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
So the Constitution is a "flawed document"?
The courts have disagreed on that. According to our Constitution and our laws, natural born citizenship is a birth right and like any other birth right it cannot be taken away without their permission. Once a person reaches adulthood and can make informed decisions on their own then they are free to relinquish their U.S. citizenship in favor of another.
You know my position on this,Those that are here illegally have no right to claim citizenship for themselves or their offspring, those that are here on a temporary visa are making no attempt to become citizens and should not have US citizenship granted to their offspring.
I do. But I also disagree with your position, respectfully. The Courts have taken a different view than you have and I tend to agree with their points over yours.
But what you ignore is that the court ruled that any child born here, and subject to our jurisdiction, is a natuaral born U.S. citizen. Obama's father had an established domicile in the U.S. and was certainly subject to our laws. His child was also therefore subject to our jurisdiction and as a result is a natural born U.S. citizen.
Of course it is. It always has been.
But the founders were wise enough to know that direct election of presidents in any manner could lead to the election of tyrants.
Also since each state has 2 Senators and the senators were supposed to represent the interests of the individual states, the state legislatures were originally assigned the duty of electing senators.
By making the election of senators a democratic process rather than a process of election by representatives, the Senators now represent only those people who they can con or bribe into voting for them and this has dramatically increased the power of the Federal Government. The Senate is now a national office rather than a state office. Previously Senate seats were reserved for "statesmen" who would be selected to represent the state as a whole. These seats are now occupied by crooks who represent those who give them the most campaign contributions.
Huh? Wong Kim Ark was granted citizenship, and Gray wrote the majority opinion. Are you saying he disagreed with his own opinion? Here's how it concludes, after a very long dissertation:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Order affirmed."
Sure, we can't make someone apply for citizenship. But, we "force" citizenship on people all the time. When territories became states, for example. Also, we "force" citizenship on children born in the US. Nobody asked my son whether he wanted to become a citizen. As a sovereign nation, we can pretty much make anyone a citizen, if we want.
In both cases it is a question if they willing submit to the legal process by which this country grants citizenship for them and their children born here
The legal process, according to thr 14th Amendment, is simply being born here.
He was ruled a citizen by birth. That is a natural born citizen. The ruling didn't distinguish between the terms because no such distinction exists.
Apparently your definition of "stupid" is "disagreeing with ml/nj".
Disagree on the issues without insulting people. It's not that hard.
How does that have anything to do with what I said?
Diminish ... English isn’t really a second language for me, but ...
Flying spittle is your hallmark.
I can cite several passages of the Kim case.
"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."
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.""
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
As well as Perking v. Elg. In the Elg case, the defendant was born in the U.S. of foreign born parents, only one of which was indeitifed as a naturalized U.S. citizen. The court stated: "The cross-petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg "solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship." The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants, declared Miss Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States," and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
So in this the court also uses the term 'natural born U.S. citizen' to describe someone who does not meet the definition stated by Vattel, and which you all cling to with such intensity. To wit, she was not born in the U.S. of two parents both of who were U.S. citizens when born.
From the Ark case:
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."
Don’t you know?
You’re the one that keeps asking me to explain it all to you.
"You’re the one that keeps asking me to explain it all to you."
I said it seemed you were confusing what you thought the law should be, with what the law actually is.
You responded by wanting me to discuss juridiction. No, I don't see how that is responsive to what I said.
Actually I have given you my best thoughts on this issue, that you cannot understand them is unimportant to me.
But that's OK, it's a minor diversion from the main issue of this thread.
Don't tell me, I'm not the one that complained about the ruling not using "natural born citizen".
"You've tried to argue that there are only and have been only two typesd of citizenship. This is false since we know--for example--that at one time Black people were considered at least a third type of citizen."
I am telling you that there are only two ways to acquire citizenship. Not that there are two types of citizenship. The two ways are birth and naturalization.
"Additionally, you purposely deminish the Constitutional eligibility issue by trying to deminish the meaning of natural born as the framers used and understood the term."
It is not the way the framers understood the term. That's only what you allege now. They understood it to mean just what most people today understand it to mean. Citizen by birth.
"That there is a major confusion on this is exactly why the SCOTUS needs to address the issues."
There isn't major confusion on this.
"That is your obamanoid cue to demand someone cite..."
Ah, there it is. We couldn't get through an entire post of yours without a personal attack, could we? Nothing your insult is worth reading, let alone responding to.
Should have read:
"Nothing after your insult is worth reading, let alone responding to."
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.