4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"

The Post Mail ^ | 10/18/2009 | John Charlton

[etraveler13]

4 Cases have been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that define the status of Natural Born Citizen.

[jamese777]

I never read that the newspapers at that time got birth notices only from the Bureau of Statistics. I read that a current employee said that is how it works now, but he didn’t know how it worked in 1961.

I could have missed something but that’s what I’ve read about it.

---

You can email the Honolulu Star-Bulliten and the Honolulu Advertiser and ask them directly.
In the meantime:
http://washingtonindependent.com/52625/mythbusting-the-honolulu-newspaper-birth-announcment

[MileHi]

Knock, knock!!

linky?

[jamese777]

Seems now some of them are pretty pissed off at what they heard at the SOTU address???

---

Supreme Court Justices don’t rule on the basis of whether they are “pissed off” or not.

[jamese777]

Knock, knock!!

linky?

---

See the post above yours. And here’s another:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=104678

[little jeremiah]

According to your link, and I also read the WND link which was in that article, an “operator” said that “we’ve always done that”.

I remember someone questioning a worker at the newspaper office and he said he didn’t know how it was done in 1961.

So it isn’t proved one way or another, to my satisfaction.

[El Gato]

8 USC 1401 is the governing law. Period.

Except that there is NOTHING defining "Natural Born Citizen" in 8 USC 1401, nothing at all. It defines several ways to be a citizen at birth, and even though the statute, back in the definition section, 8 USC 1101, says those made citizens at birth are not naturalized, the Supreme Court says differently, and not in dicta either, right in the meat of several cases.

Statute law cannot over-ride the Constitution, although in one case it was more a mater of the statute conforming to the Constitution, even though one of the parties to the case was arguing that it, the statute, did not. But the reason it conformed was tied up with those made citizens at birth, solely by statute, being "naturalized at birth" for Constitutional pourposes.

So can "Period" all you want, but that doesn't mean your opinion conforms with the case law.

[jamese777]

Title 8 is a collection of laws and policies, some legislative statutes, some constitutional clauses, some writings by policy wonks in government departments. Fortunately for us, you can’t just throw something into Title 8 and call it constitutional law or a definition of constitutional law.

Congress has never created a natural born citizen. All citizens they have created are naturalized citizens, per their enumerated powers.

---

Title 8 is a section of the Federal Code of Regulations. which are the administrative laws of the United States. The effect of administrative law is that the regulations are treated by the courts as being as legally binding as statutory law, provided the regulations are a reasonable interpretation of the underlying statutes. This “reasonable interpretation” test or Chevron doctrine was articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous decision involving a challenge to new Clean Air Act regulations promulgated by the Reagan administration in 1981.

[MileHi]

So you made MY point. Thanks.

What do you have for you “Hillery operatives” assertion? Something that doesn’t shoot yourself down again I hope.

[MindBender26]

Title 8 is a collection of laws and policies, some legislative statutes, some constitutional clauses, some writings by policy wonks in government departments. Fortunately for us, you can’t just throw something into Title 8 and call it constitutional law or a definition of constitutional law

Please, for your own reputations sake, don't post foolishness such as that.

[frog in a pot]

“You’re describing the grossest negligence and complicity with fraud.”

Which is why I took the utmost care in setting out the few uncomplicated facts that lead to such conclusion.

O told us before the election what he was and what he was going to do to our nation. If the current socialist tsunami by O and his cohorts is not checked, the inaction by Congress and its continuing avoidance of the issue may ultimately mark the saddest turning point in our nation’s history.

Kenny Bunk asked upthread whether I had discovered a new lifeform, a Republican that had a backbone.

If action is not taken in the near term, we should invite every 2010 Republican candidate to certify whether they have the spine to honor the oath they will take to defend the Constitution and step forward on this issue.

[El Gato]

I mean under the laws then in effect Obama’s mother was too young to pass on citizenship, so there only remains the fact that Obama was born in the one of the United States, to a mother too young to pass on citizenship, and a father who was a foreign national.

The statement, "too young to pass on citizenship" ONLY applies to a US citizen parent married to an alien, and to a child born outside the US. It does not apply to those born in the US. If born in the US, a child with such parents is a citizen at birth, but not a natural born citizen, since they still would only have one citizen parent.

[MindBender26]

P.S. First line of the LAW is "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth."

I think that pretty well defeats the argument that this law does not define what is a citizen at birth, don't you!

[jamese777]

Then count me out and tell the rest of them your point, some of them them just might get it, OK???

---

I judge whether others have gotten my points accurately by their responses to my posts. Better than nine times out of ten, they have interpreted my meanings correctly.
Since I don’t even know which post of mine you didn’t get the point of, perhaps you could tell me what you think my point was and I can confirm or deny.

[Perchant]

Is it your contention that congress can create natural born citizens with legislation?

Again, why hasn’t congress legislated that people born on US soil to US citizen parents are citizens? Is it an oversight?

[El Gato]

Those pesky divorce papers on file in Hawaii between his mother and his Kenyan father is all the proof that is needed --

Probably, it's murky part of the law. On the one hand, the child of a married woman is presumed to that of the husband. OTOH, it's now a presumption that can be rebutted. However if the BC, certified long OR short form, says BHO Sr is the father, and the divorce papers declare Jr "a child of the marriage" (of course so do those from Stanley Ann's second marriage) then it would be difficult at the very least to rebut that presumption.

[El Gato]

There must be 2 separate methods for obtaining such status if they are both eligible, or the law which made Obama’s mother too young was unconstitutional.

You have a case citation for that assertion? The age, actually residency, requirements only apply to the situation where a US Citizen is married to an alien, AND the child is born outside the US. The law is still on the books, although it was changed in 1986 to lesson the residency requirements. But the law would only apply to BHO Jr. if he was born outside the US. But the law, as all such laws, only concerns citizenship, not natural born citizenship. But if born outside the US, under the law as it existed until '86, he would not be a citizen at all, unless later naturalized.

[El Gato]

FYI, divorces can happen by publication, and many happen if the father cannot be found....

The papers clearly indicate he signed for them when served, but apparently did not reply. Thus he was known to have been served, and had a chance to respond, but did not. Lolo, OTOH, did sign his papers, but he wished to remarry. So did BHO Sr, but he waited until he got back to Kenya to marry his second "white" woman, where polygamy is legal anyway. She divorced his ashes too, and married another African man, but not a Kenyan, again IIRC.

[jamese777]

So you made MY point. Thanks.

What do you have for you “Hillery operatives” assertion? Something that doesn’t shoot yourself down again I hope.

---

You interpreted my links as documentation that “grandpa called in those photoshopped Obama birth announcements?” I think you should look into medications for delusions.

I used to read the “Texas Darlin’” blog which was for the most rabid Hillary supporters who despised Obama. Those folks formed the anti-Obama group PUMA (”Party Unity My Azz”). That blog reported the birth announcements story.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/clinton-supporters-claim-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-ineligible-be-president
http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/obama%E2%80%99s-birth-announcement-confirmed/

[Perchant]

Even if Title 8 was codified into positive law, and it’s not, it wouldn’t trump the Constitution.

Which “title” was in play regarding the clean air act? Has that code been enacted into positive law? What constitutional questions were in play?

[jamese777]

Is it your contention that congress can create natural born citizens with legislation?

Again, why hasn’t congress legislated that people born on US soil to US citizen parents are citizens? Is it an oversight?

---

I think its because the 14th Amendment’s ratification defined Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. The 14th Amendment says “ALL persons born or naturalized...” and that has been interpreted by Congress and by the Courts to include presidential candidates as well.

Under the 14th Amendment there are only two types of American citizens: born citizens and naturalized citizens, so “NATURAL BORN” and “BORN” have been merged into one category that is eligible to be elected president/vice president while naturalized citizens cannot run become president/vice president