There has never been any provision that both parents (or either parent, for that matter) be a US citizen for a child born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Being born here makes one a natural born citizen, and always has.
There is no need to "define" a specific, technical term-of-art expressed in the Constitution.
Therefore, there is a reason that no legal statute addresses the specific, technical term-of-art "natural-born citizen," because such a status literally cannot be conferred by statute.
Citizenship at birth can be defined by statute, lex soli, and has been conferred in numerous ways, individually and en masse. This is naturalization at birth, and is correct per the powers enumerated to the Legislative by the Constitution.
Birthright citizenship, being born naturally of the country and of sovereign citizens without a doubt, is enshrined in the Constitution itself, which is the supreme law of the land. It has never been amended or even successfully challenged. It stands to this day, intact in its original intent.
Statutes have not changed it, and cannot change it. That is why the Naturalization Act Of 1790 was repealed and replaced in 1795, with identical language, sans the words "natural born." They had overreached their Constitutionally enumerated power, and knew it.
“There has never been any provision that both parents (or either parent, for that matter) be a US citizen for a child born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Being born here makes one a natural born citizen, and always has.”
You are in error. There is a very definite difference between being a citizen and being a “natural born” one. This term, “natural born” was placed in the constitution for a very specific reason...and it had a very diffenent meaning at the time of the constitution. It is only those that want to “change history” that argue otherwise.
Would someone here please explain the diffence to this individual.
By the way - the head of the Hawaii dept of vital records IS NOT a constitutional scholor and had NO business stating that President Obama is “natural born.” To say he was born in Hawaii was the full extent of what that person should have said. Actually, I believe this statement should form the basis for further inquiries into what is being hidden.
This explains “natural born.”
Friday, July 31, 2009
What to Tell The Birthers Bashers
You are poorly informed on the constitutional issue involved with Obama’s eligibility to be President. The primary issue is whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” not whether he was born in the U.S. When drafting the eligibility requirements for the President, the Founding Fathers distinguished between “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” in Article II, sec. 1, cl. 5 and in Articles I, III, and IV of the Constitution. Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” after 1789 the President must be a “natural born Citizen.” The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder have sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this.
The distinction between “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, a “citizen” is simply a member of the civil society. To become a “citizen” is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society. This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. Neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only “citizens” who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts, nor any case law has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Congressional Acts and case law, like the 14th Amendment, have all dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a “citizen.” Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a “natural born Citizen” prevails today. It is this definition of “natural born Citizen” which gives the Constitutional Republic the best chance of having a President and Commander in Chief of the Military who has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States. By satisfying all conditions of this definition, all other avenues of acquiring other citizenships and allegiances (jus soli or by the soil and jus sanguinis or by descent) are cut off. I call this state of having all other means of acquiring other citizenships or allegiances cut off unity of citizenship which is what the President must have at the time of birth.
Obama’s father was born in Kenya when it was a British colony. When he came to America, he was probably here on a student visa and he never became a legal resident of the U.S. or an immigrant. He had no attachment to the U.S. other than to study in its prestigious educational institutions which he did for the sole purpose of returning to Kenya and applying his learning there for the best interests of that nation. In fact, when he completed his studies, he did return to Kenya and worked for its government.
If Obama was born in Hawaii, at best, he is a U.S. “citizen” under the 14th Amendment and federal statute. But he is not a “natural born Citizen” under the Constitution, for at the time of his birth under the British Nationality Act 1948 his father was a British subject and Obama himself through descent was also a British subject. Obama has himself admitted to the controlling effect of the British Nationality Act 1948 on his birth. Additionally, in 1963, both his father and Obama also became Kenyan citizens when Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain.
Obama was born with multiple allegiances (at birth both U.S., if born in the U.S., and British, and also acquired Kenyan citizenship at age 2). Obama also obtained Indonesian citizenship when he was adopted by his step-father in Indonesia at age 6. The Founders would not have allowed such a person who was not born with sole allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States to be President and most importantly, Commander in Chief of the Military. We the People have too many “natural born Citizens” in our country, the largest group of citizens by far, from whom to pick to risk jeopardizing the best interests of the United States by allowing a person born with conflicting allegiances and loyalties to be President and Commander in Chief of our Military. There simply is no sound reason for risking America’s national security, welfare, and ultimate preservation by allowing a non-”natural born Citizen” to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. To permit it is a violation of Article II of our Constitution, the supreme law of our land.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.