Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Diego1618; wolfman23601; Georgia Girl 2

Unfortunately, previous court decisions have all but over-ruled the understanding “Natural Born” that you proposed.

CONSIDER:

* In 1875, U.S. Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont was presented with a query from the Secretary of State, Hamilton Fish. A young man, surnamed Steinkauler (his first name was never mentioned), had been born in Missouri in 1855, a year after his father was naturalized a U.S. citizen. When he was four years old, his father returned to Germany with him and both had stayed there ever since. The father has relinquished his American citizenship. Now the young man is 20 years old and about to be drafted into the German army. What is this young man’s situation as a native-born American citizen? After studying the relevant legal authorities, Pierrepont wrote:

“Under the treaty [of 1868 with Germany], and in harmony with American doctrine, it is clear that Steinkauler the father abandoned his naturalization in America and became a German subject (his son being yet a minor), and that by virtue of German laws the son acquired German nationality. It is equally clear that the son, by birth, has American nationality, and hence he has two nationalities, one NATURAL, the other acquired. .... 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 21, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States..... I am of opinion that when he reaches the age of 21 years he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth, with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father.

* The decision in Lynch v. Clarke was cited as persuasive or authoritative precedent in numerous subsequent cases regarding the term — NATURAL BORN, including In re Look Tin Sing,on the issue of whether the child, born in the U.S., to two Chinese parents (who were prevented by federal law from becoming U.S. citizens) was a U.S. citizen, notwithstanding the nationality of his parents or the fact that he had traveled to China with them and not returned to the U.S. for many years.

* The federal court held in a decision written by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen J. Field) that he was a citizen by birth, and remained such despite his long stay in China, cited the decision in Lynch v. Clarke and described that case:

“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.”

* The Lynch case was also cited as a leading precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which similarly held that the child born here of two Chinese parents was a birthright US citizen, and that decision also used the phrase “natural born”.

* In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Perkins v. Elg, regarding a young woman, born in New York a year after her father became a naturalized U.S. citizen. However, when she was about four her parents returned to Sweden taking her with them, and they stayed in Sweden. At age 20, this young woman contacted the American diplomats in Sweden and, shortly after her 21st birthday, returned to the United States on a U.S. passport and was admitted as a U.S. citizen. Years later, while she was still in America, her father in Sweden relinquished his American citizenship, and, because of that, the Department of Labor (then the location of the Immigration & Naturalization Service) declared her a non-citizen and tried to deport her. The young woman filed suit for a declaratory judgment that she was an American citizen by birth. She won at the trial level, and at the circuit court - where she was repeatedly described as “A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”

* Finally in the U.S. Supreme Court, where the court decision quoted at length from the U.S. Attorney-General’s opinion in Steinkauler’s Case (mentioned above) including the comment that the person born in America and raised in another country could yet “become President of the United States”.

____________________

As for Rand Paul and Allen West and Bachmann and Paul Ryan, YES I would whole-heartedly support their nominations, but the issue which was brought up is the issue of how we understand the term NATURAL BORN. Court decisions from over a hundred years ago have given us precedents that do not support the two-parents-must-be-Americans-at-birth definition.

The LEGAL principle of stare decisis now applies in practice.


29 posted on 07/18/2012 5:42:39 PM PDT by SeekAndFind (bOTRT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: SeekAndFind

4 previous SCOTUS rulings have defined natural born citizen as a person born in the USA of two US citizen parents. I’m sure you know which cases I’m referring to as they have been posted by me and others ad nauseum.


30 posted on 07/18/2012 6:05:27 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
When Vattel wrote his book "Law of Nations" in 1758 this was the definition:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

Thirty years later when the Constitutional Convention convened...... this was still the definition.

John Jay (first Chief Justice) wrote this to the convention: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

In 1857 the Supreme Court (Dred Scott decision) majority opinion quoted "Vattel"....word for word: “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 natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”

So.......one hundred years after Vattel wrote his book and 68 years after the Constitutional Convention used his definition "Natural Born Citizen" to describe Presidential requirements.....the Supreme Court of the United States is still quoting that fact.

It is only recently (50 years) that elememts of our society have attempted to change this meaning.....for their own purposes. What could be their motive?

The examples you have provided are easily disassembled under scrutiny.....and have been many times on these threads.

31 posted on 07/18/2012 6:55:22 PM PDT by Diego1618 ( Put "Ron" on the rock!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson