Posted on 04/27/2011 7:25:39 PM PDT by westcoastwillieg
Time to turn to the real issue, 'Does Obama qualify as ‘natural-born'?
The issue with Obama’s eligibility not only involves his place of birth but also whether he qualifies as a 'natural-born-citizen'.
After Obama played his 'Trump' card his supporters are trying to divert voters away from the 'natural-born' issue and obfuscate the definition of 'natural-born'.
It is generally believed the Founders considered 'natural-born' to mean born in country to parents who were citizens at the time of the person's birth.
As Holmes said to Watson, "The game is afoot." Attempts have already been made to use 'native-born' interchangeably with 'natural-born' and, as yet, there is no Supreme Court decision nor does the constitution define 'natural-born'.
While Obama has shown his birth certificate it proves that his father was not a citizen but the jury hasn't decided if he qualifies as 'natural-born'.
In addition, I would add, that this is his way of taking the wind out of the sales of Trump and making him look foolish as a potential candidate...
I really don’t think Trump would win the nomination let alone the WH BUT he is not afraid to open up cans of worms and take it to the fraud in the WH. If this document is a fraud after all the chest thumping Trump did today, Trump will look like a fool.
That isn't possible. To become a naturalized U.S. citizen you have to renounce all other allegiances.
True.
From SCOTUS decision US v Wong Kim Ark (1898):
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words (citizen and natural born citizen), either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.
...
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
Oh I guess Arnold can be POTUS then. Fail
Arnold was born in Austria. Read more carefully next time.
The English common law did not distinguish between a “natural born subject” and a naturalized subject. “The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. 785, 790 (1866).). Under English common law, once a person became naturalized, he or she was deemed to be a “natural born subject.” Hence, under English common law a naturalized citizen was considered a “natural born subject.” Hence, giving the “natural born Citizen” clause the same meaning as a “natural born subject” would have allowed a naturalized citizen to be eligible to be President of the new Republic. But Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 mandates that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. The clause is written as “No person except . . . shall be eligible . . .” which means that one must be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President, with no exceptions. The way we have interpreted the “natural born Citizen” clause since the beginning of the Republic, a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. But assuming the “natural born Citizen” clause had the same meaning as a “natural born subject,” with the Constitution as written it would not have conveyed in any manner that a naturalized citizen was not eligible to be President. No where do we find in the Constitution any statement that a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. To reach this conclusion, we have always relied upon the “natural born Citizen” clause itself which we have compared with the fact that the Framers prescribed in Article I that naturalized citizens were eligible to be Senators (”nine Years a Citizen of the United States”) and Representatives (seven Years a Citizen of the United States”) . The manner in which the Framers provided that Senators and Representatives needed to be “Citizen of the United States” for only a certain amount of years shows that the naturalized citizen class was included within “Citizens of the United States” and not within “natural born Citizens.” This shows that naturalized citizens were not part of “natural born Citizens.” Hence, equating the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” to a “natural born subject” would have allowed naturalized persons to be President, a result that we have rejected from the beginning of the Constitutional Republic. Such a meaning would have created an exception to the “natural born Citizen” clause which would have eviscerated the clause itself. Additionally, since Congress has the power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 to make uniform the naturalization laws, such a meaning would have given Congress the power to decide who could be President by simply changing the naturalization requirements. The Framers, fearing that Congress would allow foreign influence to creep into the office of President if it were given the power to select the President, did not give Congress such power.
Irrefutable point: Article II, section 1, pa. 5 states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” That limits who may be President to persons who meet the following requirements:
Those who are 35 years old or older, AND
Those who have been a resident of the US for 14 years or longer, AND
Those who are natural born citizens, OR
Those who were US citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted
Why did the Constitutional Convention include that last exception, allowing those who were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted to be President? The ONLY POSSIBLE REASON FOR THAT EXCEPTION IS THAT WITHOUT IT, NO ONE COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY BECOME PRESIDENT, BECAUSE NO ONE COULD SATISFY THE CONSTRAINT OF BEING A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
If “natural born citizen” means “born on US soil, with parents who are US citizens,” then it would in fact be true that no one alive at the time could have satisfied the “natural born citizen” requirement, in which case there is a good reason for the exception.
But if “natural born citizen” means essentially the same as “natural born subject” (differing only to the extent that a citizen differs from a subject,) then any citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted would satisfy the “natural born citizen” requirement, so there would be no need for the exception, and its inclusion in the Constitution makes no sense. No sense at all.
You are refuted beyond any reasonable doubt.
That wasn’t my point. He is a naturalized citizen. If Natural born subject can include a naturalized subject - be the same thing after naturalization, then by your logic in stating that NBC and NBS are the same, then a Naturalized citizen of the US is the same as a natural born citizen and Arnold is qualified to run.
Since the very first days of this nation it has been recognized that this is NOT the case as Naturalized citizens are not allowed to run. Otherwise Arnold could be POTUS.
Try critical thinking instead of telling me to read.
Read the language of Wong Kim Ark again, keeping in mind that that case came after the 14th Amendment.
...therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject.
The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
No, he does not.
Author of the 14th Amendment John Bingham defined Natural Born Citizen unchallenged. That definition is Born under the sole jurisdiction of... Obama was born under two, he could never even for an instant have been a Natural Born Citizen regardless of where he was born.
John Bingham was from Ohio, and absolutely an Abolitionist. His definition went into them congressional record, and NO ONE ever challenged his specific definition of NBC.
The issue before the court in Wong Kim Ark was simply whether or not Mr. Wong was a citizen, not whether he was a natural born citizen. Court rulings only set precedent on matters officially presented to the court by the litigants. Since the definition of “natural born citizen” was not one of the issues in the case, the ruling set no precedent in that regard. FULL STOP.
Your mere assertion that I’m wrong proves nothing. You cannot prove I’m wrong by anything in any Supreme Court decision, because everything on the topic of the meaning of “natural born citizen” if every SCOTUS decision is merely dicta, and sets no precedents.
In the absents of past precedents, the SCOTUS will look first to the text of the Constitution, and then to other on-point historical evidence and documents. The reasoning in my first post essentially decides the matter based solely on the text of teh Constitution itself, and does so irrefutably.
You are the one who is wrong, and laughably so.
Easy. So patriots like Thomas Paine, who was foreign born to parents who never set foot in the US, could become President.
If “natural born citizen” is synonomous with “natural born subject,” then no exception is needed for Thomas Paine.
All those who were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted had parents who were not US citizens, nor were any of them born on US soil, because the US didn’t exist until then! It was created by adoption of the Constitution! So everyone was a naturalized citizen.
So again, you are refuted.
Therefore, since Wong Kim Ark was a citizen at birth, he was a natural born citizen. This is the way it was done in English common law, and there was no change mentioned in the Constitution.
No you don’t get it. Natural born subject does NOT EQUAL a natural born citizen. It never did.
“The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. 785, 790 (1866).” This is an example of one area British common law differs interms of definitions of citizenship.
“Under English common law, once a person became naturalized, he or she was deemed to be a “natural born subject.” Hence, under English common law a naturalized citizen was considered a “natural born subject.” Hence, giving the “natural born Citizen” clause the same meaning as a “natural born subject” would have allowed a naturalized citizen to be eligible to be President of the new Republic. But Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 mandates that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. The clause is written as “No person except . . . shall be eligible . . .” which means that one must be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President, with no exceptions. The way we have interpreted the “natural born Citizen” clause since the beginning of the Republic, a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President...”
This was from: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2711313/posts?page=57#56 I suggest you read This whole post. it is right on.
No where did I state that a natural born subject of Britain automatically becomes a natural born citizen of the United States. The concept however, did carry over, as codified in Wong Kim Ark.
But men like Paine who were born in England and who didn't become a citizen of the colony until 1775 were eligible.
Pssst: who put justice Gray on USSC?? Chester Arthur. The other unconstitutional POTUS.
No, it’s because no one could have been POTUS if they hadn’t. No one would have qualified.
Do you have anything useful that will defeat Obama in 2012?
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.