Posted on 01/10/2010 6:03:15 PM PST by STE=Q
Oct. 18, 2009) The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a natural born citizen is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to understand what this term means.
Lets cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the he says, she says, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.
First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of natural born citizenship.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
bookmark
You have to read the opinion and see the references they used in determining her citizenship status before stating what you do.
Have you done that? My guess is not.
I think you'll find that passports only indicate citizenship, although because they include place of birth, they can be used to infer "native born" or "naturalized"... but not reliably, since persons born of parents in the service of the country (such as military or diplomatic) are considered native (and if both parents are citizens, natural) born, yet place of birth might be Nairobi, Kenya, or more likely someplace in England, Germany or South Korea.
Your second and third "classes" are subsets of the first. Both "natural born" and "naturalized" are citizens, as are native born. Natural born is a subset of "native born", while naturalized is a subset that does not intersect the set "native born". Where "native born" has the modern meaning of "born in the United States".
The reason it's not kept track of, is that all citizens have the same rights, so there is no purpose in keeping track. But being elected to office is not a right, and their are eligibility criteria which may restrict naturalized citizens from running for or holding federal elected office. For Representative and Senator, there are residency requirements, and for President a complete ban. Similarly non Natural Born citizens cannot hold the office of President, even if they are native born, and otherwise meet the eligibility requirements.
Of course I have. I'm not saying she was not a natural born citizen, she was. But that was not the issue in her case. The issue was "is she a citizen". Being a natural born citizen obviously means she was a citizen. But she could have been merely "native born", had her parents not been naturalized when she was born, say if they'd been legal resident aliens, like the parents of the Governor of Louisiana were when he was born, and she'd still be a citizen, and still entitled to a US passport and admission to the US, which was the real issue in her case. The court could thus have delared her to be a native born citizen, which she also was, and the result/finding would have been the same.
If the US government has in fact legally established three types of citizenship, only one of which enables a person to serve as president/vice president, you'd think that (excluding naturalized citizens) we'd be classified as natural born citizens or just plain citizens at or near the time of our birth and that our government-determined citizenship classification would appear at least on our birth certificates, our passports, our census forms, and maybe our death certificates. That's the kind of stuff the government normally likes to keep track of.
While it definitely wants us to be legally designated male or female, the US government has never bothered to legally establish which of us is natural born. That's very curious. I think it can be argued the US government's curious indifference means that it does not consider natural born a legally distinct category of citizenship.
Do you want to rethink that post?
“Sorry, this article, like the birther movement in general, drew a conclusion first, and then wants the law to support it, instead of seeing what the whole constitution, and ALL relevant case law, says.”
Sorry, but “ALL relevant law” beyond the Constitution has nothing to do with it. The overriding, ultimate law in the USA is the Constitution. No law, statute, regulation overrides the Constitution which IS interpreted ultimately by the Supreme Court. Their interpretation is dictated by precedent and interpretation of what the term meant at the time the Constitution was written.
Correct me if I'm wrong: Has the United States government ever demanded that a United States citizen prove he was a natural born citizen?
No — I was being ironic/cheeky. See reply at No. 34. Maybe I should use emoticons....
Sorry, but your inference as to what would be the most logical answer is not part of the record. It is your opinon.
Am I in the Twilight Zone?
I'm astonished at how many different individuals try the same childish attempt at "reasoning."
Please show us where exactly Vattel speaks of "logical answers."
Unless it is explicit quoted, it didn't happen.
If the American people see this as no longer a necessary requirement, well, there's a process that must be followed to change the Constitutional requirement -- to do otherwise is to set a dreadful precedent.
Sorry, my "inference" was... well, an inference.
Therefore, it doesn't have to be part of the record.
Pay special attention to definition b.
inference:
Logic.
a. the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises.
: b. the process of arriving at some conclusion that, though it is not logically derivable from the assumed premises, possesses some degree of probability relative to the premises.
Am I in the Twilight Zone?
Are you?
I'm astonished at how many different individuals try the same childish attempt at "reasoning."
If that's the way you feel you should come up with some sort of cogent rebuttal that doesn't involve bloviating.
STE=Q
First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866
Be it enacted . . ., That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;
Then the court goes on to cite WKA as a reference in which we know references Minor v Happersett:
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. 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. -Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. -Justice Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)
It’s getting late where I am.
Time to hit the sack!
Whether you agree or disagree I hope everyone found the article edifying.
STE=Q
‘Seasonable’ — this certainly is a bad season, exactly the kind of thing Jay wished to avoid.
Is that your real interest? Suggest you study up hard then.
Compared to the implications of what this current admin. (and past admins) have for this country, it could be of lesser worry.
I still want to know the whole truth and nothing but.....
There’s actually five. Charlton forgets perkins v Elg.
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm#FiveCases
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.