Posted on 07/29/2009 10:11:47 AM PDT by Scanian
Yesterday, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, chose to weigh in on the Obama “Natural Born Citizen” controversy again. This time Dr. Fukino went much further than she had before. This time Dr. Fukino held herself out as a Constitutional Law Expert by declaring that Mr. Obama is a “Natural Born Citizen.” I was very surprised by her new statement considering the Supreme Court of the United States has never fully delineated the meaning of the term, “Natural Born Citizen”.
In Minor v. Happersett, decided in 1874, 6 years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment to Constitution, the Supreme Court expressly recognized that doubts (unanswered questions) concerning who is a “Natural Born Citizen” remain and that the Court must look outside the Constitution for its meaning because the phrase is not defined within its boarders. These doubts remain today (Wong Kim Ark, 1898 notwithstanding, see here). Much to our current chagrin, the facts in Minor did not require the Court to address the unresolved “Natural Born Citizen” issues; so usual, the Court chose not to do so. That is really unfortunate for us. The Court could have saved millions of Americans tons of stress today had they, with perfect 20/20 foresight, simply addressed just a few possible situations.
Supreme Court in Minor stated:
..The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
You remember the "rule of law," don't you, Obots?
Talk about mischaracterizing the issue!
If you look at the speeches of congress when voting on the 14th, you will find it was one of their prime concerns that the common law of natural born not be violated. And that future illegals not be made legal. This is why the anchor the baby stuff has no real legal argument. The intent of the legislature for the fourteenth was spelled out in their speeches.
Thanks for the post. I am very glad to see that people in other countries are realizing what is being done to obscure the two terms: “citizen”, and “natural born citizen”! Let’s hope the truth is known soon.
Never in history have so many liars and frauds tried to shovel so much dirt over the biggest, single, anti-Constitutional fraud every put upon the American public. Lying and empty rhetoric is not an acceptable substitute for producing credible, verifiable documentation.
The public is not that gullible. Especially now that they realize what they are dealing with.
WTF, did he bring in a cup of Zero's urine?
The US Code (laws of the United States) in Title 8/Section 1401 very clearly spells out who is a “Citizen at Birth”. There is no separate specific definition in US law of the term “Natural Born Citizen”:
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
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;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(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;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401——000-.html
If they are so confident about their interpretation of “natural born”, then why dont they publish the birth certificate, get things out in the open, and let the branch of government charged with interpretation of the law DO THEIR JOB??????
This governance by public opinion is really starting to chaff my ass!
I have never seen a single bit of evidence indicating there is a distinction in US law between a “citizen at birth” and a “natural born citizen.”
This would involve there being three categories of citizen:
Citizen at birth but not natural born.
Natural born.
Naturalized.
Boy have I got some DNA for you. Certified.
That's what I'm sayin', too!
And I fully support that notion.
A REALLY good article with in depth legal information.
So what if there are three categories of citizen?
There are only two jobs in America where it’s required that the person be a natural born citizen.
Job # 1 - President of the United States.
Job # 2 - Vice President of the United States.
That leaves approximately 299,999,998 people in America, qualified for all of the other jobs available in both the public and private sectors. That’s those that are citizens at birth, and naturalized citizens.
It’s not complicated.
The Constitution, Art. II, says in pertinant part: “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;”
Since everyone who was a citizen at the time of adoption is dead and likely to remain that way, we can remove the grandfather clause wording. We are left with “No Person except a natural born Citizen [...] shall be eligible to the Office of President;”
Why does the Constitution speak of “citizens” and separately of “natural born citizens”? It is a matter of allegiance.
A person can be a “citizen” if they were citizens or subjects in some other country first but have come here and met the naturalization requirements. Also, if one is the offspring of a citizen and a non-citizen, then one is a US citizen. However, in both these cases it can be argued that the person might choose allegiance to their former country or to the country of the foreign-born parent or at least the allegiance might be considered divided. It is this divided allegiance that the Constitutional provision is designed to prohibit.
If, however, both of one’s parents are themselves US citizens, then one is a “citizen” as well as a “natural born citizen”. The “natural born citizen” is one who at birth has no natural allegiance to any other country and the Framers felt could be trusted to be loyal to the US and not act as a foreign agent.
Seems that I remember reading something about that. What was the one guys name? Bingham?
If they are so confident about their interpretation of “natural born”, then why dont they publish the birth certificate, get things out in the open, and let the branch of government charged with interpretation of the law DO THEIR JOB??????
This governance by public opinion is really starting to chaff my ass!
Media Viciousness and Obfuscating the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
It's not about "birfers," it's not about a wing-nut conspiracy, it's about the Constitution and the law.
“The US Code...very clearly spells out who is a “Citizen at Birth”. There is no separate specific definition in US law of the term “Natural Born Citizen”
Are you asking us to believe the Congress by statute can amend the U.S. Constitution?
Assuming you recognize the distinction, what is your theory as to why the framers distinguished between the citizenship requirements of Senators and the Pres and VP?
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.