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.
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...”
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.
“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?”
Who ever told you black people were citizens before the 14th amendment? Haven’t you ever heard of Dred Scott?