Posted on 01/07/2009 12:49:42 PM PST by ml/nj
I previously have posted the Oxford English Dictionary definitions and usage histories for natural-born and native born in some long thread about the question of Obama's Constitutional eligiblity to assume the office of President. But that thread was eventually deleted, and I think these definitions should be available for discussion here.
Lawyers use the OED because it is sometimes the only way to examine what words meant at the time they were used to craft legislation. So here are the entries for these phrases:
Of note to me is that at least some of the usages of native-born and particularly the ones whose dates bracket the drafting of the Constitution suggest that this term has as much to do with whom one is born to as to where one is born. I also note that the entry for natural-born suggests comparison with the one for native-born which seems to have nothing to do with who ones parents are.
Whatever natural-born means, it means something. That everyone would turn their heads and pretend otherwise will not be good for the rule of law in this country.
ML/NJ
All of the men who included themselves in the exception clause (the grandfather clause) in the Constitution were born on this continent, but their fathers were not American citizens. If what you are trying to float were definitive, there would appear to have been no need for the exception clause to be written into the Constitution.
Here's a piece of the puzzle copied from the Federalist Papers website:
Mr. Wong Kim Ark was born to parents who, though permanent residents of the U.S. when he was born, nevertheless remained subjects of the Emporer of China. In its decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, SCOTUS clearly articulated a broader scope of the 14th Amendment than had previously been recognized. In doing so, SCOTUS considered it important that Mr. Ark’s parents had demonstrated a clear attachment to the United States. In specifically recognizing Mr. Wong Kim Ark as a U.S. citizen (not a 'natural born citizen') under the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS laid down the general rule that any individual (other than children of foreign rulers and diplomats) born on U.S. soil to permanent resident alien parents is a citizen of the United States pursuant to the 14th Amendment.
Not satisfied with mere citizenship privileges for such individuals based on SCOTUS’s construction of the 14th Amendment, interlocutors now claim that this newly-recognized class of U.S. citizens must also be recognized as Article II, Section 1 “natural born citizens”, fully eligible to run for and assume the office of POTUS. But in order for SCOTUS to endorse such a theory, it will need to do so in a legitimate fashion, in a decision based on the results of an actual case or controversy brought before it, and taking into account all of the circumstances that gave rise to their positive citizenship decision for Mr. Wong Kim Ark, and not just some of them.
That is, if SCOTUS is to be called upon to loosen up the parental citizenship requirement on the one hand (so as to allow at least some individuals born to one or more non-citizen parents to assume the office of POTUS), it will need to hold these new members of the “natural born citizen” class to the special requirement that they be born to two permanent resident parents. Needless to say, and unfortunately for Mr. Obama, this is a result that does not necessarily accommodate individuals born to foreign fathers present in the United States on temporary student visas.
*********
And here is a quote from an actual court case where 'natural born citizen' is cited:
“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. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents [PLURAL, 'parents'] within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”
I hope you realize why being argumentative is a waste of time, and quite frankly, incredibly annoying. He was not ruled as a natural born citizen.
That was covered under one of the other passages I quoted:
"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration "that 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" contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization."
If the court recognizes that there are only two forms of citizenship - citizen at birth and naturalized - then it is clear that in their eyes the terms 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen' are synonymous. Otherwise they would have talked of three classes of citizen. But if 'natural born citizen' is your chosen phrase then in the Elg case, the Supreme Court agreed with a lower court that ruled that a woman who was born in the U.S. of parents, only one of which was a naturalized citizen, was a natural born U.S. citizen. The key is being born in the U.S. Parental citizenship doesn't matter in almost all cases.
All of the men who included themselves in the exception clause (the grandfather clause) in the Constitution were born on this continent, but their fathers were not American citizens. If what you are trying to float were definitive, there would appear to have been no need for the exception clause to be written into the Constitution.
But not born in the United States, since no such entity existed. Hence the need for the grandfather clause. Otherwise they would have excluded themselves from consideration.
In specifically recognizing Mr. Wong Kim Ark as a U.S. citizen (not a 'natural born citizen') under the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS laid down the general rule that any individual (other than children of foreign rulers and diplomats) born on U.S. soil to permanent resident alien parents is a citizen of the United States pursuant to the 14th Amendment.
It recognized Ark as a citizen at birth, and also made it clear that there were but two forms of citizenship. So unless you believe the intent of the Court was to exclude everyone from the presidency then it's clear that their position is citizen at birth and natural born citizen are one and the same.
And here is a quote from an actual court case where 'natural born citizen' is cited.
And I also quoted from the Elg case, where 'natural born citizen' was cited. But in Happersett the question was not who is a natural born citizen but whether woman could be denied the right to vote. Chief Justice Chase also didn't rule one way or the other, merely noting there was some question. Well it's clear that the Ark case cleared up those questions in the eyes of the court.
What kind of citizenship did black people hold before the emancipation proclamation and the Constitutional Amendment citing full citizenship, if there have been only two forms of citizenship?
The OPERATIVE phrase of the 14th Amendment expressly states:
“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 ...”
It says “citizens” NOT “natural born citizens”.
In situations like this, SCOTUS has USUALLY devolved to ascertain what the “original intent” of the framers was ... What does the 14th Amendment mean and what is its intended scope, as introduced the United States Senate in 1866?
Additionally, Congress issued a joint congressional report on June 22, 1874 that said the “United States have not recognized a double allegiance.”
In reading the Perkins v Elg case, the importance of that ruling is that it actually gives three examples of citizenship: what a Citizen of the U.S. is, what a native born American Citizen is, and what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. A natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.
All of our Presidents were born on the North American continent, even those that were born prior to the Constitution and "grandfathered" in. If they were born here, why did they not consider themselves natural born? The only thing different between them and those born later was their "allegiance" by birth (and that of their parents) to Britain. I think the key to understanding the intention and application of "NaturalBornCitizen" can be found in discovering why they did not confer NBC status on themselves. Just being born here was not enough for them; should just being born in America be enough for us?
And finally, since the documents Obama claim show him eligible as a U.S. born individual are not sufficient due to forgery and/or defacing the image of the CoLB document, if he was in fact born in Kenya then he is absolutely not eligible by the following law:
“Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.” So far, mister affirmative action candidate has not provided proof of his eligibility to hold the job for which he is demanding recognition. You can spin the materials he's used to try to fools the public, I can cite why his posted documents are forgeries.
You can tell me that no one in authority has rejected him based upon documentations, I can show you how these 'authorities' have failed to actually vett the presidential candidates.
We can go round and round, but the reality is, because major questions of Obama's hidden documentation and his use of questionable documents, the SCOTUS needs to clarify the defintion of natural born citizen as it is applied in Constitutional eligibility for president. It would also be nice it they would clarify 'standing' to demand the canddiate show proof of eligibility.
Incidentally, if I hold out four coins—two dimes, two quarters—in my hand and tell you there are two similar coins in my hand, does that negate the existence of the other two coins? That a court ruling names two types of citizenship but does not address any other forms of smae does not mean there are only two.
This makes no sense. You are trying to use the fact that they made no distinction as proof that a distinction exists. They ruled he was a citizen at birth. They wouldn't have had to use some other term for the same thing.
Being argumentative is a waste of time, but discussing things rationally, and thinking about what people say, is not. You could learn something.
It is possible that you are wrong about this you know. For some reason you guys want the truth of your assertions just accepted, and want to attack anyone that disagrees. Where does that arrogance come from?
Who are you to ask?
The person that has never attacked you because you disagree with me.
I notice we have some new members who are here for the sole purpose of argument for Obama’s right to the presidency.
Fact is - he is not eligible and whether he is sworn in illegitimately or not, I will never serve my allegiance to him nor call him my President.
I had no idea the membership was so open to admit those whose purpose is to interfere with the philosophies of this forum.
The OPERATIVE phrase of the 14th Amendment expressly states:
“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 ...”
It says “citizens” NOT “natural born citizens”.
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
” ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], 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...”
Then he should have included that in the amendment, shouldn't he? Saved a whole lot of trouble.
It says “citizens” NOT “natural born citizens”.
Are they naturalized citizens?
They held no citizenship status at all, per Scott v. Sanford.
It says “citizens” NOT “natural born citizens”.
So that would mean they are naturalized citizens?
In situations like this, SCOTUS has USUALLY devolved to ascertain what the “original intent” of the framers was ... What does the 14th Amendment mean and what is its intended scope, as introduced the United States Senate in 1866?
And in the Ark case they did consider all sides of the 14th Amendment debate, and came to a conclusion that differs from yours.
Additionally, Congress issued a joint congressional report on June 22, 1874 that said the “United States have not recognized a double allegiance.”
I don't understand the relevance of that in this matter.
In reading the Perkins v Elg case, the importance of that ruling is that it actually gives three examples of citizenship: what a Citizen of the U.S. is, what a native born American Citizen is, and what a natural born citizen of the U.S. is. A natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.
You'll have to point that out to me. From what I've read the only time the term 'natural born citizen' is used in Chief Justice Hughes' decision is when they confirm the finding of the lower court that she was indeed a natural born citizen.
If they were born here, why did they not consider themselves natural born?
How could they be natural born citizens of a country that didn't exist when they were born? Of course they had to grandfather it.
And finally, since the documents Obama claim show him eligible as a U.S. born individual are not sufficient due to forgery and/or defacing the image of the CoLB document, if he was in fact born in Kenya then he is absolutely not eligible by the following law.
And if he was indeed born in Kenya then I would agree with you. But he was born in Hawaii.
We can go round and round, but the reality is, because major questions of Obama's hidden documentation and his use of questionable documents, the SCOTUS needs to clarify the defintion of natural born citizen as it is applied in Constitutional eligibility for president.
It appears that the Supreme Court disagrees with you that it needs to be clarified.
It would also be nice it they would clarify 'standing' to demand the canddiate show proof of eligibility.
Legal standing is a term that has already been well defined. What you want them to do is to redefine the term 'damages' in such a way that you can sue for vague and unsubstantiated damages. Be careful what you wish for.
Then, the courts should take the time to force him to provide equal access to evidence (just as is required in any case) so that we can prove his is ineligible to be president. Your “since you don’t have a dead body, you don’t have a crime” argument has been proven wrong on many occasions.
Obama is hoping this will go away and he can ignore it and that is why we have all these trolls in here trying to espouse such actions. These are not the droids you are looking for; move along, move along!
I notice you didn't try to address the issue of partial citizenship. It is not an either or, one or the other issue. That's why SCOTUS needs to address it from a Constitutional eligibilty perspective.
“We stopped being a Constitutional Republic when we started having direct elections for President and Senators.”
Come, now. That’s stretching it a bit. After all, direct elections are Constitutional.
They did not rule that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen, and he wasn’t even running for president. What doesn’t make sense about that? For you to assert that because they ruled Wong was a citizen, therefore anyone born here is a natural born citizen, is what doesn’t make sense.
“It is possible that you are wrong about this you know. For some reason you guys want the truth of your assertions just accepted, and want to attack anyone that disagrees. Where does that arrogance come from? “
I would argue that applies to you, not me. I see no legitimate reason to change my position on natural born citizens, and your contradictory arguments are not at all convincing. I won’t apologize to you because you can’t figure it out, if that’s what you’re looking for from me.
“both of their parents should be subject to not only the laws of our country but also to the jurisdiction as well, meaning that they cannot be here on any special visa diplomatic student or tourist where”
People here under special visas are under the jurisdiction of U.S. law. You may very well believe that tourists and students should be treated the same as the children of diplomats and illegals, but I don’t believe SCOTUS agrees.
“So how does this apply to Obama, his father chose not to immigrate to this country and had no intentions of becoming a US citizen, and since he arrived here on a student visa he was granted a limited immunity from our jurisdiction by treaty.”
Oh, please. Limited immunity? There are all sorts of special classifications recognized by the U.S. government that apply to different people under its jurisdiction. Females, for instance, do not have to apply for the Selective Service Draft, just like Obama’s father. Does that prevent them from producing natural born offspring? No.
Again, I’d like for you to tell me how Wong Kim Ark’s parents, being legal aliens, are any different from Obama’s father, a legal alien. All I can gather is that you think the fact that they were unable to become citizens even if they wanted to, and the fact that Obama’s father could have theoretically applied for citizenship but “[had] no intention on becoming [a] United States Citizen...” means the former can have natural-born offspring and the latter cannot.
To my mind, this is a distiction without a difference. There is no reason why we should discriminate between people who could not become citizens if they tried and people who choose not to become citizens though they could. I thinky you made it up.
“We need to see a case where the child of a minor(US citizen) married to a Foreign National here on a Visa (diplomatic, student or Tourist)sued for the right to be considered Natural born, even if they were born outside the United States.”
No we don’t. Especially not the last part, considering there is no evidence that Obama was not born on U.S. soil.
There’s no unimpeached proof that he was born on US soil, either. The questionability of his posted ‘document’ CoLB is even now in a court accepted lawsuit still active.
“Citizen and subject are synonyms with the difference having to due with the form of government under which one lives. (Republic or monarchy, respectively)”
Yeah, and it kinda makes a difference, since we’re arguing about what law applies to Obama, who happens to live in a Republic. I don’t care if throughout all of recorded time monarchies only considered the offspring of two subjects to be natural-subjects. It wouldn’t necessarily mean natural-born U.S. citizens need to have two U.S. citizen parents.
“Suggesting that the usage examples given by the OED are random just demonstrates your ignorance of what the OED is. Since I’m guessing that you do not own one, I suggest that the next time you are in a library you pick up volume one and read the introduction which contains some philosophy and history of the work (in the 2nd edition, at least, which is the one that I own).”
Listen, you smug bastard, the excerpts quoted in the OED are random *to our purposes*. I’m sure the editors chose them carefully. But they probably didn’t have U.S. law in mind when they did so. If they had, maybe they could have helped us out by including a local entry from 1789.
“What is important, in law, is to understand the words and terms in the same manner as they were used when a law was drafted.”
And I see nothing in the excerpts pointing to a necessary understanding of how the Framers viewed the term. That’s why I called them random.
“The 14th amendment is completely silent about what makes one a natural-born citizen as opposed to some other citizen outside the class of natural-born citizens.”
That’s only true if you come into the situation believing some citizens at birth might not be natural-born citizens, which I think you’ve noticed is not a view held by by the general populace, nor by the legal establishment.
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.