Posted on 05/01/2012 9:32:22 AM PDT by GregNH
Here's the deal...
Many legal analysts and scholars agree with this take-- and until the Supreme Court weighs in.. this is how the law is interpreted:
The Constitution requires that the president be a "natural born citizen," but does not define the term. That job is left to federal law, in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401. All the law requires is that the mother be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of those years after the age of 14. If the mother fits those criteria, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the father's nationality.
The brouhaha over President Obama's birth certificate -- has revealed a widespread ignorance of some of the basics of American citizenship. The Constitution, of course, requires that a president be a "natural born citizen," but the Founding Fathers did not define the term, and it appears few people know what it means.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“My point, however, is that there is a persistent tendency to confuse “natural born” and ‘native born’. They are not the same.”
There is a persistent tendency among people who don’t like Obama and/or anchor babies to argue seperate status for native and natural borns, but I’ve never seen that to be the case under U.S. law. Perhaps that’s because SCOTUS by chance has never ruled on a case concerning presidential eligibility, or if they have specifically about the eligibility of native borns. If they had, birthers’d esteem it as highly as Wickard or Plessy, and we’d be back to where we started.
There are, so far as the vast majority of professional and lay legal choppers are concerned, two categories of citizenship: born and naturalized. This phantom third category of born but not eligible to be president citizens seems to have popped up out of nowhere, and has never been glimpsed by me in the wild, as it were.
Last night my wife wanted to watch O'Rielly and prefaced her tuning in with "Honey please don't get mad and start throwing things at the TV..."
Needless to say I am not watching much TV these days.
Maybe so, as I’ve tried real hard and still can’t understand how someone can be native born without being natural born.
I don't think you want to understand myself.
I’ve heard the phrase “naturalized from birth,” but that doesn’t make any sense to me.
Then grasp the concept of natural law versus positive law and you might.
Why can’t the Supreme Court issue a ruling on Natural Born citizenship?
If a person were to sue their State to keep Obummer off the ballot due to his ineligibility, wouldn’t that provide “standing” to appear before the Supremes, since the State is named as a party? Amendment XI doesn’t seem to prohibit such a suit, does it?
We really need a firm ruling on this Natural Born Citizen issue ... pronto!
“how 18 Supreme Court justices agreed on the definition of natural-born citizen: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.”
When were there ever 18 justices? Or are you conflating two different decisions? Then why only name Minor?
Byu the way, they didn’t exhaustively define natural born citizenship. They may have said children born to two citizen parents are natural born citizens, but I’m sure they didn’t say native borns aren’t.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
Natural born citizen Constitutional Law A phrase denoting one of the requirements for becoming President or Vice-President of the United States. Anyone born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 must be a “natural born Citizen
Natural born citizen example Bob’s parents are British citizens. Bob is born in Hawaii and is subject to the jurisdiction of that state. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) (2008) , Bob acquires U.S. citizenship at birth. Therefore, Bob is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/search/index.html
“Otherwise he takes his fathers nationality...
Which was British at the time of his birth”
He also takes U.S. citizenship, as he was born in the U.S. and his parents were here legally (or even if they hadn’t been, if they were subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law). Which means he’s a citizen from birth, i.e. a natural born citizen.
The two sections are these...
@8 USC § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth and
@8 USC § 1408 - Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth
Too late. He's already made a complete fool of himself.
They already have in Minor. The court has a tendency not to hear cases they have ruled on before.
“For the children of aliens!”
Yes.
“They’re naturalized via positive law which Congress was empowered to create under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4...’establish a uniform rule of naturalization’.”
This is a seperate argument, and I’d like again to stress that the point I was making is that you said one has to be an alien for the law to apply to you, and obviously that is untrue.
Pretty good explaination.
8 U.S. Code, Section 1401 does not address “Natural Born Citizen” and it does not seem to be clearly defined anywhere else with legal standing.
The defined meaning is akin to interpitation of the Bible, most everyone has their set of ideas. Until NBC comes before the SCOTUS, it will likely remain clouded. Additionally, because there is not solidly set of rules who may object prior to the Electorial College, the Court remains moot and powerless to say doodley until someone “with standing” brings it to the SCOTUS.
Sure looks like a puzzle the Founding Fathers gave to a future generation to resolve as part of the necessary struggle to maintain our liberty.
8 USC § 1409 - Children born out of wedlock
It still falls under USC : Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
Funny you should say that. I only saw that particular piece and it was the first time I have taken the time to watch the news in many weeks. I haven't been missing the lies at all.
Since USC 8 pertains to ALIENS AND NATIONALITY how can "Bob" be a natural born citizen when positive law, not natural law, made him a citizen?
I agree. I think that was the sole purpose of this nonsense. Cover for Rubio.
“I don’t think you want to understand myself.”
No, you are.
“Then grasp the concept of natural law versus positive law and you might.”
Oh, okay, how about the fact that there can’t be any such thing as a U.S. citizen, natural born or naturalized, without the positive law that is the U.S. Constitution? You can have the natural right to bear arms without the Constitution, but not the right to be the citizen of the U.S. For no such thing as the U.S. exists in nature: it is the creation of positive law.
Moreover, one cannot be both native born and naturalized. To be naturalized you must be converted into a citizen after birth via positive law. That does not apply to people made citizens by virtue of the manner in which they were born. Not even if what controlled their birth status was the 14th amendment, which is positive law, yes, but no moreso than the Constitution as a whole.
Explain to me how soil babies becoming citizens through the natural process of birth are somehow made citizens in the same manner as the naturalized. The best you can probably do is to quibble about how no one ever needed to tell us that the children of two citizen parents are citizens, but we needed the 14th amendment to tell us about soil babies. Well, jus solis was no secret to Vattel, at least, who recognized its control in of all places England. Which, you might recall, is the mother country.
So you’re saying that Cornell University (hot bed of marxist socialism) Law School says that a person is a natural born citizen because of a statute - 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) (2008)?
Forget blood and lineage, forget location, natural born to you means by statute.
Okay. /s
No its cover for Willard Mitt Romney
His father George was born in Mexico...
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.