Posted on 07/18/2008 10:16:14 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
Natural Born Citizen Clause
The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the Presidency.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition]
[cf. Natural Born Citizen Clause]
Greetings,
The analysis below is indeed helpful, but it is erroneous and/or misleading on several important points which do deserve further clarification, as follows:
(1) there are two (2) classes of citizens under American laws never repealed, not one (1) class:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm (see all links at the very end)
Federal citizens aka "citizens of the United States" were not even contemplated with Article III -- and hence Article II -- was first being drafted circa 1787 A.D. when the Northwest Ordinance was enacted by the Confederate Congress:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm#pannill
(this holding is definitive, and dispositive, on that key historical point)
(2) "Citizen" in the Qualifications Clauses is spelled with an UPPER-CASE "C" not a lower-case "c" as in federal citizen aka "citizen of the United States":
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/quals.htm
These key Clauses have never been amended; thus, they retain the meaning they had when the organic Constitution was first ratified on June 21, 1788 A.D. (also my birthday :)
(3) It is clear enough that McCain can NOT be a State Citizen pursuant to "jus soli" because Panama was not a State of the Union on the day he was born; see also the Foreign Affairs Manual ("FAM") published by the U.S. Department of State; "jus soli" in Latin means "law of the soil" -- it is a widely recognized principle of the common law: if one is born in a country, one is automatically a native of that country;
(4) If McCain wishes to claim the citizenship of his parents instead, pursuant to "jus sanguinis", the burden is upon him to prove that they were State Citizens on the day he was born; at present, such proof assumes facts not in evidence; "jus sanguinis" means "law of blood (or heredity)";
(5) McCain's Arizona voter registration affidavit can be used as admissible evidence proving that he is a federal citizen; State Citizens may not execute that affidavit without committing perjury:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/azvmitch/voting/ (search for "McCain")
(6) Likewise, if his parents were also registered voters, their voter registration affidavits are also admissible evidence proving that they were federal citizens, not State Citizens, when they registered to vote;
(7) The so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified:
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/14amrec/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/knudson/judnot09.htm#dyett
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/nordbrok/note14am.htm
(8) That failed proposal cannot be used as authority for the proposition that all federal citizens are also Citizens of the State(s) in which they reside; there is presently no constitutional authority for that proposition; and, the Congressional Resolution proposing that amendment is demonstrably vague, and therefore null and void for vagueness ("United States" has 3 meanings, not one; Congress is prohibited from re-defining ANY terms that are used in the U.S. Constitution [cite omitted]);
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/before.and.after.htm
The amendment that should have been proposed, as a result of the holding in Dred Scott v. Sandford, is this:
"The status of Citizen of one of the United States of America shall not be denied or abridged by the United States (the simplest solution is always the best solution);
(9) Accordingly, the relevant facts and pertinent laws call for the conclusion that Mr. John McCain was not a "natural born" Citizen of one of the several States of the Union on the date of his birth:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/sanmarco/complain.htm#one-of
(10) For everyone's edification, there is an extensive amount of additional documentation on this very point here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/palmbeach/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/opening.htm#topic-a etc.
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr11.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/append-y.htm
(see heading MEMORANDUM OF LAW -- CLASSES OF CITIZENSHIP)
See also the additional pertinent authorities here:
The term natural-born citizen used in the federal constitution is not therein defined. Its meaning must be gathered from the common law.
[Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, page 834 (1946 Edition)] [under “Naturalization”
]
Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.
[Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913)] [emphasis added]
Luria supra cites:
Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 165
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101
Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827
[2] A naturalized citizen, broadly speaking, enjoys all the rights of the native citizen, except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. Const. Art. 2, Sec. 1, cl. 4; Osborn v. U.S. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U.S. 738, page 828, 6 L.Ed. 204, and this constitutional exception is limited alone to the occupying of the office of President of the United States.
[U.S. v. Fischer, 48 F.Supp. 7, 8, hn. 2] [DCUS/S.D. Florida 1942, emphasis added]
See also Baumgartner v. U.S., 322 U.S. 665.
And, under the topic of “Citizens” in Corpus Juris Secundum (“C.J.S.”), we find:
The right of foreign-born children of American citizens to claim citizenship depends on statutory provisions in effect at the time of the child’s birth. Citing Alcarez-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2002) ... For this purpose the term “United States” means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands. The term “outlying possessions” means American Samoa and Swains Island. Citing 8 U.S.C. 1401.
[C.J.S., “Citizens,” Section 9]
Natural Born Citizen Clause
The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the Presidency.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition] [cf. Natural Born Citizen Clause] [emphasis added]
In Words and Phrases, see also “Natural Born Citizen” where U.S. v. Perkins is cited:
[4] Child born in England of mother who had been born in United States, and had married Englishman in England, held not a “natural born citizen,” within provisions of Federal Constitution.
...
But I think that it is immaterial, for the purposes of the instant suit, whether petitioner became an American citizen at his birth by reason of his mother’s citizenship or later by means of the
repatriation of his mother. I do not think that the authorities sustain his claim that he is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of the provisions of the Constitution, either [2:1:5] or [14th amendment].
[U.S. ex rel. Guest v. Perkins, 17 F.Supp 177, 179] [DCUS/District of Columbia (1936), emphasis added]
p.s. There is much additional (and free) reading at the links below my name here ...
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm <-- START HERE
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm
danny wayne wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma }
McCain eligibility--an analysis of NO by the lawPosted February 12th, 2008 by Tannim OK, I’ve been looking through the question of citizenship on John McCain in terms of his eligibility to be President. Please follow this closely as it is lengthy. The usual disclaimer of “I am not lawyer and this is not legal advice blah blah etc.” applies.
From the top:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:
“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.”
Amendment 14, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution:
“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.”
From Article II, it’s clear that to be President one must be a “natural born” citizen.
From the 14th Amendment, a US citizen is a person either born or naturalized in the United States (not both as they are mutually exclusive, more on that below). There is no third type of citizenship.
To be complete, first we must answer the question of whether or not John McCain is in fact a citizen. The answer and its references also help answer the natural born question as well.
In legal circles the Latin terms of reference are jus soli (“right of the soil”) for born in the United States, and jus sanguinis (“right of blood”) for born to citizen parents. Naturalization is referred to by lex soli (“law of the soil”). John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 to American parents, so jus sanguinis definitely applies to him, and is not in dispute here. But jus sanguinis has no basis in US law (only jus soli and lex soli do) except through applying legislation such as INA below (see next paragraph), so it falls under lex soli. And therein is the question: Is a citizen born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 a citizen under jus soli or lex soli (born or naturalized)?
A quick look at 8 USC 1400 appears to answers the question. That section of the United States Code comes directly from the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) of 1952, which was passed when McCain was 16 years old. First, we must answer the citizenship question.
If you look at 8 USC 1401(a) and (c), you find this:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;”
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;”
If you look at 8 USC 1403(a), it addressed McCain’s situation rather clearly:
“(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.”
So it’s pretty clear that John McCain is a citizen.
But is he a natural born (jus soli) citizen or a naturalized (lex soli) citizen? This is where it gets tricky.
Because 8 USC 1403(a) uses the term “is declared to be a citizen” (emphasis added), that leans heavily towards a lex soli position (naturalization). And persons born to citizens between November 1903 (when Panama became independent from Colombia with U.S. intervention) and February 1904 are not declared citizens under this section, which indicates that the declaration of citizenship is simply a naturalization and not by birth since it is dependent on the law and a calendar date.
But is there anything more concrete than that? The Supreme Court has never addressed the specifics of a natural born citizen, except once in passing, in the dissent of the infamous Dred Scott case, of all places, so it really has no bearing. Other cases have looked at citizenship, but not specifically the natural born part of it.
Historically, the term “natural born” was put in Article II at the request of John Jay (who later helped write the Federalist Papers, became the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and pointed out in 1796 that jury nullification is a right and duty of the people) to George Washington in a letter from 25 July 1787.
McCain has claimed that the Naturalization Act of 1790 (26 March 1790) covers his status as a natural born citizen. That is not true. A close look at the Act indicates that it only covers “admission as a citizen” (meaning naturalization), and that Act was repealed in part 29 January 1795 and again in total 14 April 1802. So that argument does not work because it was repealed and because it creates naturalization instead of natural born citizenship.
That leads us all back to the Constitution. The citizenship definitions of both Article II and Amendment 14 apply in terms of McCain running for President.
But there’s more. If you look at the 14th Amendment, the term “in the United States” is there. What does that mean, specifically?
“In the United States” is generally thought to mean the States, territories, protectorates, and embassies. But the wording is never clear in the law on what exactly the jurisdiction of the United States explicitly is.
But if you look again at 8 USC 1401(c) and 1403(a), you see a big difference. 8 USC 1401(c) address births outside the U.S., meaning clearly that the “born in the United States” clause of the 14th Amendment cannot apply to this form of citizenship.
Therefore a person that falls under 8 USC 1401(c) has to be a naturalized citizen. 8 USC 1403(a) already “declares” citizenship and implies naturalization. The only logical conclusion is that the Canal Zone was considered to be outside the United States, else these sections (8 USC 1401(c) and 8 USC 1403(a)) never needed to be codified into law in the first place, and 8 USC 1401(a) would apply instead (see above).
So, tying it all together:
1. The Canal Zone was not part of the United States.
2. John McCain was born in the Canal Zone to citizen parents.
3. Therefore John McCain was not born in the United States.
4. 8 USC 1403(a) declares citizenship on persons born in the Canal Zone to citizen parents.
5. Therefore 8 USC 1403(a) applies to John McCain.
6. Therefore John McCain is a citizen.
7. Therefore John McCain is a citizen not born in the United States.
8. Therefore John McCain is not a natural born citizen.
9. Therefore John McCain must be a naturalized citizen.
10. Article II of the Constitution states to be President a person must be a natural born citizen.
11. THEREFORE John McCain is not eligible to be President of the United States under Article II of the Constitution.
Sloppy-ass post.
Dumb ass conclusion. Anyone born of parents who are themselves natural born citizens of the USA no matter where the person is born are natural born citizens. To conclude otherwise is simply idiotic. The only food for thought is how something so stupid could actually see print.
Sorry .. but it’s been an established fact for some time .. EVERY MILITARY BASE IS CONSIDERED “UNITED STATES TERRITORY”. Therefore, any child born at any USA military installation IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE USA.
If people don’t want to believe that .. for whatever purpose .. fine with me .. but it’s stupid to try to make a case where there is no case.
Instead .. why don’t we look at the supposed “forgery” of a birth certificate purportedly being used by Obama to PROVE he was born in Hawaii.
Make sure to watch both videos ( they have the same intro but are very different)
Both you and the author of the article are missing the point about the term "natural born". It doesn't refer to "where" a citizen is born but rather to the fact that they are citizens at birth and not naturalized citizens.
Both of my kids were born overseas and not at military base hospitals. But they are both natural born U.S. citizens because of my citizenship.
Then .. why are Mexican citizens’ children automatically American citizens .. when the parents are not citizens of America.
Your argument does not hold water.
Location is very important. But .. I do believe that any military person who has a child born overseas - the child is automatically an American citizen.
There is no possibility that congress will declare McCain ineligible to be President and they are the ones who deal with issues about a President who does not qualify, Amendment XX.
Do you also sell books on “How not to Pay Any Taxes”?
Where is Obama’s REAL Birth Certificate and WHY will he not present it? That is the real question. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.
You said: “If you look at 8 USC 1401(c), you find this:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;”
The territorial status of the Panama Canal or whether McCain was born inside or outside its limits is irrelevant. McCain meets the natural born citizen test by virtue of 1401 (c). Note that 1401 says “shall be....citizens at birth:” it does not “declare” them to be so.
If you’ll read the Panama Canal provision carefully, it states that if EITHER parent (or both) are U.S. citizens, then someone born in Panama Canal is “declared to be” a U.S. citizen. McCain would have to rely on this portion of the statute only if 1 of his parents were not U.S. citizens.
Your citizenship is part of the equation. The other part is that the foreign hospital, being paid by the US government under a contractual agreement was considered US soil for the purposes of the birth.
> There is no possibility that congress will declare
> McCain ineligible to be President ...
Indeed, and quite the opposite has already happened.
Was it mentioned in the base note?
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/042408a.html
“April 24, 2008) – The Senate Judiciary Committee today
passed a resolution introduced earlier this month by
Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Claire
McCaskill (D-Mo.) expressing the sense of the Senate
that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the presumptive
Republican nominee for the presidency, is
constitutionally eligible to run for President
of the United States.”
Whether this has any authority at all is an open question.
________
Let’s declare both presumptive candidates unqualified
and start over.
Lemme guess: Do you pay your taxes? Or do you believe it's voluntary?
“Dumb ass conclusion” =dem ass conclusion
Not this again.
Natural born citizen means either citizen by blood or birth (ie, parentage or location). McCain qualifies on both counts. On the surface, Obama appears to qualify on both counts, but we won’t know for sure until he releases his birth certificate.
Schwartzenegger, on the other hand, is not a ‘natural born citizen’ by blood or birth. He is a naturalized US citizen.
Give it a rest already.
No. If you thought the reason I posted this was to attack McCain, you're mistaken.
Don't like him, but this sort of stuff will make the rounds. Better to take care of it now.
I watched them both. It is curious why this element of his 'character' is not being explored further.
Obama’s mom was a natural born citizen. Then why all the discussion of HIS citizenship?
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.