Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Radix
You evade the distinction between “citizen” and “natural born citizen.”

Not at all. The term "natural born citizen" is not defined in the Constitution. So instead, you are just using your own idiosyncratic definition of the term while ignoring the plain text of the 14th Amendment. So as a reminder, here it is:

Section 1. 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.

By it's own terms, the amendment says that if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen at birth. That was not the law at the time the Constitution was ratified, but that changed with the passage of the 14th Amendment. Such individuals who are "born" in this country are different from people who are naturalized, and the 14th makes that clear as well.

So the 14th described two specific classes of citizens: Those who are citizens at birth, and those who are naturalized. By the plain meaning of the language, a person who is born a citizen is a "natural born citizen", and therefore is eligible to be President. But a person who is only naturalized, like Scharzenegger and other immigrants, is not a "natural born citizen", and therefore ineligible to be President.

But instead, you want to take the undefined phrase "natural-born citizen", and interpret it to exclude people who were born as citizens. That is simply nonsensical. Whatever meaning you might have assigned that phrase in 1787, the plain text of the 14th Amendment changed that. To the extent you're arguing that someone born a citizen is not a "natural born citizen" (as opposed to a naturalized citizen), you're arguing from a liberal, activist position of trying to ignore the plain, common sense meaning of the language.

Now if you want to argue that Obama wasn't even born in this country, fine. But arguing that he isn't a natural born citizen even if he was born in this country runs directly afoul of the plain text of the 14th Amendment.

468 posted on 12/17/2010 11:19:58 AM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies ]


To: Bruce Campbells Chin

Bruce, the SCOTUS ruled in Minor v. Happersett that the defintion for NBC exists OUTSIDE of the Constitution. Justice Gray in U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark affirmed this point. Virginia Minor declared she was a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment, but Justice Waite rejected this claim on the basis she was already a natural born citizen on not dependent on the amendment. He defined natural born citizen, in direct fulfillment of Art II Sec I, as born in the country to parents who were its citizens.

This leaves the question of who would be dependent on the 14th amendment since it does not apply to NBCs. It would certainly apply to persons born in the country as it is written, but it cannot apply to persons born to citizen parents because of how Waite ruled.

Justice Gray recognized this in the Wong Kim Ark decision. He cited Waite’s definition of NBC and affirmed that the decision declared citizenship on the basis of place and parentage. He could NOT declare Ark to be a natural born citizen because his parents were legally Chinese subjects excluded from U.S. citizenship by treaty. He used English common law to say that the circumstances of the 14th amendment were strong enough to override any treaty (even though this goes against the Constitution itself) and that if the parents had permanent residence or domicil, it was enough to declare the child subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Thus, the 14th declares citizenship at birth for children of resident aliens, but it is NOT natural born citizenship. Read it. Learn it. Comprehend it.


471 posted on 12/17/2010 3:12:32 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies ]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin
So the definition of “natural born citizen” is not defined in the Constitution but you elect to choose to define all sorts of things.

The original law was not changed.

A new law was enacted and there is no claim that it superceded the previous understanding of what “natural born” meant when it comes to the eligibility of a citizen to serve as President.

So stipulated, there are citizens of the United States that are not “natural born.”

Do you not concur?

The Constitution did not address citizenship in the fashion that you suggest. It did define just what eligibility for the Presidency required.

Natural born status was not redefined by the 14th.

The 14th was not even about the issue that we have been discussing here.

473 posted on 12/17/2010 7:52:17 PM PST by Radix ("..Democrats are holding a meeting today to decide whether to overturn the results of the election.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson