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.”
Interesting take in the “natural born” citizen debate.
I’ll throw a twist with my own background. My parents came from Asia to America on student visas. During the Winter semester break my mom, pregnant with me, visited friends in Canada for the Holidays. I was then born in Canada. After my birth, my mom returned to America to complete her studies. Both my parents become naturalized citizens a few years after graduation. I officially became a naturalized citizen when I was in grade school. The question is: Do I meet eligibility for President?
******
You may be right. What is your source?
1. So one reason I want to see Obama's 1961 long form birth certificate is this: I want to see if Obama's Kenyan father's RACE is listed as "African" as it is listed on the Obama short form birth certificate we sse on the internet.
2. If Obama's Kenyan father's RACE is listed differently on the two birth certificates, then I say that Hawaii officials have a lot of explaining to do.
3. You say that in 1961, Hawaii allowed parents to write whatever RACE category they wanted for themselves?
4. You could be right, but such a practice seems bizarre, for instance, I don't think that a parent from an Asian background could write "Asian" in the RACE category.
5. Also, if a parent was allowed to write in whatever racial category they wanted for himself, I would think that such a practice could lead to chaos in the Hawaii government and United States government statistics departments.
6. Also, it would be most interesting if we find out that Obama's 1961 long form birth certificate is the only one in the history of Hawaii birth certificates where a parent is listed as "African."
“In 1961, Hawaii allowed parents to write in whatever they wanted in the race line.” - curi
Ok - show us the paper on which the parents wrote ‘african’. That should resolve this issue.
I’m on the side of Philip Berg and the rest who are questioning Obama’s eligibility, but I believe that Obama would be a natural born citizen if he was born in Hawaii. One of his parents was a citizen, and for the sake of argument, he was born in this country. There has never been any court ruling that has dealt with the issue of one parent not being a citizen and another parent being a citizen. There’s no reason to bring this up anyway, because he has not shown a birth certificate. If he has a birth certificate, then he is eligible to serve.
I'm not saying anything. All I'm doing is quoting the law as it existed at the time of Obama's birth. You should read it again. It doesn't say what you're inferring.
-- Now that is the clearest statement I have seen so far. --
Same here. Kudos to whoever wrote it. The concept has been expressed a thousand different ways in the hundreds of bc threads on this site, but that is the most concise expression of the NBC concept that I have seen.
In essence, natural born citizenship can only come through a combination of blood rights and birth on US soil. It's a condition unlike any other variation of US citizenship.
It's always been a simple concept for me, but it seems to go right over the heads of many on the left and the right.
Even if Stanley Ann had made it to her 19th birthday by the time of Barack's birth, she could have only have conveyed simple US citizenship to him. She could NOT convey Natural Born Citizen status to him, regardless, because Barack Sr. was not a US citizen.
So, it appears that under US law, Barack Obama is absolutely NOT a natural born US citizen, and possibly not even a US citizen at all. It remains to be discovered whether or not he was ever naturalized.
And this is what is so damning about holding Barack Obama's citizenship status up against the clear mandate of the US Constitution, and the 14th Amendment. He is clearly NOT eligible to be President under our laws.
My husband and I were both in the Army and stationed in Germany when it came time for my son to be born. I was told numerous times that, as a naturalized citizen, he would not be able to run for president. As silly as it seems, this caused my to come home to have my son in the States.
All of that to say that the common information I received as a soldier, in 1977, was that a naturalized citizen could not be president.
No, you don't. Assuming you meet the other eligibility requirements such as age, you're eligible for every elected office in this country with the exception of President and Vice President.
If people are arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t give citizens natural born citizen status, then they are arguing that blacks aren’t eligible to be president. Wasn’t the Fourteenth Amendment made to make blacks citizens?
The descendants of these former slaves, who were made citizens by law, were and are natural-born citizens, provided they were born on US soil of two citizen parents,
Obama is not a descendant of a former slave in the US, is not the descendant of two US citizens, and it is questioned whether he was born on US soil, since he has concealed practically every record of his life that would disclose such information.
So, his eligibility for the office of President is at question, since that office and the office of Vice President are the only elected offices in the entirety of the US government that require natural-born citizenship.
According to Vattel's Law Of Nations, which clearly inspired the Constitutional term, Obama is not natural-born, due to his father being a British citizen.
This is the central point of the controversy. All other aspects, his mother's age, the purportedly "fake" certification of live birth and his possibly being born outside of Hawaii, are diversions.
In my opinion, they gave you incorrect information. When you are working for the government (i.e. in the military), your children are natural born citizens. John McCain is a natural born citizen since he was born in Panama while his dad was serving in the Navy there.
The State Department doens’t concur with your opinion, and Congress lacks the authority to redefine the term natural-born citizen.
When will we see Obama’s original long form birth certificate? One must be a natural born citizen to serve as President.
No, because you were naturalized.
All persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
Period.
” 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”
How would you account for the status of the Founding Fathers then? They were all born as children of foreign citizens.
It is an absolute fabrication (the 1 million dollars which has taken a life of its own)
President’s, all of them, have attornies on retainer that they pay to take care of these nut job claims which come everyday at them, from nutjobs
The whole 1 million dollars on legal defense is stupid. I’d be George W had just as much from all the nut job leftists who accused him of war crimes
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.