Posted on 07/30/2009 5:06:48 PM PDT by curiosity
Several readers have written over the past few days taking us to task for dismissing so-called birthers as lunatics without bothering to refute their claims. We reluctantly concede their point. The birthers have managed to sow confusion in the minds of some who are not lunatics, and for the latter group’s benefit it is worth clarifying matters.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
That clause specifically applies to people born OUTSIDE the United states. It was also modified in 1795 to remove the “natural born” part.
There simply doesn’t seem to have been any real issue raised about whether a child born in this country to a mother who was a citizen would be a citizen, and being born here, a natural born citizen.
Chester Arthur, our 21st president, had a citizen mother and a non-citizen father.
I think the founders were relatively indifferent as to location of birth, although at the time people didn't travel abroad as easily as we do now, so the supposition was that a person born of citizens would probably be born in the country.
-- The argument that a person can be a citizen by birth, and be born in this country, and still not be a "natural born citizen" doesn't seem to have any rational basis. --
There is abundant rational basis for debate and discussion on the relevance of the citizenship of the parents and the status of natural born citizenship. What's the rational basis for NOT considering the citizenship and allegiance of the parents?
-- As we have already had a case (Arthur) in which the mother was a citizen, but the father was not, there is even precedence. --
I'm not familiar with the case, a cite would be helpful, but I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that the case was about citizenship - as was the Wong Kim Ark case.
-- Of course, since "natural born" has no real relevance except as regards the presidency, there isn't a lot of case law on that aspect. --
I agree. And I find Congress to have been derelict for not raising the question at the time the electoral ballots were counted. It's a non-trivial issue, and it should have been debated and resolved.
If your argument had merit, it would make no difference whether Obama had a Birth Certificate from Hawaii or not. The fact that his father was not a citizen would disqualify him for President.
Since the birth certificate movement is focused on the birth certificate, it seems they think the BC matters a lot more than you think it does.
That's correct. The fact that his father was not a citizen (and from all appearances, had very strong allegiance to Kenya) draws into question whether or not the child is a natural born citizen.
-- Since the birth certificate movement is focused on the birth certificate, it seems they think the BC matters a lot more than you think it does. --
That's correct too. Although I am open to finding that his vital records do not unequivocally show he was born in Honolulu, I think the proximity of the certificate number to that of the Nordyke twins (assuming the certification isn't false) puts his birth there.
IOW, his vital statistics may or may not be determinative of their own right. If he was not born in the US, his very citizenship is put into question, on account of citizenship law, 8 USC 1401(g), as it stood at the time of his birth. But even if he is a citizen by dint of being born on US soil, that fact alone does not establish him as a natural born citizen.
The most prominent issue raised against Obama was the claim that he was not actually born in Hawaii. In two other lawsuits, the plaintiffs argued that it was irrelevant whether he was born in Hawaii, but argued instead that he was nevertheless not a natural born citizen because his citizenship status at birth was also governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948. The relevant courts have either denied all applications or declined to render a judgment due to lack of jurisdiction. Some of the cases have been dismissed because of the plaintiff's lack of standing.] On July 28th, 2009, State officials in Hawaii once again issued a statement officially confirming Obama was born in the state of Hawaii.
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
c. 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.”
d. 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.
Arthur was born in Vermont to a U.S. citizen mother and a father from Ireland, who was eventually naturalized as a U.S. citizen. Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot. Since his Irish father William was naturalized 14 years after Chester Arthur's birth, his citizenship status at birth is unclear, because he was born before the 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment, which provided that any person born on United States territory and being subject to the jurisdiction thereof was considered a born U.S. citizen, and because he may have also held British citizenship at birth by patrilineal jus sanguinis. Arthur's natural born citizenship status is therefore equally unclear.
Ahh, now I see what you meant by the Arthur case.
From what little I've been able to gather, Arthur attempted to hide the fact that his father was not a citizen. He seems to have gone to substantial lengths to hide this. Why?
And if the issue was hidden or obscured at the time, it stands to reason that the precedent can't stand for the proposition that parentage is irrelevant to finding "natural born citizen," or that "A child born to foreign parents, on US soil, is a natural born citizen." At best, the precedent is that "we didn't ask and settle the question."
Keep right on talking about how the Hawaiian GOVERNMENT declared him a natural born citizen....
I highly doubt they have the authority to DEFINE natural born citizen....
I wonder if they won’t be subject to some sort of problem because of their LEGAL conclusion.
I think the courts might do exactly that in coming up with their reasoning about the definition.
But I believe if Obama was born in Kenya SCOTUS will punt it back to Congress.
I am not sure this is going to go anywhere until someone who is facing a criminal sentence because of something Obama did decides to bring it up in his defense.
The other great candidate for this is a soldier facing a court martial.
Foreign born “insert word here” raped a US RIGHT TO LIFE Citizen whose child was born in this country.
Said biological father goes to jail.
Should that child be allowed to be President?
There is your argument.
In this day and age, there are plenty of dead beat dads who skip out on a mother.
Does his sperm mean the child is not a NBC?
Does marriage make a difference? There is plenty of citizenship law that hinges on whether a child’s father and mother were married. SCOTUS has upheld that an unwed father can be treated different than an unwed mother in the 21st century.
there are many questions...
It should have been settled back when our Founding Fathers actually read the bills they were going to pass.
I can’t imagine what a bill would look like that would have to cover all the bases.
You asked — Any chance this was all a left wing plot?
—
You’ll have to clarify that a bit. Do you mean the question about qualifications per the Constitution being an issue in the first place? Or do you mean the issuing of the statement from the State of Hawaii? Or do you mean the recent increase in news media reports labeling birthers as a fringe element? I’m not sure where to start answering... :-)
None of your thoughts are rational, and your inability to see the pure Hubris on the grossly politically misused Hawaii web joke site tells much about who and what you are.
You’re certainly not a Freeper!
Yes, that is one variation. I think the hypothetical is incomplete, and it would be interesting to research how the founders viewed adoption; children born to a woman, fathered by someone other than the husband; and children raised in a house where the father died and the mother remarried.
The general question, IMO, is answered by finding what the founders intended by inserting the qualifier "natural born" only for eligibility to be president. The 14th amendment addresses what it takes to be considered a citizen, but it doesn't mention "natural born" at all.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
It does not say:
1. All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are natural-born citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside; and all persons naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
I think its inescapable that the phrase "natural born" is intended to probe the allegiance passed to the child in upbringing, and is a requirement peculiar to the offices of president and vice-president.
A deliberate deception?
The constitution doesn't define any of the termes used therein. All of the terms used in the constitution were defined in common usage at the time that it was written. 'Natural born' was also well defined in the letters of the authors of the constitution. It means born in the country of parents that are both citizens thereof.
Using your absurd requirement that the constitution contain a glossary to define all terms would leave it in shambles, which appears to be your goal here.
You are quoting the wrong residency requirement. YOu have to solve the first problem that the marriage to Ann was Void Ab Initio.
If you probe the allegiance..then what do you do about :
Bob who was born here of two US citzens and has an allegiance to Saudia Arabia and will bow before the King.
The founding fathers might have thought no such person would be elected.
Isn’t a natural born citizen defined at birth and not what he thinks at the age of 16 and then 20 and then 25, etc.
What’s the definition of allegiance. Allegiance in the mind or merely the country of the father. What if the country of the father cannot be conferred on the child because he was a bastard (as in the case of Obama)
Displaying your abysmal ignorance again (still)?
Karma is a Hindu term that has considerable corespondence to the Biblical doctrine of Retribution. "What goes around comes around." This is known by most as an inviolate fact of life, thus the "golden rule."
uh...Ann Coulter has called you guys cranks. Has she gone over to the dark side too?
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.