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

To: Windflier

Let me repost a portion of the FAM from earlier:

Chapter 7 of the Foreign Affairs Manual (7 FAM 1130, pg 8) says (and yes, I know it addresses children born abroad):

The Constitution does not define "natural born". The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."

As the referrence says above, the 1790 Act was repealed (in 1795). The 1795 Act was repealed in 1802, with parts amendments in 1855, 1934, 1941, 1952, 1954, etc... blah, blah... All STATUTES, right?

BUT, given that there is no current day statute that defines NBC in this Constitutional context, the Justices will look backwards to aid in interpretation. "What did the Framers mean with "Natural Born Citizen"?

The Justices will consider things like the Federalist Papers, Blackstone's Commentaries, and other documents of the time. They'll probably look at the differences between "citizen" and "subject," and how that relates to Art 2, Sect 1, Clause 5.

Those learned in the law in the framing era would have been familiar with Blackstone’s Commentaries, which James Madison described (in the Virginia ratifying convention) as “a book which is in every man’s hand.”

Blackstone wrote the following:

"Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves."

... and Barack Obama, Jr, was a British Citizen from his father at birth... it even says so on his website ...


503 posted on 12/04/2008 6:17:23 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies ]


To: BP2

For later


504 posted on 12/04/2008 6:24:09 PM PST by Shady Ray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies ]

To: BP2

Oh, Leo Donofrio is on RIGHT NOW (at 823 pm CST) on http://www.plainsradio.com/chat.html


506 posted on 12/04/2008 6:24:47 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies ]

To: BP2
BUT, given that there is no current day statute that defines NBC in this Constitutional context, the Justices will look backwards to aid in interpretation. "What did the Framers mean with "Natural Born Citizen"?

The Justices will consider things like the Federalist Papers, Blackstone's Commentaries, and other documents of the time. They'll probably look at the differences between "citizen" and "subject," and how that relates to Art 2, Sect 1, Clause 5.

I have come to the conclusion, that this is what they will have to do, in order to make a valid determination of what the Framers meant by Natural Born Citizen in the Constitution.

And, until Barry Obama shows up with some documentary evidence, we won't know how this will affect him. He's playing a waiting game with this, which does not bode well for his real status. The longer he stonewalls, the deeper the public suspicion about him.

511 posted on 12/04/2008 6:38:55 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies ]

To: BP2

“BUT, given that there is no current day statute that defines NBC in this Constitutional context, the Justices will look backwards to aid in interpretation. What did the Framers mean with ‘Natural Born Citizen’?

The Justices will consider things like the Federalist Papers, Blackstone’s Commentaries, and other documents of the time. They’ll probably look at the differences between ‘citizen’ and ‘subject,’ and how that relates to Art 2, Sect 1, Clause 5.”

You’re missing something important here. There is also the 14th amendment to deal with. Although it does not amend the qualifications for the presidency, it does set qualifications for who is born a citizen, which is equivalent to defining what a natural born citizen is. SCOTUS would have to take into account how the 14th amendment was understood at the time of its passing.


552 posted on 12/04/2008 11:37:55 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | 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