Replies

"...someone like Marco Rubio would not be considered a “Natural Born” citizen. Hence, he would not even be considered a “legal” citizen unless he had taken a Citizenship Test to have attained the status of “Naturalized” citizen."

Whether intentionally misleading, or naive, let's clear up the confusion. Marco Rubio, like Wong Kim Ark, was born on our soil to non-citizen parents, and is therefore, like Wong Kim Ark, a citizen. He is eligibile to hold every US Government office but the presidency or vice presidency.

Sadly, the state's attorney's general did not consider it their duty to validate the candidacy of presidential candidates. Calero, the Green Party candidate, wasn't even a citizen, and appeared on most ballots (looking to see which states kept him off might be interesting).

Some say that Hawaii actually required the candidate to say that he was natural born citizen, and that Nancy Pelosi submitted an alternative document which was not legally accepted. Most of the states apparently provided by the parties a form which did not attest to the candidate's natural born citizenship; but Hawaii and perhaps Arizona did. Since that issue is peripheral to Obama’s ineligibility I am only repeating it.

It is sufficient to note that Barack Obama himself told us he was born a Subject of the British Commonwealth. Morrison Waite nailed the definition of natural born citizenship in the post 14th Amendment case, Minor v. Happersett.

But just to include a bit more clarity about the intent and understanding of our Supreme Court justices and our Congress, here is one of the two statements in the Congressional Record (Globe in 1866) clarifying what the 14th Amendment didn't address, the definition of who was a natural born citizen. John Bingham, Ohio congressman, abolitionist, judge in Lincoln's assassination trial:

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….

While Bingham’s statement is informational, it reflects the intent of the framers, and was not questioned during or after his speech to the Congress in the ratification process of the 14th Amendment. Bingham uses language about sovereignty which was applied to a number of citizenship disuputes. It also certainly reflects the concensus about the status of dual citizens, who have, by definition, divided sovereignty.

Think about why our framers chose the requirement enunciated and established as precedent by Chief Justice Waite. Various estimates are that as few as twenty percent of Colonists wanted to discard their subjugation to the King. Many of those did not leave America after the revolution, and many had property on both continents. That was the topic of Chief Justice Marshall's The Venus, 12 US 253, where Marshall cited Vattel's “born on the soil of citizen parents.” A child raised on our soil by royalists could, if he had the power of the presidency, instigate a counter revolution. That fear was the topic of the first four Federalist Papers, written by John Jay, who reminded Washington to include the natural born citizen requirement for presidential eligibility in the Constitution.

We have as many as fifteen million illegal immigrants, many giving birth to make them “anchor babies,” born to illegal immigrants, but made citizens by Wong Kim Ark. While that interpretation of The 14th Amendment, which was written to correct the non-citizenship status of blacks, is being questioned, some anchor babies are active today claiming to want the return of our Southwest to Mexico (and even though neither they nor Barack seem to know that we acquired the territories from Spain).

Barack is a 14th Amendment Citizen, as is Rubio. Rubio’s policies are policies, from what I've read, with which I agree. But we have a legal foundation which has done a pretty good job of protecting us. Article II Section 1 is not a perfect provision, but it has thus far survived twenty six or more attempts at amendment.

There is little doubt that Charles Evans Hughes would have been a better president than Woodrow Wilson, but had he won, he had already been challenged in our largest legal newspaper by an excellent Democrat attorney, subsequent Asst. Attorney General under Roosevelt, Breckenridge Long (thanks Sharon Rondeau) because Hughes' parents were British Citizens. Long cites exactly the doctrine presented here, though he doesn't refer to the precedence established in Minor v. Happersett. Chester Arthur hid his illegitimacy. Barack Obama simply said, I'm a 14th Amendment Citizen, but I've got control of the media and the political process (by making McCain his opponent), so there is nothing you can do about it. He also told us all that he, Barack, didn't have a high regard for the Constitution because it prevented him from doing what he believes the country needs. He owns the justice department, controls the judiciary, and had super-majorities in Congress. But he didn't amend the Constitution. He ignores it. We'll see if people care.