There was a SCOTUS ruling in the 1880’s that involved a Chinese American whose mother was Chinese but the father was naturalized American. Ruling indicated as long as one parent is an adult US citizen and child born in US the child is a natural born citizen. Some freepers point out that the US Constitution requires BOTH parents to be US citizens. This issue needs to be resolved by the SCOTUS because their precedent ruling conflicts with what the US Constitution states. Obama actually is an issue because in 1961 his 19 year old American mother may not even meet the definition of an adult American citizen in 1961, thus Obama must resume the citizenship of the only adult his father a British subject.
Don't know the issue with Agnew but suspect father was a citizen when he was born. Chester Authur is another matter, he hid his inelibibility. With Obozo there are a "lot of issues" not 1 issue. Where he was actually born (unproven), who the father actually is (unproven) and whether he is a citizen at all (unproven).
Obama's mother was 18 at the time of his birth not 19. Statutory requirements state that a parent must be a citizen for at least 5 years past their 14th birthday to pass citizenship to their child. Therefore, Obama's mother could not provide Obama with US citizenship.
The Law of Nations, from which the eligibility standard stated in the U. S. Constitution is derived, specifies that both parents be citizens of the nation at issue, and gives the reasons for same, namely, to avoid divided national loyalties in a person being considered for elevation to the monarchy (i.e., king or emperor) of a nation. The term “natural born citizen” is applied in the present instance applied to the office of chief executive of our constitutional republic, and by the same means seeks to avoid said divided loyalty. Obama’s sense of national loyalty appears to be multi-faceted, at best, much inclined toward placing the U. S. Constitution in an inferior position vis-a-vis the rules and regulations adopted by the United Nations Organization, for one example.
That the “natural born citizen” standard may have been overlooked in the case of Agnew does not render it moot, merely shows that it was not accorded the respectful consideration it deserves as a Constitutional requirement.
The Constitution doesn’t “state” anything of the sort. If the founders had wanted to specify that both parents be citizens, they would have done so in plain language.
Wrong!
WKA didn’t rule him to be a Natural Born Citizen:
.
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.”