Posted on 03/08/2014 7:02:43 AM PST by Steven Tyler
“Both parents must be American citizens.”
Nope. Neither one has to be, birth on American soil is enough, or if born on foreign soil one American parent is enough. That is why Obama is President. Also why Jindhal, Rubio, and Cruz are (probably) running for President.
It's actually.....crystal clear.
but certainly doesn’t seem to be the open-and-shut case as many think it is. If a U.S. soldier marries overseas and has a child, that child should be a natural-born citizen at birth.
Why? Just because the father's a soldier?
Not good enough for Constitutional requirements!
Birth on American soil makes them a citizen....but a "Natural Born Citizen" is something else entirely different. That's why the Constitution grandfathered part of the requirements of Article II; Section I which 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.
I highlighted the part that no longer applies....namely a citizen of the United States.
Natural Born Citizen = Citizen From Birth. There are only two types of citizens, citizens at birth, and citizens who went through a naturalization process. If you are a citizen and not naturalized you are a natural born citizen (Rubio, Cruz, Jindal etc).
Then....explain why the "Citizen" was excluded from seeking the presidency after a certain time had gone by [Article II; Section I; Paragraph 5]
There are three categories; Naturalized Citizen, Citizen and Natural Born Citizen. Your own Constitution verifies this by grandfathering "Citizens" from seeking the presidency. Why do you think they did this?
The law at the time said that: 1) if he was born here, he is an American citizen; 2) if he was born outside the country, then his parents had to be citizens residing in the United States for at least 5 years after age 14 prior to his birth. His mother did not meet the age requirement to confer citizenship on an international birth, and his alleged father was a Kenyan citizen.
What is open for debate is whether Obama Sr. is his father, as well as where Obama was born. If Obama Sr. was covering for someone else impregnating his mother, then he may very well be a citizen.
The final issue for debate is what constitutes "natural born" citizenship as a Constitutional qualification for President, aside from a general class of citizenship. Writings from the generation of the Founders is mixed on this.
-PJ
You describe basically the requirements for citizenship not natural born citizenship. Different things. Suggest you may enjoy some history of the founding fathers’ concerns that the presidency never fall Into hands of anyone having loyalties to Great Britain especially or other foreign governments. Best regards,
What is a natural-born citizen according to you and why would a child born overseas to American parent not be considered a natural-born citizen? According to you, that child would have to go through a process to become a U.S. citizen. I don't believe that child would have to go through any process because he has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen. The debate is not about WHERE he was born. The debate is whether one or both parents must be a U.S. citizen.
I think you're saying if he was born to at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen he would be considered natural born. I also believe that to be the case. But there seems to be disagreement about that.
Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1865, there are only two types of American citizens: born and naturalized. There is no third variety, “natural born” that is distinct from a “Citizen of the United States at Birthwhich is the statutory term.
Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana
A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court in its 1898 decision in U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Yes, but if the mother is under age there is a difference to that...I’ll look it up and get back to you.
Actually, I'm in the camp of two citizen parents to confer natural born status. See my tag. I believe these two things:
1. When the Preamble speaks of "We the People... secure... the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." it means that both parents (the parents of the Posterity - their children -) are of The People (citizens). Limiting the President to natural born citizens was how they meant to secure liberty; they wanted to ensure that the President was the posterity of two citizen parents, that is, of We the People, not just "me" the People.
2. Thomas Paine wrote in The Rights Of Man (1789) that the United States was the only country that required its President to not be "a foreigner" or "half a foreigner," meaning both parents had to be citizens. See Chapter 4.
If Obama's birth narrative is true, then he fails the two citizen parent test for natural born status, in my opinion. If we accept the single parent citizen test, then he fails if he were born outside the United States because his mother was not old enough to confer citizenship status at the time, making him British by birth.
-PJ
I don’t know the answer to the age issue and the five years because Zeros mother was only 18, that eludes me, but this State/Fed doc gives 69 pages of ‘natural born citizen’ info at this site.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
Clancy’s death is still a mystery and someone wrote he was working on a book paralleling Obama. Strange, and his family isn’t talking either.
So the issue is debatable.
What should be .....is a matter of opinion. We probably agree on your view in major substance. What is ...depends on fact. A child born overseas cannot be a natural born citizen of USA since not born In USA ( and often has a foreign second parent too). Child is usually recognized as an American citizen by virtue of statute, however this is American citizenship not natural born American citizenship. Different things with different standards. Difference has little or no practical effect unless kid grows up wanting to run for presidency. 14th amendment did not Intend any change to the NBC standard. , indeed it didn’t even address it at all. 14th amendment spoke to which persons would be considered “ citizens of the United States ...” (Not NBC’s ). And, the 14th looked to congressional implementation by appropriate legislation. The only power congress has over citizenship issues is set forth at Article I section 8 , to “ provide for a uniform rule of Naturalization .” Naturalized citizens are citizens but not NBC’s. I’m aware of no congressional authority to revise NBCitizenship Conclusion: we can often find a lower court somewhere that may rule one way or another But the supreme law of USA is our constitution and thus far there’s been no change in its provision for qualifying for the office of the presidency. At least none that most legal scholars are aware of,... Indeed, I can direct you to several recent proposals or advocacy articles , some by legal or constitutional scholars , recognizing this in arguing that the constitution’s NBC requirement “ should” either be amended or abandoned ( via proper constitutional amendment process). But again, what “should be” is a matter of opinion. And quite candidly I haven’t formed an opinion on this question. Your opinion as to what should be is , of course, entirely privileged. And with that, I’m OUT of here. There are plenty of very well informed Freepers I’m sure who can continue to defend our US Constitution this weekend. I’ve got serious local ( health- related ) other matters that command my attention. But thanks for letting me chat with you. Much appreciated your views. Best regards. .
1. Is "natural born" a separate class of citizenship or just an extra qualification to be president?
The argument is that there are only born citizens and naturalized citizens, and that born citizenship is synonymous with natural born citizenship.
2. Is natural born citizen the same as natural born subject in English law?
This debate attempts to trace the common understanding of the term at the time. The assumption is that since it was not defined explicitly in the Constitution, it was a term that was so commonly in use as to not require definition. Sources are Blackstone, Vattel, et. al.
Often, this debate descends into the importance that the Framers had copies of Vattel in their library, and writings that they referenced them. Also, the Constitution contains the phrase "Law of Nations."
This is where I cite Thomas Paine, because it is the only contemporary writing of the time (that I could find) that says that the President must not be a foreigner or half a foreigner.
Others cite the debates around the 14th amendment, which took place close to 100 years later and is too far removed from the time of the Framers to show original intent.
3. Is one parent enough to confer citizenship? Does birth have to take place in the country?
This is the jus sanguinis and jus soli argument. This goes back to Blackstone and Vattel.
Rebuttals cite Chester Arthur, who may have had a Canadian father and tried to hide it, evidenced by burning all of his records after his presidency. Others call out Mitt Romney's father and whether he was a Mexican citizen or not. Then McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone (or just outside of it) is thrown in for good measure.
4. What about children who are born to soldiers who are overseas? What about orphans whose parents are unknown? What about anchor babies? What about tourists who give birth while they are here?
These are emotional arguments. I fall on the side that says that life is not always fair. That said, the anchor baby and accidental tourist do suggest that they were never intended to be natural born citizens, so just being born here is by itself not enough to be natural born, especially if neither parent is a citizen.
5. There is the racism debate. Some say that this is only an issue because Obama is black. Others say that the lineage of all the past presidents was never in doubt, so testing the natural born requirement was never needed before now.
6. There is debate over the meaning of past Supreme Court cases on the matter.
The two most often cited are USA v. Wong Kim Ark and Happersett v. Minor.
Debate often swirls around majority vs. minority opinion, and dicta.
Compounding this debate is the fact discovered in 2011 that someone tampered with the archives at Justia.com just before the 2008 election and removed all the Supreme Court references of these cases from other Supreme Court cases, making it very hard for someone researching this to form a full conclusion. These references were restored after the election was over. This suggests that this topic worried someone of extreme influence.
-PJ
and his seeming Federal Repeat of the “My Brothers Keeper” a big hit back in Chicago!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/my-brothers-keeper
There are “born citizens” and “Natural born citizens “.
The founders recognized the distinction by changing the language in the draft of the constitution, after John Hays letter to Washington.
So what is that difference that the founders recognized?
George Washington recognized? Hamilton recognized? That John Jay recognized?
Enlighten us. What is it?
After you answer my last question, I have another simple question.
Do you play poker?
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.