Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"
The Post Mail ^ | 10/18/2009 | John Charlton

Posted on 03/14/2010 12:04:10 PM PDT by etraveler13

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

(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; eligibility; fraud; ineligible; lawsuit; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; qualification; ruling; scotus; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 421-424 next last
To: El Gato

Not only were home birth not uncommon, but we know pretty much how many unattended births there were in Hawaii in 1961 as well as how many births were out of state, but still registered to Hawaiian parents. Two such births, for example, took place in the state of Washington.


221 posted on 03/14/2010 10:23:53 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Perchant

think its because the 14th Amendment’s ratification

How do you determine which presidents were actually eligible before enactment of the 14th Amendment? What made Lincoln, for instance, a “natural born citizen”, since you seem to believe that people born on US soil to US citizen parents weren’t natural born citizens prior to 1868.


You have slightly misinterpreted my point. I believe that there was simply an assumption of natural born citizen status for all presidents prior to the Vice Presidency of Chester A. Arthur in 1881.
I don’t believe that there was ever a challenge to the natural born citizen status of any president or vice president until Chester A. Arthur, and thus the first challenge occurred after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Even the challenge to Arthur was political and never went to a court of law.

Arthur was rumored to have been born in Canada. This was never successfully demonstrated by his Democratic opponents, although Arthur Hinman, the attorney in charge of the investigation, raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign and after the end of his Presidency.

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. Despite the fact that his parents took up residence in the United States somewhere between 1822 and 1824, Chester Arthur additionally began to claim between 1870 and 1880 that he had been born in 1830, rather than in 1829, which only caused minor confusion and the incorrect birth date was even used in several publications. 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 in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof was considered a born U.S. citizen, and because he also held British citizenship at birth by patrilineal “jus sanguinis.” Arthur’s father never relinquished British citizenship. Arthur’s natural born citizenship status is therefore equally unclear.”—From Wikipedia


222 posted on 03/14/2010 10:26:52 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

This is the same statute you admitted contained several examples of citizens at birth that would not be considered natural born citizens. It disproves the generalization that being a citizen at birth automatically makes someone an NBC.


223 posted on 03/14/2010 10:26:59 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Considering how the HI DOH behaves when asked questions, I am sure and certain that no straight answer will be given by the leftist HI newspapesr.

They were rotten and leftist even when I was in HI many years ago.

Plus, they’ve probably gotten asked that hundreds of time by now and have a stock answer, which may or may not be accurate or truthful, and there is no way to know.


However back in 1961 when those birth announcments originally appeared both the Honolulu Star-Bulliten and the Honolulu Advertiser were owned by conservative Republican families.
Thurston Twigg-Smith, descendant of an original missionary family owned and ran the Honolulu Advertiser at that time and Wallace Rider Farrington owned and published the Honolulu Star-Bulliten. Farrington had been appointed Hawaii Territorial Governor by President Warren G. Harding.
Today, the Hawaii DOH works under the administration of the Republican Governor of Hawaii and big time McCain supporter, Linda Lingle.
The DOH media releases announcing that Obama was born in Hawaii carry Governor Lingle’s letterhead.


224 posted on 03/14/2010 10:43:34 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Chester Arthur is a red herring for the particular matter at hand. I specifically asked what made Lincoln a natural born citizen. It is your contention that presidents prior to 1868 weren’t constitutionally eligible to be president unless congress deemed them as such in their naturalization acts.


225 posted on 03/14/2010 10:45:37 PM PDT by Perchant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: edge919

This is the same statute you admitted contained several examples of citizens at birth that would not be considered natural born citizens. It disproves the generalization that being a citizen at birth automatically makes someone an NBC.


Anybody can read the law for themselves and see exactly what it says. If there was a different interpretation and exception for presidential candidates, I’m reasonably certain that the US Supreme Court would have already taken up one of the eight Obama eligibilty suits that have already reached them for Justices’ “Cert” conferences since it only takes four justices agreeing to hear a lawsuit. The Supreme Court has rejected them all without comment. In other words, “short legal shrift.”


226 posted on 03/14/2010 10:50:44 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot; ScottiesMom
Froggie, all of this is endlessly fascinating. However, Keyes knew all this in 2006. When he challenged Obama on his citizenship during that senatorial race, Obama cheerfully admitted he wasn't an NBC, correctly saying that in order to run for the Senate, he didn't have to be! As for the rest of us, did we not know this in 2007? Surely by 2008?

Unfortunately, none of us was able to convince 1 (One, Uno, Un, Ein) elected Republican to join us in belaboring the obvious, or even to do his damn job. That is, to simply state that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is the son of a foreign national, and thus can simply not be a "Natural Born Citizen," as traditionally recognized.

But that was required in that now quaint old parchment,our Constitution. Since it was written by dead white men, some of whom owned slaves, it now has become, apparently, a bit of a dead letter. If any of us takes issue with some obscure clause or other, we are free to ignore it, if Bill Maher or Keith Olbermann says that's OK. The other side maintains that the anchor child of an illegal alien couple is a "Natural Born Citizen." Running for, and serving as, POTUS is a Civil Right.

We have lived through a coup. I join Scottiesmom in the fear that it will be swept under the rug as part of the Republican modus vivendi after 2010, and that it will all go away without resolution when what's-his-name leaves office scot-free in 2012.

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.

227 posted on 03/14/2010 10:51:40 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (Obama? Definitely eligible to be Prime Minister of the UK.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

If they don’t think they can take a case on standing, it doesn’t really matter what they think of the rest of the case. Several courts have made it clear that the remedy is beyond their legal jurisdiction. That doesn’t invalidate the claims.


228 posted on 03/14/2010 10:57:15 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Perchant

Chester Arthur is a red herring for the particular matter at hand. I specifically asked what made Lincoln a natural born citizen. It is your contention that presidents prior to 1868 weren’t constitutionally eligible to be president unless congress deemed them as such in their naturalization acts.


I believe that all the presidents prior to ratification of the 14th Amendment were natural born citizens of the United States but their actual status as such was never challenged or tested in a court of law. The only issue concerning the first 17 presidents is the parentage of those who were born abroad: Thomas Jefferson (mother born in England), Andrew Jackson (whose two parents were born in Ireland) and James Buchanan (Irish father).

As I already said, there were no legal challenges to the eligibility of any president prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment.

What made Abraham Lincoln eligible as a natural born citizen was a general acceptance by his political allies and his political opponents alike that he was born in Hodgenville, Kentucky.

Since you don’t like the Chester A. Arthur example, a more interesting and relevant example would be James Buchanan who served before the ratification of the 14th Amendment and who had a father who was a British subject who passed his British citizenship on to James Buchanan. The elder Buchanan died a dual citizen of the British Empire and the United States.


229 posted on 03/14/2010 11:11:21 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Your reply to me is completely irrelevant.


230 posted on 03/14/2010 11:11:29 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: edge919

If they don’t think they can take a case on standing, it doesn’t really matter what they think of the rest of the case. Several courts have made it clear that the remedy is beyond their legal jurisdiction. That doesn’t invalidate the claims.


It is the responsibility of those who would pursue a serious legal issue to present plaintiffs who DO have standing to sue.
While the claims are not invalidated, there is no legal remedy when a lawsuit is summarily dismissed for lack of standing.


231 posted on 03/14/2010 11:14:04 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
For Obama to be a Natural Born Citizen...

1. He has to be born in the United States

2. Both parents must be Natural Born Citizens.

Not exactly correct - both parents must be citizens, either natural born or naturalized [with a caveat].

Basically, the Founding Fathers were naturalized upon the existence of the United States, but who was to lead if they did not carve out the grandfather clause for themselves ??? However, they eventually died out and the point became moot.

Thereafter, the children of naturalized citizens (but not the naturalized citizens themselves) could become POTUS - assuming that the parent(s) native country(s) did not lay a claim on the citizenship of the children (dual citizenship).

232 posted on 03/14/2010 11:16:54 PM PDT by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Your reply to me is completely irrelevant.


I;m sorry that you feel that way but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.
The point is that Obama’s birth notices have been in both Honolulu newspapers for 49 years now.


233 posted on 03/14/2010 11:17:05 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
I believe that all the presidents prior to ratification of the 14th Amendment were natural born citizens of the United States but their actual status as such was never challenged or tested in a court of law. The only issue concerning the first 17 presidents is the parentage of those who were born abroad: Thomas Jefferson (mother born in England), Andrew Jackson (whose two parents were born in Ireland) and James Buchanan (Irish father).

The ones born abroad were the ones for whom the grandfather clause was intended, although if the parents had fled Great Britain to live in the colonies or states, that was pretty much akin to those natural born colonists who renounced their British citizenship. All the parents above moved to the colonies prior to the establishment of the Constitution, so their children would have been considered natural born citizens anyway.

234 posted on 03/14/2010 11:19:45 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
The point is that Obama’s birth notices have been in both Honolulu newspapers for 49 years now.

... and still don't say that Obama was born in Honolulu or what the baby's birth name was.

235 posted on 03/14/2010 11:20:58 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
It is the responsibility of those who would pursue a serious legal issue to present plaintiffs who DO have standing to sue. While the claims are not invalidated, there is no legal remedy when a lawsuit is summarily dismissed for lack of standing.

There's been no lack of trying to gain standing, but you can't make a court take a case that they think is too hot for them to take. The requested remedy is part of the consideration for standing ... of which these courts don't want to get involved. All we see is that average citizens have no recourse for challenging an ineligible POTUS.

236 posted on 03/14/2010 11:29:19 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Nope you’re right, no baby names, just “son” and parents’ names and an address (which happens to be in Honolulu). But all the Consitution requires is birth in a state.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/811090361/-1/SPECIALOBAMA08


237 posted on 03/14/2010 11:31:36 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: etraveler13
For Obama to be a Natural Born Citizen... 1. He has to be born in the United States 2. Both parents must be Natural Born Citizens.

No, both must be citizens, naturalized or natural born. Otherwise no one could become a natural born citizen. Those who were citizens at the passage of the Constitution were not natural born citizens, which is why there was an exemption for them. Thus, if your criteria were correct, their children could not be natural born, because they were not. Then their grandchildren could not be because their parents were not.. Never mind those whose ancestors immigrated after 1787. Those ancestors would have been naturalized, not natural born, and so the same sequence of not having natural born parents would apply.

(I have one set of great grandparents who were naturalized after having been born in England in the early 1860s. One other set go back at least one more generation, their parents, my great great grandparents, having immigrated around 1865-6 time). The other two sets, both of my grandfathers' parents, we haven't a clue, except we know one grandfather was born in the US. The other, whose family name I bear, came west on the orphan train and was adopted, so that family name doesn't actually tie to any of my ancestors in that line, and we don't even know if he might have been an immigrant himself as a child, or if his parents were recent immigrants or from long established US families.)

So, the rule can't be that the parents must be natural born citizens. But it can be, and is, that they must have been citizens at the time of birth.

238 posted on 03/14/2010 11:32:45 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk; All
(1): Prevent BHO, Jr. from attempting a 2d term.

Lets assume that some states (noably, AZ) pass a presidential candidate qualification bill - the Constitution provides that the states are responsible for elections. Then Obama could be in a world of sh*t ...

1. If he files in AZ, the AZ SOS will deny him even if he produces a birth certificate - because he cannot prove NBC. Then he has to go to court - no problem with standing here, he has a dog in the fight. He either gets relief or gets denied. Either way, it will be litigated to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS then is in a quandry - either they accept him, or deny him. If accepted, they open the door for "agent provocateurs" to possibly become POTUS in the future. If they deny him - then he is out and I don't know WHAT is done about all the bills and laws that he signed in his first term.

2. If he chooses NOT to file in AZ, then all of the other states will be suspicious of him - what does he have to hide ??? Could cost Obama in swing states - BIG TIME !!!

3. He could choose not to run at all. We would be rid of him - but he wouldn't have to reveal anything ...

239 posted on 03/14/2010 11:35:05 PM PDT by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

No, the Constitution requires birth to citizen parents and birth on U.S. soil. Granny’s permanent address for whom the alleged father was never known to live doesn’t do much to confirm a claim that Obama was born in Hawaii. In fact, it begs further question.


240 posted on 03/14/2010 11:35:20 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 421-424 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson