Posted on 09/07/2011 4:33:52 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Edited on 09/07/2011 4:35:41 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
PALM BEACH, Fla.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.[emphasis added]
Ummm, you missed an important factor in the decision in that permanent domicil and residence was necessary in order to meet the subject clause of the 14th amendment (see bolded part above). Gray spent quite a bit of the WKA decision on domicil and residence. Gray also distinguished 14th amendment citizenship as being different from natural born citizenship. The former, he said, is defined by the Constitution, while the latter is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution. That latter definition was supplied in the Minor v. Happerset decision and affirmed in WKA, that a child born in the country to citizen parents was a citizen. The Minor decision rejected Virginia Minor's claim of 14th amendment citizenship because she was already a natural born citizen. Gray further affirms this by explaining that the Supreme Court was committed to the idea that the 14th amendment does not apply to those who are born in the country to citizens.
“EXACTLY!!! One of the most patriotic ethnic groups in this country.”
Just what we need, another ethnic group seeking political power. If Cubans are so patriotic why did they hightail it to Florida instead of staying to fight for their country? Fidel led a ragtag bunch of bandits, he was hardly a major military power. A people whose signal historical achievement was running away is supposed to impress Americans?
“I don’t believe or want my now conservative beliefs to trump my Constitutional beliefs going back to my service in WWII. As such neither Obama, Rubio, and even my brother(KIA Okinawa) and I were/are eligible for POTUSA as ‘natural born citizens’.”
History records no such belief from the time of WWII.
The last citation the two-citizen-parent theorists have is from 1916, when Breckinridge Long argued that Charles Evans Hughes was ineligible. Long got around the fact that issue had been settled by the 14’th Amendment and the 1898 WKA case by arguing, “Mr. Hughes was born before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, so the status of his citizenship must be considered as under the laws existing prior to the time of the adoption of that Amendment.” [Breckinridge Long, “Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ within the Meaning of the Constitution?”, Chicago Legal News vol 146, pp. 220-222]
In our time, legal references have considered the eligibility of the native-born to be clear and settled. [Charles Gordon, “Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968)][Jill Pryor, ‘The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility’, 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988)]
The two-citizen-parent theory seems to have had no modern advocates until October or November of 2008, when Leo Donofrio filed the first of his losing lawsuits. A faction of the birthers quickly adopted the long-dead theory as their deeply-held constitutional belief, though none of them can show that they believed it before they needed reasons why Barack Obama cannot be president.
Or maybe I’m wrong on that. Please cite anything from between 1916 and 2008 saying that a native-born candidate’s eligibility depends on his parents having been citizens.
Just a note for accuracy, but Gordon talks about the NBC as being dependent on citizen parents as is defined in Minor v. Happersett.
Only morons believe that.
The U.S. Senate resolved that John McCain was a Natural Born Citizen because he was born to two American citizens."As an eminent constitutional scholar explained it to a lay audience:
The Constitution's rule that the president be "a natural born citizen" focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.[A.R. Amar, The Constitution and the Candidates: What would the framers say? Slate 04 Feb 2008]
Not at all and by all means ... please take your time ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wKyXA_nMVQ&feature=share
The Undisputed Truth “Smiling Faces Sometimes” (1971)
Please tell us what is “natural born”?
“becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.”
He can be a member of Congress. A president needs to be a natural born citizen. Rubio does not qualify.
edge919 put forth: “Just a note for accuracy, but Gordon talks about the NBC as being dependent on citizen parents as is defined in Minor v. Happersett.”
A “note for accuracy” ought to have more of it. The eligibility of those born *outside* the U.S. depends on citizen parents, as Gordon explains:
“It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not. The recurring doubts relate to those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents.”
[Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 19 (1968).]
Pryor agrees:
“It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not. But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved.” [Jill Pryor, ‘The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility’, 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).]
Now, edge919, look at my claim for which I cited Gordon and Pryor: “In our time, legal references have considered the eligibility of the native-born to be clear and settled.” Gordon wrote “clear”; Pryor “settled”.
Marco Rubio was born in Miami Florida on May 28, 1971. As a native born citizen, his qualification as an Article II natural-born citizen is clear and settled, crank nonsense notwithstanding.
“Please tell us what is ‘natural born’?”
Natural born is by birth.
The term itself invokes neither place nor parentage. In the Wong Kim Ark case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that our Constitution is written in he language of English Common law. We did not take English law as our own, but we did generally adopt the language. The Court answered bushpilot1’s question of “what is ‘natural born’?” by quoting British jurist A.V. Dicey:
“’Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’”
In the same decision, the High Court wrote, “The use of ‘citizen’ in our law is precisely analogous to the use of ‘subject’ in British Common Law.” Now our precise analog to Court’s quoted definitional statement is:
“Natural-born United States citizen” means a United States Citizen who has become a United States citizen at the moment of his or her birth.
That the Founding Fathers based their natural born citizenship on Vattel and Vattel said for natural born it must be two american citizens means nothing in today’s vitriolic discourse against people who point out Constitutional facts.
Correct. If all it takes is for a person to be a Natural Born Citizen is to be born on US soil, then an Anchor Baby or a Tourist Baby could be eligible, if they meet the residency requirements. Call me crazy (and I’m sure you anti-birthers will), but I’m sure the founders didn’t intend such. No. Divided. Loyalties. That means having parents who have/had already sworn (or were born to) loyalty at the time of the candidate’s birth. It’s not that difficult a concept.
FJ
Funny how the guy facing the camera “flubbed” the oath, necessitating that it had to be “repeated” later, behind closed doors, sans video.
“Rubio is a solid conservative.”
In nearly all respects, I’m inclined to agree with you. However, if he was completely honest and inclined to adhere to the intent of the framers, he would admit that he’s ineligible according to that original intent as stated in the Constitution and affirmed in Minor vs Happersett. No. Divided. Loyalties.
If his parents had not taken the oath of citizenship, dissolving any lingering loyalties to another country by the time of his birth, then Rubio is not eligible, and he should state so. He would do the country a great service, thereby.
I voted for Sarah Palin in the 2008 election, not McLame.
FJ
Okay, I’ll give you that. But, smell-test-wise, simple logic dictates that the framers intended that no one with potentially divided loyalties (like, mayhap, having a declared father as a British subject) should be able to hold the highest office in the land. Unfortunately for the moment at least, according to Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, the Court is avoiding the question.
FJ
Several Supreme Court Justices quoted Vattel, citing chapter 19, page 101...”natural born citizens are born to citizen parents”.
Gray also distinguished 14th amendment citizenship as being different from natural born citizenship. The former, he said, is defined by the Constitution, while the latter is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution.
I don't see Gray saying the two types are different, rather he says [emphasis added to several quotes]
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.
In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,
you missed an important factor in the decision in that permanent domicil and residence was necessary in order to meet the subject clause of the 14th amendment (see bolded part above).
The part you bolded does not invalidate what I said to org.whodat, nor does it invalidate Marco Rubio's natural born status, as his parents were domiciled in the US. I also found discussion in the case that would suggest even that isn't necessary, and that Gray was merely describing the situation for this case in your quote. Note my emphasis:
the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.The exceptions are listed. Does Rubio fall under any of these? No.
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.