Ah, we have here a wordy liberal poppinjay, I see.
The answer to your question is so very simple. If I wanted to prove that I am a natural born citizen (born of two American citizens) - I have no doubt that the vetting (sic) media would subject me to a Joe the Plumber style inspection going back over at least 100 years. See, I wouldn’t need to prove it because the media would do it for us. Get it?
My life and the lives of my parents are an open book. We have nothing to fear from an honest inspection going back to 1638 when my fathers ancestors came here and 1541 when my mothers ancestors came here with Cortez. Nothing to hide. All my school records, traffic fines, divorce, military service - an open book - publicly available information.
For reasons unknown ( but not for long) the same cannot be said for Mr. Soetoro or whatever his name really is. Why is this?
Why is this?
Maybe if we start referring to him as the White African the press will force him to produce documents.
Your reply is no answer at all. Think about this:
Why did the framers NOT insert the words “of two parent citizens” after the term Natural Born Citizen?
The Founders being smart people, many of them experienced lawyers, knew that there was an English phrase Natural Born Subject, which had been in use in England and later the colonies for 400 years. There was no requirement to have subject parents citizenship. The English believed that if you were born on English soil, you were English without further qualification.
Even aliens visiting upon their shores, except diplomats, could have children born on English soil and they would be subject to the Crown with exactly the same rights as any Englishman. This same phrase, Natural born subject was used in the Constitutions and Charters of the colonies to convey citizenship. This was the CONTEXT of the times.
Despite there existing this phrase, Natural Born Subject, that everyone knew, that had been used by each of the colonies, and which formed the backbone of many of the legal arguments the revolutionaries made in supporting the Revolution, the present day birther movement think the framers scrapped the understood meaning of natural born in favor of a more restrictive type of citizenship, ala Vattel.
Now here’s where it gets outlandishly dumb. Birthers believe that instead of choosing a different phrase than the one that was 400 years old and in common use, the framers used the very SAME phrase and expected that people would just get that they meant to refer to Vattel’s interpretation - even though Vattel’s book, even in the English language never said natural born citizen until 10 years after the Constitution was ratified! I wish I could have put all that in capital letters and shout it out.
Vattel’s book, in a 1760 English translated version used the words “naturels” and “indigenes” to describe citizens so if the Framers intended that meaning they would have used it. The Founders didn’t once say to themselves, “maybe we should use ‘indigenes,’ like Vattel did. They didn’t once write down, “We mean ‘natural born citizen’ to be completely different from ‘natural born subject.’ We know it might cause confusion but we really like that Vattel guy and we’re sure that if he was translated right, he would have written it that way.”
Vattel wrote: “The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
If Vattel coined the phrase as such, then why didn’t the framers do likewise if they meant it to be that way?
The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as “Congress’s think tank”, had this to say:
“In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth,’ and are ‘natural born,’ as opposed to ‘naturalized,’ U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.”
The source of this statement actually comes from a birther website:
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/politics/25349-what-natural-born-citizen.html
The CRS is also responsible for this quote:
“the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.
Source” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause
I can find three court cases that actually make a statement on “natural born”.
Lynche v. Clarke:
“Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”
Someone born on US soil, of two non-citizen parents, is a natural-born citizen.
In re Look Tin Sing:
“After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.”
Someone born on US soil, of two non-citizen parents, is a natural-born citizen.
But those were both lower courts, one a state court. So obviously those aren’t enough.
How about Perkins v. Elg, decided by the Supreme Court in 1939?
“The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants.
Someone born on US soil, of two non-citizen parents, who then return to their home country - renouncing the US citizenship for the child - can, as an adult, un-renounce US citizenship, claim US citizenship by birthright as being born on US soil, and be declared “a natural born citizen” by the Supreme Court.”
I think that decides it. The Supreme Court says that even if you’re born on US soil, and claim US citizenship as an adult even if your parents renounced US citizenship for you when you were a child, you’re a natural born citizen.
The Supreme Court even quoted the following from the lower-court ruling in their findings:
“Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;”
Yup, they even explicitly state that a person such as this is qualified to become President. If Barak was born in Hawaii, he is qualified too.
The birther movement is a fringe element that distracts from the real issues and make the rest of us look like idiots.
What has to be done, and is being done by Arizona is proving that the BC is fraudulent. THAT IS THE WAY! There is no court in the land or politician that will say obummer is not qualified if he WAS indeed born in the U.S. no matter who his parents were, but they will declare him a usurper if he was born in Kenya as he has claimed previously. This is the way to go.
Finally, calling me wordy is ok because I am, but referring to me as a liberal poppinjay simply shows your own ignorance. Only liberals can disagree with you? You own the holy grail and no one dare speak out against you? You are on the right side of the issues on all matters? I owe you no further explanation.
Let me just add, how does it feel to know your position (2 parent rule) will NEVER see the light of day in any courtroom unless referring to citizens born abroad? You are on the losing end of a stupid and indefensible position. Now I’m a poppinjay! Ta Ta!
Don't pay attention. It's a repeat of a movie we've all seen before.
Just read this thread: Rubio and Birthright Citizenship.
Be sure to read this post to see what the plain-meaning really was in 1791.
Then read this and this to decide on how much more effort you want to commit to this person's debate.
-PJ