Posted on 04/29/2010 8:44:11 AM PDT by Thurston_Howell_III
The "natural" part of natural born citizen comes from natural law. It does not modify "born," it modifies "citizen." Under natural law, citizenship descends from the father. Under the law at the time the Constitution was ratified, women derived citizenship from their spouses. This was the case right up into the second decade of the twentieth century, when the 19th Amendment was ratified.
Women's citizenship was something of a cause célèbre in women's rights circles at the time, and led to that amendment. You should look into it. Maybe you would find something there that would relieve your angst over having told your children that they could run for President. After all, it's the law at the time the Constitution was ratified, that matters as far as eligibility. Original intent likely only countenanced the citizenship of the father, and took derivative citizenship of the mother as a given. That would mean that you didn't mislead your children. Think about it.
There are native born citizens who are not described as being natural born. Native born clearly refers to those born in the country, and yet it's used interchangeably with natural born in certain contexts. So, natural born means born in the country, and it also means something else, otherwise the distinction would not be made in the Constiutional eligibility clause. There is no other thing that it could mean other than parentage. You've been around these threads long enough to know what that other, additional level of meaning would be ... citizen parents.
Every legal decision that has explicit reference to the term of art "natural born citizen" states that those born in the country of citizen parents are without a doubt natural born, and those that aren't are in doubt. It couldn't be any clearer, and yet here you are, two years later, still sauomg the same things you've been saying all along.
You are correct that it is not in doubt that those born in country of citizen parents are natural born citizens. But that does not follow that ONLY those born in country of citizen parents are natural born citizens. The very argument you are quoting goes on to EXPAND that definition to those born of citizen parents serving their country overseas.
The English law precedent cited in Wong Kim Ark said that even aliens “subject to the jurisdiction” of England when their child was born (excepting only diplomats and such) was a “natural born subject” and extended that same principle to Wong Kim Ark.
So go mislead your own children, how childish.
According to Minor v. Happersett, all others are in doubt, and Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite goes on to describe them as aliens or foreigners:
Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States," and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of "the United States of America," entered into a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
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. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also.
If you read Chief Justice Waite's language closely, allmendream, you'll see why the Naturalization Act of 1790 was altered to remove the reference to "natural born citizens" in 1795. The result of that alteration is that such individuals born beyond the sea are just "citizens." Congress had violated it's own Constitutionally enumerated power of naturalization, by attempting to legislate natural born citizenship to individuals born overseas. You can't naturalize someone into being a natural born citizen.
obumpa
In fact, John McCain, born overseas to a soldier under the allegiance of the US Armed forces, was ruled to be a natural born citizen.
That there were “doubts” that children born of alien parents within the jurisdiction of the USA were natural born citizens does not establish that they are not; in fact in Wong Kim Ark the English law precedent was cited in the determination that he would be a “natural born subject” if subject to English law.
Ruled? By what competent judicial authority? The Congress? LOL!
You may recall the two wars fought, over being subjects of King George III and subject to English law.
Or, then again, you might not.
So citing pre-American law of England and the “law of Nations” is only allowed when it fits yor premise, and rejected when it does not?
So much for your statement without qualification that those born overseas who had U.S. citizenship at birth were just born “citizens” and never “natural born citizens”.
Are your statements so often at odds with actual reality?
One would hope so, however the HI Department of Health has gone out of its way to avoid complying with other legal obligations in response to public information requests. Whatever 'legal obligation' they have is of course open to interpretation. The absence of an official state declaration of forgery doesn't inherently mean Obama's alleged COLB is legitimate.
So far none of the laws have done anything to either ‘cut out the middleman’ and get the COLB directly from the issuing State, or to authenticate the document submitted to them as an authentic COLB from a State.
The laws shouldn't need to. Such an action would only be necessary if there are questions about the authenticity of any document that has been submitted. In such a case, a state having questions about someone's credentials has the authority and legal capacity to get an official confirmation or copy of documentation from the issuing agency, at least they would if the needed one from Hawaii.
As such, this, and the other bills, do nothing to either “Free the long form”, establish the COLB on the internet as fraudulent, and they also seem to establish that any COLB showing U.S. citizenship at birth would be sufficient to be put on the Presidential ballot.
As such I wonder at these bills unalloyed support among the birthers.
Doing something is better than nothing. Lamenting assumed futility isn't really a reason not to support such an action.
In fact it is amazing to me that nobody thought to authenticate the necessary credentials to be on the ballot before this.
I just want people to realize that this is not the crucifix that is going to keep vampire 0bama at bay, and tamp down any exuberant delusions that this will keep 0bama off the ballot.
They will submit to each state that requires it, the Hawaii DOH computer printout COLB; and according to each state law, and the “full faith and credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution - that would be acceptable criteria to place 0bama on the Presidential ballot.
So let nobody be surprised when that happens. OK?
I’ll take a stab here. The state department lists certain requirements that a short-form birth certificate would have a raised state seal, registrar’s signature and a few other things. Allegedly, Obama’s COLB contains these things although there is no conclusive proof. Second, the state department would be trained at spotting fraudulent documentation. Obama’s alleged COLB was issued in June 2007 and obviously was never used to get a passport. Whatever records Obama used to get a passport prior to that are being kept hidden or are lost. Obama’s alleged COLB has also never been presented to a court of law or legitimate document validation expert. So, a Hawaii COLB might be accepted as proof of citizenship, but there’s no proof Obama’s COLB would be accepted.
Wouldn't this also be true of the 14th amendment?? It makes no a natural born citizen by itself.
Just to be clear, there’s no ‘full faith and credit’ requirement to accept a fraudulent document as legitimate.
Assuming the document IS from Hawaii DOH, as I have repeatedly stated (as in ‘the requirements of the law would be met by submitting a computer printout COLB from Hawaii DOH’), then other States are obligated to accept it as proof of birth within Hawaii under the “full faith and credit” clause.
No, there is quite a bit of evidence that it is indeed fraudulent, perhaps the most damning is the certificate number. Thanks to Eleanor Nordyke, we've seen legitimate certificates with numbers that are lower than the number on Obama's alleged certificate. According to the department of health, these numbers are issued when a certificate is filed and accepted by the state. Obama's alleged certified was filed three days earlier than the Nordyke certificates, and as such, couldn't have a higher number.
Assuming the document IS from Hawaii DOH, as I have repeatedly stated (as in ‘the requirements of the law would be met by submitting a computer printout COLB from Hawaii DOH’), then other States are obligated to accept it as proof of birth within Hawaii under the “full faith and credit” clause.
Right, and under Hawaiian statutes, the state of Texas or Arizona or whoever requires the certificates can contact the state of Hawaii to get official, legal verification of an alleged COLB.
But a COLB from Hawaii DOH will satisfy the requirements of the law.
And let nobody be surprised when, to comply with this and any other State law, 0bama submits the computer printout COLB. This law will not be the crucifix that keeps the vampire 0bama at bay, and nobody should be surprised when 0bama is placed on the ballot after complying with this law.
But they will! Massive conspiracy will be alleged. Everyone in Texas and Hawaii will be “in” on the scam. Just wait. It will be amusing.
You make a false assumption. Obama is not going to submit his alleged COLB to anyone. He's already had plenty of opportunities to present it in a court of law and end speculation about whether it's real or not. It's not going to see the light of day.
Why would he want to end the speculation, when birthers have been such a boon to him in painting his electoral foes as irresponsible kooks like Oreally Taintz?
You think he is going to be left off the ballot in these States? Really?
And how massive will be the alleged conspiracy when he is NOT left off the ballot?
Care to speculate on what the opinion will be when and if the COLB IS submitted and 0bambam IS put on the ballot?
My speculation is that a new and larger conspiracy will be alleged.
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.