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.”
Yes, and Obama himself may not be a natural born citizen in several ways.
You wrote-
“One of these days we’ll be able to present these facts in such a way that even a liberal can comprehend it. I’m not sure this summation is it, but maybe through repetition they’ll begin to understand. Agreed ... citizens of foreign governments can not bear and raise “natural born citizens” of the United States unless they *first* renounce their former citizenship and become naturalized here, or they were living at the time our Constitution was adopted. Mr. Obama’s father meets neither of these criteria.”
Write the media! They may hate us, but our numbers will speak for themselves. Remember, they first need good ratings to survive- they’ll listen.
You wrote-
“EXCELLENT wrap up. How do we get this to everyone? I’m going to write Hannity to convene a 1 hour panel discussion of this with both sides represented. Don’t hold breath, but maybe with enough effort, this might breakthrough: even the left has some with brains.”
In other words, Obama wasn’t born then!
“..... at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”
See post 28
They might when they learn that the Constitution is what gives them their power!
You wrote-
“.... Unfortunately our Supreme Court doesn’t seem to care about what the Constitution stands for anymore!”
Sorry, RPA, I meant to ping VJ to post #43 instead of you. But I think you’ll appreciate the course of logic contained therein as well :-)
You just crossed into "emanations of penumbras" territory wih that statement. You are trying to get the Constitution to say what you want it to say, instead of what the plain language means. That kind of thinking is what gave us In re Dred Scott, Plessy vs. Ferguson, and Roe vs. Wade and all the attendant nightmares those three cases caused.
No thanks, I'll take my Constitution straight up, not bent and twisted because people don't like a particular President.
Both parents must be citizens in order for their child to be a "natural born citizen." Why do people have such a hard time understanding that?
So, are you saying that any US-born girl who gets pregnant at age 18 from a man who is not a US citizen does not confer citizenship to the offspring?
That would render many tens of thousands of American ineligible for higher office.
Why make it so complicted?
There are enough natural born citizens who hate this country and could be taken and programmed to be a pawn to a foreign power.
You don't need all these crazy ideas.
The ultimate check on who is elected President is made by the electorate.
Ok, so I read that correctly. Thanks.
In 1961, I believe that the RACE classification of black parents was "Negro" and not "African".
1. Obama, I want to see your 1961 long form birth certificate because I want to verify that the term "African" for the RACE of your father listed on your short form birth certificate---the one we see on the internet---is also the term used to classify the RACE of your father on your 1961 long form birth certificate.
2. Obama, if the RACE classification of your father on your 1961 long form birth certificate is different from the "African" RACE classification of your father on your short form birth certificate that you openly displayed on your official fight the smears site during the 2008 presidential campaign, then I say that you and Hawaii officials have a lot of explaining to do.
3. Dear Hawaii officials, including the Republican Governor: Is Obama's 1961 long form birth certificate the only time in Hawaii birth certificate history when a black parent was classified as "African" as opposed to the more commonly used term in the rest of the United States of America of "Negro"?
4. That is, can you cite another instance in Hawaii birth certificate history between 1961-1971 when a black parent's RACE classification was listed as "African" as a substitute for the more commonly used term in the rest of The United States of America of "Negro"?
5. Dear Hawaii officials, especially the Republican Governor: If you can't cite a single instance in Hawaii birth certificate history when the term "African" was substituted for the more commonly used term "Negro" to classify black parents in 1961, then I say that you have a lot of serious explaining to do as to why and how the term "African" happens to appear on Obama's short form birth certificate, the one Hawaii officials have publicly claimed is "authentic", and the one Obama displayed on the internet during the 2008 presidential campaign.
... the news libs will sure have egg on their face when Hussein is removed from the White House!
.... then again, when will Obama show us his original long form birth certificate?
So what kind of a citizen would he be classified as?
NO it hasn't, John Bingham's error not withstanding.
Right on, right on, right on! I agree with you 110%.
You wrote-
“Thanks for posting.
This is the real question: shall we be ruled by a man whose loyalty is divided?
The Framers intended the answer to be “no”. Monarchial Europe was full of “Royalty” who were foreigners, put on the thrones of different countries in a bid to subjugate them or to bind them. Men like Madison and Jefferson intended to stop that from ever happening, and the Natural Born Citizen restriction was their method.
Now we have just such a case as they intended to prevent. The issue should be brought up and the Usurper removed.”
1) visit a U.S state, 2) hook up with an American girl (underage even), 3) father a child (marriage optional), 4) take the child back to Iran during its formative years for indoctrination, 5) re-introduce the child to the United States at a later date, 6) wait for the child to reach 35 years of age, 7) use the financial resources of Iran to market this child for POTUS, 8) thereby usurping the highest seat in this nation for his own purpose.
No, because as a foreign dignitary, neither he nor his child would not be subject to US jurisdiction, unless he abandoned her and high-tailed it off to Iran before she was born.
.... and I’d like to see Obama’s original long form birth certificate!
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.