiction of the United States of America, they do accept that Jus sanguinis citizenship can be passed from one parent in accordance to the law of the land at the time of birth. So what was the law of the land at the time for giving a person Jus sanguinis citizenship?
There three ways for a person claim citizenship, what most of us think of first is called Jus soli, “the right of the soil,” which is the physical location your place of birth. The second is what is called Jus sanguinis, “the right of blood,” which you inherit from your parents. The third is a combination of Jus soli and Jus sanguinis, and it is this combination that determines if one is a natural born citizen. Since any citizenship under Jus solis is codified by the Fourteenth Amendment, we only find laws for passing citizenship via Jus sanguinis on August 4th, 1961 in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act). This act states that in order for Obama’s right of blood citizenship to be passed to him, that since he only had one parent who was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 14. Barack Hussein Obama, II fails the test for the right to claim “natural born citizen” status.
Common sense tells us that both Jus soli and Jus sanguinis are what the Founding Fathers intended when they penned the phrase “a natural born citizen.” For imagine foreigners owing allegiance to a foreign power, arriving in America, giving birth to a child and immediately returning home to their country with their child. This child is reared for 21 years in a culture that hates America and that wants to see America destroyed. On the child’s 21st birthday this child returns to the United States of America, claiming their citizenship based Jus soli. For fourteen years they live in the United States, supported covertly by these foreign powers, growing in wealth and stature until they reach the age of 35 years. This scenario cumulates with this child of the soil, not having one drop of American blood in their veins, becoming President and destroying this country. Considering that countries are a creation of mankind, and non-existent in nature, natural loyalties are too blood.
“To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation. 'In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood.” Chief Justice Roger B. Taney
The Constitution directly specified 3 types of citizens, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment as those who are “citizens,” those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and natural born citizens. The architects of the Fourteenth Amendment had two to choose from in granting citizenship under this amendment, they choose just a citizen, and rejected “a natural born citizen.”
A natural born citizen must be the child of 2 US Citizens.. Fauxbama does not meet that criteria, period. Never did. Dumbing down of the population by educational malpractice for 40 years is the only reason anyone can argue this guy is legally eligible to be president.
No. All he did was, by inaction, allow his Kenyan citizenship to lapse when he turned 21.
Here’s something else to chew on;
Proclamation 3525 - Declaring Sir Winston Churchill an Honorary Citizen of the United States of America
April 9, 1963
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24064
His mother was also an American.
Unless one of their parents is of foreign sovereignty- Kenya, then they would not be a natural born citizen. Even then, he likely was born in Kenya and also lost nbc when he moved to Indonesia- period.
You wrote-
“All persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
Period.”
“founding”
Per Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, one must be a natural born American citizen to serve as President. Barack Obama is NOT eligible for the Presidency because he is not a natural born citizen. John A. Bingham, primary framer, 14th Amendment, states- “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.” Obama himself has stated that he is the son of a Kenyan- Kenya being a foreign sovereignty. Thus, Obama is not a natural born citizen even if he were actually born in Hawaii.
Do you know who Barack Obama is? Is he NOT a natural born citizen? Check these out-
Original birth certificate - Not released
Obama/Dunham marriage license - Not released
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license - Not released
Soetoro adoption records - Not released
Besuki School application - Released
Punahou School records - Not released
Selective Service Registration - Released and under suspicion
Occidental College records - Not released
Passport (Pakistan) - Not released
Columbia College records - Not released
Columbia thesis - Not released
Harvard College records - Not released
Harvard Law Review articles - None (maybe 1, unsigned?)
Baptism certificate - None
Medical records - Not released
Illinois State Senate records - None
Illinois State Senate schedule - Lost
Law practice client list - Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles - None
Now Hawaii officials are saying that all birth certificates were destroyed in 2001. But on October 31, 2008, this contrary statement-
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
Pro or con? Sir Winston Churchill was not our President. He was a great leader in the U.K.
The point is that if his mother being an American made Churchill one by birth then why make the resolution.
I read that Chester Arthur was born in 1829, and his father was naturalized in August 1843, but the people contesting his natural born status were basing that on the fact that their farm was actually located in Canada, and that he was born on the farm (ie not the US soil).
I do not know about Hawaii, but in 2003, the hopital where my grandaughter was born, gave her mother a form, and she filled it out-they took her word for it. They had boxes to check and one of those was “other”.
Actually there was some murkiness with respect to Panama. Looking at State department records: the clarifications were in 1952 for Guam, 1986 Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands using the term “citizens at birth”, and the State Department noted that these areas are under US jurisdiction.
The Panama Canal Zone was clarified using the term citizen only. According to the State Department, the canal zone was not under the “jurisdiction” of the US.
The state department also states that current law is that both parents must be citizens and at least one a resident of the US to qualify.
Per Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, one must be a natural born American citizen to serve as President. Barack Obama is NOT eligible for the Presidency because he is not a natural born citizen. The law that applied during the time of Obama’s birth (in effect from December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986) stated- “If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Barack Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen (a British Colony) and his mother just 18 at Obama’s birth...” (thus, she would have had to have been 21 in order for Obama to be eligible). John A. Bingham, primary framer, 14th Amendment, states- “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.” Obama himself has stated that he is the son of a Kenyan- Kenya being a foreign sovereignty. Thus, Obama is not a natural born citizen even if he were actually born in Hawaii.
I specifically replied to your comment about John McCain and the Panama Canal Zone, so I am not sure why you went into all this stuff about Obama, but since you did.
The info you are quoting pertains to a US citizen married to a forgein national.
Obama is an illegitamate child born to an out of wedlock mother who was a US citizen-is he not?
The 1952 law established easier requirements for a US citizen unwed mother, whose child is not born on US soil, than those you cited.
Namely that she need only have been physically present continuously in the US or a possession for 12 months prior to the child’s birth(the words “immediately prior”) are not used.
According to the US State Department, it has “never been determined definitively by court whether a person who aquired US citizenship by birth abroad is a natural born citizen “(for the purpose of presidential qualifications).
Personally, I am all for interpreting the requirement very strictly ie: Both parents are US citizens, and child is born on American soil, territories, or possessions, and subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.
As another Freeper pointed out, Congress only has the power to set up naturalization laws for citizenship. Congress did attempt to define natural born in 1790, but subsequent language in 1795 removed the term “natural born”. The “Insular Cases” also overuled the 1795 act.
The legal opinions I have read stated that this is not an issue for the Federal Courts, it is an issue for the state’s election laws, and the electors. Any role for the US congress is after the election.
Should a case actually be accepted in a State Court, it might then be appealed eventually to the SCOTUS.
Obama’s status re: constitutional requirements even if born in Hawaii, is not well defined IMHO, and even less legitimate if not born in Hawaii, since his father was not a citizen of the US.
see post #114, I was replying to you, but did not noticed I clicked on the wrong ping. Sorry.
The laws at the time of Obama’s birth state that he could not be born to parents of foreign sovereignty and still be considered a natural born American citizen. His father was Kenyan. Obama’s mother had not been in the U.S. 5 years after her 16th birthday (she couldn’t have been since she was only 18 at his birth).
When she became pregnant during the fall semster at the University of Hawaii, can you identify her location in the U.S. preceding Obama’s birth? All I’ve heard is that Obama’s grandmother was present when Obama was born in Kenya...... Then Obama’s mother showed up and enrolled at the University of Washington for the fall of 1961.
No I can not pinpoint his mother’s location immediately prior to his birth, but it is irrelevant.
An unwed citizen mother need only to have lived continuously in the US for 12 months at anytime prior to the birth, the way I read the state dept manual for consular affairs. Doesn’t matter how old either.
I have not had time to check the actual statutes, which will be confusing no doubt, since they have been amended so many times,but according the the state department that requirement with respect to her age being 14 + 5 years
only applies to women who are legitimately married to a foreigner.
I believe he should show the birth certificate-I am from Missouri-so naturally I want to see it.LOL
But I believe he hid the real reason he is not NBC in plain sight-his father was not a citizen of the US. That disqualifies him if you look at what the constitution says, and consider what the meaning was when it was written.
But it is a gray area and has never been definitively determined IMHO.
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.