Posted on 04/24/2010 9:18:10 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
The courts call those born in the country "native born", but not those who are citizens at birth because they qualify under 8 USC 1401 (less paragraph (a) which restates the 14th amendment's criteria) or other parts of the statute law. Like Maya Soetero, who was a citizen at birth under paragraph (g) (as it existed at the time she was born, it was changed in 1986)
I agree. The founders particularly wanted to keep foreign influence on the Commander-in-Chief to a minimum, because of what was going on in Poland in the 1772. The partitions of Poland were enabled in no small part to foreign influence exerted on the Polish government by calculating foreign powers who often bribed Polish officials to exercise their veto in the legislature. The situation effectively rendered Poland a vassal state of foreign powers and it was partitioned up over the 1770s and 90s. In the US, the Electoral College was also devised to prevent foreign influence on the election of a President which would inevitably occur if the choice of President was given to the legislature. Here is an interesting article on the Natural born Citizen Clause and its history at the Constitutional Convention.
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/citizenship/history.htm
I believe you are right about the Supreme Court.
Yes, I would consider it treason.
And...This problem of citizens having “no standing” needs to be fixed. It isn't just Obama’s eligibility. In the future there could be other questions’ that need resolution.
4 Supreme Court Cases define “natural born citizen”
IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN
by John Charlton
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
Reference links at bottom of page....
Emmerich de Vattel, c/o Online Library of Liberty
(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 undertsand what this term means.
Let’s 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”.
Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .
The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:
Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . .
The terms “natives” and “natural born citizens” are obviously English terms; used to render the idea convyed by the French phrase “les naturels, ou indigenes”: but both refered to the same category of citizen: one born in the country, of parents who were citizens of that country.
In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term “naturels” refers to citizens who are such by the Law of Nature, that is by the natural cirumstances of their birth — which they did not choose; the term “indigenes” is from the Latin, indigenes, which like the English, “indigenous”, means “begotten from within” (inde-genes), as in the phrase “the indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and lived there for generations.” Hence the meaning the the term, “natural born citizen”, or “naturels ou indigenes” is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of that country.
Vattel did not invent the notion “natural born citizen”; he was merely applying the Law of Nature to questions of citizenship. In fact the term first appears in a letter of the future Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention, where the Framers were consulting 3 copies Vattel’s book to complete their work (according to the testimony of Benjamin Franklin).
Let take a brief look, now, at each case. For each case I include the link to the full text of the ruling.
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution. In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court:
Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 til Nov. 26, 1829.
John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 til July 6, 1835.
William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, til Aug. 4, 1834.
Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 til March 18, 1823
Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 til Feb. 7, 1826.
Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 til Jany 14, 1835.
Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 til Sept. 10, 1845
Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph Story’s father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the British. William Johnson’s father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutement of Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly. Bushrod Washington was George Washington’s nephew and heir.
Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.
The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.
WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP
In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
In 16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
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.
On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”
CONCLUSION
Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.
References:
References:
About Emer de Vattel
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Fperson=3987&Itemid=28
The law of Nations - Vattel
http://books.google.com/books?id=z8b8rrzRc7AC&dq=Emmerich+de+Vattel+The+Law+of+Nations&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=it&ei=tdfaSsH1HIuk4Qbb6pn1Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
SCOTUS before 1900
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Justices_appointed_before_1900
Venus Case
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html
Shanks vs. Dupont
http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/242/case.html
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html#162
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html#649
This is the problem, to many people put way too much stock in the internet musings of people who aren't trained lawyers, historians or scholars of any kind. Here's Charlton's own bio from the site you linked to...
"A natural born citizen of the USA; independent, constitutionalist, Article II Patriot, committed to defending the liberty of the American People through the use of the New Media for a Free Press"
He's not an attorney, he's not a constitutional scholar and he's not any kind of academic - he has no published authorship anywhere except in some obscure website/blog, and yet you think his opinion holds sway. Why is that?
I spent too many years in school, and too long practicing law to give even a passing thought to the rantings of an amateur, a hobbyist. I'll put it this way - you'll have more success quoting my cleaning lady.
Do you believe Obama is qualified to be President?
My belief about Obama's qualifications (or lack thereof) is plainly immaterial. The Constitution does not name "olddeckhand" as the inspecting authority of presidential candidates.
US law has been developed that ballot access is left to the states; The Secretaries of State generally speaking, or some other designated election's administration board. Nor does US Code or the US Constitution leave it to the Judiciary to evaluate either the qualification of presidential candidates, or the workings of the Electoral College.
Why this is lost on so many birthers, is puzzling.
It’s a shame, isn’t it, when amateurs and researchers and cleaning ladies know more than pompous lawyers whose ultimate claim to credibility is that they are trained in that old habit: “when you can’t handle the message, then try to discredit the messenger.”
Antonin Scalia, Clearance Thomas, Sam Alito, John Roberts, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter v. Some guy no one has ever heard of - you side with the later and not the former, and yet I'm pompous. That's rich.
"Is Barack Obama an Article II natural born citizen as required by our Constitution and thus qualified to be President?".
Misery loves company --
"Is Barack Obama an Article II natural born citizen as required by our Constitution and thus qualified to be President?"."
Because, as a matter law, that question is no longer relevant to Obama's current term, at least from the perspective of the Judiciary. This is the concept birthers cannot wrap their heads around, but that doesn't mean the concept is legally defective.
You could say “consider to the best of your knowledge” - maybe he wouldn’t weasel out.
That's fine if that's your opinion for what it's worth.
So given that opinion, the answer to the question won't hurt anything for you or them, will it???
Then we can start with you answering that "meaningless" question:
Is Barack Obama an Article II natural born citizen as required by our Constitution and thus qualified to be President? Yes or No.
Presuming he was born where he says he was born, without question he satisfies the requirements set-forth in Art. II.
“Is Barack Obama an Article II natural born citizen as required by our Constitution and thus qualified to be President? Yes or No.”
If he was born in Hawaii - Yes.
He was placed on all 50 state ballots, elected by a majority of voters and the Electoral College, certified by Congress without a single member raising objection, including his opponent in the race.
I would have preferred for the Congress or Courts to define NBC differently, but there you have it. And I understand the arguments that favor interpreting NBC in a way that Obama would qualify, and don’t have a strong objection to them. They strike me as a reasonable interpretation, and certainly strong enough that no court will now define it differently.
So then he is your Presumptive President.
Is that how Justice Roberts would answer that question???
No, he's not the presumptive President, he's the President de jure & de facto. Justice Roberts, and the other eight justices have been given ample opportunity to express their opinions. They've passed each time.
Mr Rogers puts plainly better than I did, when he posits...
He was placed on all 50 state ballots, elected by a majority of voters and the Electoral College, certified by Congress without a single member raising objection, including his opponent in the race.
Everything he says, happened. And each event has a legal consequence that cannot be ignored just because some suspect some defect in Obama's eligibility. Of course, I don't really have to tell you this because if you've been paying attention, this is precisely what the import of every judicial opinion has been that has denied the birther's claims.
The time to litigate this issue (for this term) has passed. And, the people whose responsibility it was to litigate such an issue, elected not to. It is as simple as that.
You mean -- the presumed de jure &de facto, right???
He was placed on all 50 state ballots, elected by a majority of voters and the Electoral College, certified by Congress without a single member raising objection, including his opponent in the race.
And yet none of them, even Nancy Pelosi, have ever declared that he is a "natural born citizen" and thus qualified to be President. They are forced to restate all questions directed to them. He is their "presumed" President as well, and they play word games as well.
The time to litigate this issue (for this term) has passed.
That's your presumption but it still doesn't make him a natural born citizen or qualified for the office that he sits in, does it???
And, the people whose responsibility it was to litigate such an issue, elected not to.
You mean "failed" or "refused" to do so.
I am not a birther, I am a constitutionalist, and one in training I might add. I read the constitution, and understand what I read. What it says, what it means, where it came from, how it was developed, and what was used as a guide to write it. I belive that I understand what the framers of the constitution meant, and how and why it was constructed it the final form.
What say you?
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.