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

To: 1rudeboy
Yes, I would love to get a good explanation of that. Levin could have done so and it is disappointing that he did not. Many "birthers" are looking for just that: a definition of exactly what "natural born" versus "native born" and plain citizen really mean. And add to that, someone who actually is responsible for enforcing that Constitutional Clause. We now know it is not the FEC although they have strongly hinted that they can. To sum it up, give us clarity!
45 posted on 09/29/2011 9:19:27 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (So much stress was put on Bush's Fault that it finally let go, magnitude 6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: NonValueAdded

It’s hard for me to believe there is not an honest to goodness definition of Natural Born Citizen from that era floating around. I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer, but surely this was not something they just made up out of thin air. And the fact that there have been a number (seven I think) Presidents with foreign born parents leads me to believe that the interpretation that is being pushed is incorrect.
Would that the SCOTUS would just rule on it and clear it up. It’s not like there are that many people affected, but get it out of the way. Not that the arguments won’t go on. :)


57 posted on 09/29/2011 9:28:21 AM PDT by brytlea (Wake me when it's over...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

To: NonValueAdded

“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which

“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,”

and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (60 U.S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306.

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.”

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

If someone doesn’t require naturalization, then they were born a US citizen. And there are only two ways to become a US citizen - birth, or naturalization.

Also feel free to read Wong Kim Ark, and its lengthy discussion of the meaning of natural born subject/citizen.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html


60 posted on 09/29/2011 9:33:06 AM PDT by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | 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