Posted on 03/01/2009 4:35:14 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
There has been much debate over what constitutes a natural born citizen. Much of the debate has been misinformed calling the concept of natural born an obscure technicality or an overight by the writers of the Constitution. Neither of these characterizations are true.
Many times the true meaning of consitutional wording must be determined by looking at the era and the circumstances, and, in some cases, terminology in other sections of the constitution, the inclusion or exclusion of supporting verbage, and even writings other than the Constitution.
Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution states, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president; neither shall any person be eligible who shall not attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United Satates."
The addition of a grandfather clause in this paragraph says a lot as to the meaning of natural born. The first thing it says is that being born in the US is not enough to be natural born, otherwise the grandfather clause would not be necessary. The writers and delegates, having been born in the US, wanted to be eligible for the presidency, but most were the children of British subjects. Knowing that that eliminated them from being natural born and, thus, from eligibility, they included the grandfather clause which expired when the last person alive at the time of the ratification of the Constitution died. So, being a native born citizen is not the same as being natural born. If it were the framers would not have included the clause.
When asked to define natural born citizen, John Bingham, the author of the 14th ammendment which extended the bill of rights to former slaves, stated, "Any human born to parents who are US citizens and are under no other jurisdiction or authority." The Naturalization Act of 1790, also passed by this congress, declared "And the children of citizens of the US shall be considered as natural born, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the US." Neither of these definitions, one from US law, mentions birthplace, only the parents' citizenship.
This concept of citizenship by blood as opposed to citizenship by geography is a concept with a long history in British common law. A law passed in 1677 says that natural born citizens are those persons born to British citizens, including those born overseas. Alexander Porter wrote an article over 100 years ago in which he declares that the framers drew upon this difference in the law of heredity and territorial allegiance to define a third class of citizen applicable only to the eligibility to hold the office of president. According to Morse, "the framers thought it wise to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance only to the US at the time of birth." He goes on to say that the the eligibility of the president "was scarcely intended to bar the children of American citizens, whether born at sea or in foreign territory."
The concept of citizenship by blood also precludes the equation of natural born with native born as the latter strictly demands geographical requirements.
Many argue that Barack Obama was eligible to be a state senator and a US senator and could not suddenly be ineligible to be president, but that is exactly the case. If this premise were true, Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of California, would also be eligible to be president, and it is established that he is not.
Barack Obama has proudly and publicly stated that his father was a citizen of Kenya. We know his mother was eigteen years old when he was born. These two facts make Obama ineligible to be president. No birth certificate is needed as proof, and it doesn't matter at all where Obama was born. His father's non-citizenship is all the law requires. He is ineligible from the beginning, meaning he is NOT the president and can be removed from office without any impeachment or trial, it requires only a ruling by the SCOTUS. HE is, in fact, a usurper, a pretender or a fake.
So why has Obama been shepharded into our highest elected office regardless of the fact that he is, according to his own statements and the law of the land, ineligible for that office? It is because those whose responsibility it is to insure the eligibility of the president, the SCOTUS, has chosen, in violation of the law, not to override the voters that voted for Obama. They are are cowards who violate their sworn oath rather than make an unpopular ruling. We are no longer a republic ruled by law, but, instead have become a democracy with rules made up as we go along, never to be written as law.
POSTSCRIPT: In each and every case dismissed by the SCOTUS challenging Obama's eligibility the reason for dismissal had nothing to do with the merits of the plaintiff's claim. Not once did the SCOTUS rule Obama was eligible or even consider whether he was or not, rather they dismissed each case on the technicality of plaitiff's lack of standing to file the case.
And another thing, how about we combat the snide term “birther” by referring to ourselves as “Defenders of The Constitution”.
That's a double-negative. Which means it is completely correct.
The second amendment people already have that one.
ping for later PROSOUTH
Sorry that you have chosen to ignore everything that has ever been written about the natural-born citizen clause in order to reach your preferred conclusion. I read the essay, and fully understand what it says. However, it is wrong. There are two kinds of U.S. citizens, natural-born and naturalized, and someone who is a U.S. citizen at birth is a natural-born citizen irrespective of how long you hold your breath. Now, if one had two U.S.-citizen parents one will almost certainly be a U.S. citizen at birth (a natural-born citizen) irrespective of where one is born (although federal law has varied through the years), which is why John McCain is a natural-corn citizen, but having two U.S.-citizen parents is not a requirement for being a U.S. citizen at birth. Or are you suggesting that someone born in NYC with an American mother and an Irish father is somehow a “naturalized citizen”?
There are at least three types of citizens. But that’s a nice try, phantom.
BTW, you will not convince US that anchor babies are eligible for the presidency, not at FR anyway. Perhaps DU is more your cup of tea, though you probably use a different handle over there.
Now this is indeed humorous: “... you have chosen to ignore everything that has ever been written about the natural-born citizen clause ...” For months I have been reading every stitch of data and filtering it down here and on my blog. But that was a nice alinskyesque try, phantom.
I TRULY hope SCOTUS will rule once an iron clad case, with standing, is brought forward.
Imagine a case that is successfully defend by 0bama’s Lawyers. THAT would be a nightmare
Actually, this clause was put in there for one reason and one reason only. Alexander Hamilton was one of the chief architects of the Constitution and he insisted this be added to make him eligible to be president.
There are two kinds of American citizens; “natural born”, i.e. born in the US and “naturalized”, born abroad and becomeing a citizen via the naturalization process.”
The only chance of any of this affecting BHo is if it can be proven that he was not born in the US, but in a foreign country, like Indonesia or Kenya.
Let me repharase it.
Legal BS.
Whatever you say, Mr. Blackstone.
BTW, next time you try to argue original intent of a clause in the original Constitution, try quoting people who were actually alive at the time. While Johnb Bingham is one of the foremost authorities regarding the original intent of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (the one that the Supreme Court reduced to nothing in the Slaughterhouse Cases), given that he was pretty much the Father of the 14th Amendment, he had no special knowledge regarding the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, unless he jumped into Doc Brown’s DeLorean and filled in for Gouverneur Morris or somebody at the Constitutional Convention. Before coming up with a definition of “natural-born citizen” that contradicts what has been the near-unanimous opinion of scholars over the past 200 years, you’ll have to do better than that.
Rep Bingham was very prescient. Here we have a person whose father was a citizen of another country and look what we got - an imposter who claims to be a Citizen of the World and apparently wants to gut the US for the benefit of others.
[[ Thomas Jefferson wrote Virginia’s birthright law of 1777 requiring the father to be a citizen.
“We can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. “
~~~~~~~~~~~
The “natural born” Clause’s origins have been traced to a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. Jay wrote, “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable 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.” ************************************************** “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. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN.” Vattel, Citizens and Nations,” par. 212
Which anchor baby is it you’re trying to get into the Oval office? Bwahahahaha ... so many, so little time.
Very insightful on your part! He is gutting the American cow to garner favor with ‘the world at large’.
What I would like to know is WHO has jurisdiction to bring this suit to the court?
I've been wondering that myself. You'd think any taxpayer would have jurisdiction.
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.