> “As soon as a woman married a US citizen she was automatically a US citizen even if she was not previously a US Citizen.”
> “When was that ever true?”
This was true of English Common Law practiced in the Colonies and after the adoption of the Constitution.
It was likely true up until universal suffrage, when women won the right to vote.
Marriage as an institution in colonial times and during the 18th and 19th centuries in America was undoubtedly stronger as an institution then than it is now where a married couple can easily toss their marriage aside as easy as taking out the garbage.
The question is what were the framers thinking when they inserted ‘natural born citizen’ into the Constitution? We know from John Jay’s letter to General George Washington they were thinking of a further check against a person assuming control of the military who was not in full allegiance to the Constitution.
But a related question is what does it mean ‘natural born citizen’. The answer is a child born of citizens on US soil or its territories or its possessions or allowing for transitioning or living temporarily abroad but having a permanent domicile on US soil or its territories or its possessions.
The phrase ‘born of citizens’ means one citizen? two citizens? It means two citizens for in marriage the women was accorded full rights and inheritances of the husband’s domain and was deemed a citizen by marriage even if she had been a Native American or French or other.
Children born out of wedlock had no citizenship status unless they were recognized by the father or the father was made to accept responsibility by the local community or parish, or further an application was made and were naturalized. To gain further insight one needs to understand the historical meaning of simple citizenship
Not all persons born on American soil were automatic citizens.
In fact the definition of citizen was only made clear in regards to marriage and property. Native Americans, former English subjects, non-christians, German and Dutch variations, Bastardy, illegitimacy, freed slaves were in the background of a local process of how citizenship was transmitted or not transmitted to persons. Birth, naturalization, property purchase and so on were all factors in deciding a right to citizenship; citizenship had privileges. But birth alone on US controlled soil did not guarantee American citizenship.
The only reason this is a hot topic today is because people sense Obama does not really like traditional America, that he harbors ill will against traditionalists who are mostly Christian whites and that he will seek to make America in his own image whatever that is. He has divulged classified material for no good purpose and it is suspected that such release has led to deaths of Americans abroad. He seems not to care about America’s history and its traditions. He seems against these things, therefore we are uncomfortable and uncertain, hence we ask questions.
So Obama’s allegiance and loyalties are called into question. We ponder and learn anew the notions of citizenship, natural born, allegiance (what is owed as a duty), loyalty (what is felt and valued) and so on because we sense these things are important to governance.
Here’s a good read on all these matters:
The issue needs to be decided by the courts. It is one thing to be a citizen by birth and another to be eligible to be President under the Constitution. The Senate decided that it needed an opinion from Lawrence Tribe and Ted Olson to issue a resolution on John McCain's eligibility to run for President. Here is the text of that opinion.
Essentially, they concluded that McCain was eligible under both jus sanguinis and jus solis. Interestingly, they addressed Obama's case as follows:
Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 25, 1860 — one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964. And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 — not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.
The only reason this is a hot topic today is because people sense Obama does not really like traditional America, that he harbors ill will against traditionalists who are mostly Christian whites and that he will seek to make America in his own image whatever that is.
No, it is of interest for several reasons. First, Obama's alleged father was a British subject, i.e., a non-US citizen. Would he be a "natural born citizen" just due to jus solis? We have 300,000 to 400,000 anchor babies born to illegal aliens annually. Would they be considered natural born citizens eligible to be President? They are certainly citizens due to birthright citizenship.
Obama has never presented a legitimate copy of his birth certificate. The electronic copy produced by the WH has been proven a fraud. Obama has spent millions blocking attempts to obtain his records. By not being forthright and not providing original records, he has aroused suspicion among many about where he was born and when. Many of us here at FR can go into great detail on all of the problems associated with Obama's narrative about his life. It is really unprecedented as to how little we know about him.
Finally, his race and anti-American attitudes have very little to do with why a significant percentage of Americans continue to express skepticism about the authenticity of his birth certificate. There is a real issue here about whether someone born in this country or abroad with at least one parent a non-US citizen can be eligible for the Presidency. It came up as an issue for Chester A Arthur and now Obama. The case of Ted Cruz is another one. We need the courts to resolve this. With one out of 8 residents of this country being foreign-born and eventually one out of 5 by 2050, we need a decision from the courts sooner rather than later.