Posted on 02/14/2010 11:50:10 AM PST by Man50D
The manual also states, “ the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a person for constitutional purpose” of eligibility to be President.
Congress was given the power to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization”. There is doubt that Congress can constitutionally define the term natural born citizen as it pertains to the eligibility question.
A person born in the USA to parents who are both citizens are indisputably eligible for POTUS, as to other classes, there are doubts, and those doubts have yet to be definitively resolved. It is a legitimate issue.
Gentlemen, or Gentlewomen, or, er, Gentlepeople.
READ THE LAW!
It is USC, Title 8, Section 1401:
It states as follows:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.”
End of law.
Now, read (g) Obama qualifies under (g) even if he was born in Kenya. His mother was a citizen. She lived in the US for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.
Remember, Natural Born does not in any way mean “native born.”
Complain all anyone wants, but that is the law.
HAhaha ..
didn’t they certify the election or something like that?
I already read this LAW several times. I have read the law, and the constitution, and the Supreme Court decisions, common law references, Vattel, correspondence between the framers of the constitution, legal scholars on both sides of the issue, the foreign affairs manual, and the congressional record.
JMHO, the CONSTITUTIONAL NBC requirement for POTUS, meant a child born in the USA whose parents were both citizens. Such a requirement may not be changed by statute, it would require a constitutional amendment. The CONSTITUTION trumps statutes.
And as the Dept. of State notes in it's foreign affairs manual: “the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a person for constitutional purposes” of determining eligibility for President.
Reasonable legal arguments can be made on both sides of this issue - it will not be settled definitively until determined by the Supreme Court, which they will dodge at every opportunity - chances are Slim to None that it will be settled.
As for me, after careful research, I place more weight on the Constitution, and the writings and statements of the framers as to what the definition originally was.
If you have read all the things I noted in the first paragraph, and you can not agree that there are some good points on both sides of this issue, then there is really no point to continue a discussion, and we will just have to agree to disagree.
Under your opinion, if an American couple were traveling in Europe and had a premature child, that child would not be a NBC. Nor would a child born on an American military base overseas. Nor would the child of an American citizen with a foreign spouse who later became a citizen.
Under your system, even John McCain would not be eligible. He was born in Panama to his Navy parents.
The Dept. of State manual on Foreign Affairs states with respect to eligibility for President, that it has “never been determined definitively by court whether a person who acquired his US citizenship by birth abroad is a natural born citizen.”
Congressional opinions, actions, and statutes are irrelevant, unless they can get a constitutional amendment ratified. They have no authority to alter the constitution by statute.
As for John McCain, I don't think the framers knew him. However, a good legal case could be made that he was born owing allegiance to the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof rendering the actual geographical location moot. And that would be a fair way to look at the historical meaning. But again, it has not been definitively settled.
The situation is what it is. The fact that it was raised at all with John McCain, should be a hint that it is not settled.
I would not have minded if Obama and McCain had been ruled ineligible or eligible - a ruling one way or the other is what I would like to see. If the ruling is not what the people want and unfair to soldiers, then the constitution can be amended.
If the issue was as settled as you think, the US Dept. of State would not have noted that it had not been settled. Like I said, I have researched the issue extensively, and there are good points on both sides.
After research, I decided there were unsettled issues, and what I think the framers intended. I do not think they intended to include someone who was admittedly a citizen of 3 different countries, because they did not want anyone with foreign allegiances or divided loyalties to be President.
If it makes you feel better to pretend the issue is settled, go right ahead and keep the blinders on.
Dude, stop quoting TODAY’S laws. They were not in effect in 1961, they had not been WRITTEN yet.
Sheesh.
Man, we have been through this on another thread the law that applied was this, read up.
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/066_statutes_at_large.pdf
PUBLIC LAW 414-JUNE 27, 1952
Start on PDF page 202, thats where the index is. Read title 3 which is quite a ways on from there, but Title three is what you are looking for. Also this is the section of that law which has otherwise been scrubbed from the internet. Trust me, it took me personally 3 hours to find this law, and several other people were looking for it as well. There are a LOT of man(woman) hours invested in finding this document.
Title three starts on PDF page (NOT THE DOCUMENT PAGE, those will be two different numbers) 274.
READ THIS CAREFULLY.
This is the law that governed Obama’s citizenship. Its been scrubbed for a reason. It proves what we have been saying. He isn’t a Natural Born Citizen.
Download this, I would not be surprised if it disappears off the internet again. If you are curious, search the title of this law on google, and see for yourself, Except for the link I gave here, title 3 is MISSING in every document you find listed on google. No joke.
I believe, that most likely there are serious questions about McCains eligibility to run, I have NOT researched the law that was in effect at the time of HIS birth however.
Just like the "natural born subjects" of Kings, Queens, Dukes, Earls, and assorted other "betters". To be sure the lessor "royals" were also subjects, but "more equal" than the mere peasants.
Yep, Juan is not eligible and the Senate Resolution carries no weight of law.
Glad I am not the only one who can see that point is justifiable based on the constitution.
That turns out not to be the case. The children of military families fall under a separate "exemption" that existed before the Constitution was ever written, as do those of diplomats.
Congress cannot change the definition of "Natural Born Citizen", it is what is was in 1787.
Even the US State department aknowledges
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.
The Supreme Court has ruled that persons not "born in the US" but citizens at birth by statute, are naturalized, despite what the statutes ( say. The statutes say they are not naturalized, but DO NOT say they are "natural born", despite what the state department manual says. Those words, "natural born" have not been part of the statute law since 1795, and even then, the 1790 Act said they "shall be considered as natural born Citizens. Not "are natural born Citizens". (required both parents to be citizens nonetheless .
"citizens of the United States at birth" is not the same as "Natural Born Citizens". They may be, for Constitutional purposes "naturalized citizens" or they may be, for want of a better term, "native born", but not Natural Born.
Citizens at birth born outside the US do not even fall under the 14th amendment definition of citizen, since they were neither born nor naturalized in the United States. They are citizens anyway, naturalized under the Art. I section 8 power of Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
With that statement, you are making an assumption that "natural born citizen" and "citizen at birth" are the same. The Supreme Court has ruled that some citizens at birth must be considered naturalized, since they are citizens by virtue of statutes passed by Congress under the power to establish a uniform rule of Naturalization, which 8 USC 1401 is part of. You'll notice that some of those cases do not fall under the 14th amendment definition, since the persons were neither born nor naturalized "in the United States". Thus some "citizens at birth" must be considered "naturalized" because they are citizens solely by operation of statutes passed under Congress power to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization. Such persons cannot possibly be "Natural Born citizens" for Constitutional purposes. And it also quite possible for someone born in the US to not be Natural Born Citizens.
Thus Citizens at Birth may be naturalized, native born or natural born. It's also possible for someone not "born in the US" to be Natural Born, under the definitions established prior to 1787.
To have any person try themselves to define the meaning of the term Natural Born is for them to set themselves up as a Dictator, in that they, not the courts would dictate what a law or constitutional provision really means.
But, they have never done so, except in dicta, because they have never heard a case where "Natural Born Citizen" needed to be established, since that only matters for eligibility to the office of President.
Thus we are completely free to argue how they should decide, should they stoop to hear such a case.
8 USC 1401 does not contain the term "natural born citizen", so how can it describe or define it?
If you maintain it does, show us, where. Paragraph and sub-paragraph numbers.
Of course you won't be able to do so. I searched it, not only does it not contain "natural born citizen" it doesn't have the word "natural" in it, nor "born citizen".
Sorry, you should have looked at the notes.
Amendments
1994—Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 103–416 added subsec. (h). 1986—Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99–653 substituted “five years, at least two” for “ten years, at least five”.
It's the law at the time of birth that counts, not the current law. So if born outside the US, BHO is not a citizen at all, unless later naturalized. But either as illegal alien, or naturalized citizen, he'd not be eligible.
Actually, and unfortunately, he is. If we are going to use the Vattel, "Law of Nations" Definition for NBC, we should also use the exception.
"Law of Nations". Book I
...
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
...
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
In fact, you are assuming your conclusion, which is circular logic and a definite no-no in debate and logic.
LOL
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.