Replies

"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, ... every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. ... The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established." - United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Although this case did not turn of the issue of the definition of natural born citizen, it was a 7-2 decision and the majority signed off on the above definition instead of the Vattel one. This would seem to mean that anyone bringing a Supreme court case against Obama on eligibility grounds would have to be prepared to overcome this precedent.

I have heard Scalia saying that the only foreign law he looks to in deciding a case is the English Common Law. Perhaps that means that he would favor the definition of "natural-born" given in the above case over the Vattel one.

Wong Kim Ark tells us that a Naturalized Citizen, a Native Born Citizen, and a Natural Born Citizen are all citizens, equal before the law.

It does not tell us that they are all the same thing! All the sandwiches in a Subway Shop are all equally good sandwiches. One is not a "better" sandwich than another. But, they are not all Italian Deli Sandwiches.

Article II is not about your Civil Right to run for President. It is about national security. What if Mama Obama had married Fidel Castro? Young Barack Castro, if he were born in Hawaii, would NOT be a Natural Born Citizen.

But, he would be a native born citizen, equal to any of us before the law. Which, at one point, was all, BHO, Jr. ever claimed to be.

The judgess favored decisions made by justices in the case

Minor vs. Happersett:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

In Wong Kim Ark:
On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

As for Scalia, thankfully there are more Chief Justices, but certainly his voice will be heard.

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, ... every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. ... The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established." - United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Not quite true - if you read the citations by Justice Gray IN THEIR ENTIRETY [Blackstone, Calvin's Case, Dicey, etc.] in Wong Kim Ark, and then read Wong Kim Ark ENTIRELY, you will find that he bastardized and even flat out lied in the opinion.

It is clear from the opinion he wrote that he believed that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen. The others concurred with the opinion, BUT it is EXPLICITLY stated in the last paragraph :

" ... The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

The single question stated at the beginning of the opinion is:

" ... The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution ..."

NOTICE THAT THEY DECLARED HIM A CITIZEN UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. IF GRAY HAD INSISTED ON DECLARING HIM AN NBC, HE WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN A MAJORITY - SINCE THE OTHER JUSTICES WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED WITH HIM, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE WANTED AN "AGENT PROVOCATEUR" TO POSSIBLY BECOME POTUS IN THE FUTURE. THEY "SPLIT THE BABY" ON THIS - DECLARING HIM A CITIZEN, BUT STOPPING SHORT OF NBC.

Now, Justice Gray said in the opinion:

" ... every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. ..."

Not quite true, what Blackstone REALLY said was this:

" ... For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be divested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due. Indeed the natural-born subject of one prince, to whom he owes allegiance, may be entangled by subjecting himself absolutely to another; but it is his own act that brings him into these straits and difficulties, of owing service to two masters; and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince."

AND FURTHER:

" ... The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such ..."

NOTE THE CAVEAT "GENERALLY SPEAKING", ABOVE ...

Blackstone admits that there are exceptions - notably, Denizens ...

AND FURTHER:

" ... A Denizen is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject: a high and incommunicable branch of the royal prerogative. A Denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them. He may take lands by purchase or devise, which an alien may not; but cannot take by inheritance: for his parent, through whom he must claim, being an alien had no inheritable blood, and therefore could convey none to the son. And, upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue of a denizen, born before denization, cannot inherit to him; but his issue born after, may. A denizen is not excused from paying the alien's duty, and some other mercantile burdens. And no denizen can be of the privy council, or either house of parliament, or have any office of trust, civil or military, or be capable of any grant from the crown."

A natural-born subject CAN ONLY have one allegiance, but all children born in England (regardless of parentage) are natural born subjects. However, there are exceptions - when the alien parents' country lays claim to the child's citizenship. When this happens, the child is a Denizen.

BTW: Blackstone is a COMMENTARY on the laws of England - and IS NOT the law itself ...

If you read Calvin's Case (1608) and the British Nationality Act of 1730, (which was the controlling English Law) [cited by Dicey] at the time of the framing of the Constitution), you will find that a natural-born subject is both born WITHIN the sovreign's dominion AND under SOLITARY allegiance to that same sovreign. You will ALSO find that this was extended in 1730 to include all children born BEYOND the sovreign's dominion - as long as the father was a natural born subject.

So, with Obama, you have a child born on U.S. soil, a citizen under the 14th Amendment - BUT, he is also a natural-born subject of England [under the British Nationality Act 0f 1948].

These traits ARE WHOLLY incompatible with the Founding Fathers' concept of NBC - Obama is a Denizen (which is probably what we call a dual citizen). He is British by British law and American by US law - BUT HE CANNOT BE NBC !!!