4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"

The Post & Email ^ | Oct. 18, 2009 | John Charlton

[Veristhorne]

(Oct. 18, 2009) — The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to undertsand what this term means.

Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.

First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.

Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):

§ 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. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .

The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:

Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, .

[Don W]

Obama, on the other hand, had a mother that was to(sic) young to confer citizenship...” That is so grossly far from the truth that it is embarrassing. There is no age requirement for mothers giving birth in the USA for citizenship.

What we had was an American citizen, giving birth in Hawaii, with a father who was here legally for some years, and who abandoned the mother and baby about the time the baby was born - and you claim the baby received UK citizenship thru the father...not even close.

It was not so much an "age" requirement as a "time of residency" demand.

The law in effect at the time and referred to stated the the mother had to reside for 5 CONSECUTIVE years AFTER the age of 14 years.

Stanley Ann had been traipsing about the globe, and hadn't been resident in the US for any length of time, let alone 5 consecutive years, when Barry showed up.

That doesn't even approach the question regarding the patrilineal nature of citizenship (daddy was a Kenyan on a student visa, therefore NEVER a US citizen of any sort, and therefore unable to confer US citizenship). That by and of itself disqualifies the usurper. He may or may not be a citizen by virtue of his birthplace, but the point is that he CANNOT be considered natural-born because his daddy was a foreign national!

[Mr Rogers]

“The law in effect at the time and referred to stated the the mother had to reside for 5 CONSECUTIVE years AFTER the age of 14 years.”

Umm...no. That rule only applied if the child was born overseas. I agree that if Obama was born in Kenya, he doesn’t qualify for squat.

“That doesn’t even approach the question regarding the patrilineal nature of citizenship”...which does NOT exist in US & English law.

[rxsid]

Regarding that state of Indiana case:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents

Let's have a look at this amazing case from a state court in Indiana...

1. What does the "language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4" say?

Here's what it says:

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

What does that have to do with the NBC requirement for POTUS which is found in Clause 5?

2. Regarding this: "the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark", the state court of Indiana had stated this in the previous paragraph:

The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen [Edit: "citizen", but NOT a "natural born citizen"] of the United States “at the time of his birth.” 14

What does footnote 14 say?

We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial.

It's "immaterial" according to this ridiculous state court ruling.

So, this decision by the state court in Indiana stated the wrong Constitutional clause from where the actual requirement comes from AND they say they base their decision on WKA which found that a child born in country to non citizen parents (who were perminatly domociled here) was a "citizen" (they did NOT find him NBC)...and they admit it...yet they somehow find Barry NBC?

That, so called, "decision" is an embarrassment to the state of Indiana...and I say that with all due respect to any clear thinking Hoosier's out there.

[rxsid]

Vattel's original French, From Chapter XIX, 212 regarding Citizens and Naturals (Citizens):

"Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"

Translate that into English. What do you get?

[rxsid]

That's right.

At this point, from what is publically "known", Barry is an outright admitted multinational. He was born a, or has been a, British subject, a Kenyan citizen, possible U.S. citizen and possible Indonesian citizen.

It's a slap in the face to our framers to think they would have agreed that a multi-national was considered a natural born Citizen. The terms are mutually exclusive.

[truth_seeker]

“In addition to natural born citizenship, what about a natural born citizen who gave up US citizenship?”

Minors do not have legal capacity.

[rxsid]

Natural, Native and Indigenous were synonymous in the 1700's, into the 1800's.

It's why we see Chief Justice Marshall state in THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814):

"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says "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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."

Here, we see the great Chief Justice Marshall (who would have studied Vattel's legal treatise "Law of Nations" at the country's first law school...the College of William and Mary...introduced to the school's curriculum in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson) directly quoting, by name, Vattel's work specifically.

It's why we see Chief Justice Waite state

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar [edit: this nomenclature they were familiar with is directly mirrored to the definition found in Law of Nations...which the framers read and referenced during the Constitutional Convention], 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,"

in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

Vattel's original French, From Chapter XIX, 212 regarding Citizens and Naturals (Citizens):

"Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"

Translated to English:

"the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens

The terms were interchangeable then.

It appears that, in the years after the WKA ruling (in 1898), the term "native" has taken on a new meaning when it comes to citizenship.
Of course, WKA was found to be a "citizen" (and not a "natural born Citizen") due to the fact that his parents were perminantly domociled in the country...and conducting business here.
It interesting to note, that Associate Justice Horace Gray (who delivered the majority opinion) was appointed to the bench by non other than the original usurper...Chestur Arthur...who was born in this country...but to a foreign national father and who burned his papers prior to his death, undoubtably to cover his tracks as being born a British subject (inherited from his foreign national father).
 
The royal dictionary, french and english, and english and french
Author: A. Boyer
Publisher: T. Osborne, 1764
Original from Ghent University

From: http://books.google.com/books?id=k7c_AAAAcAAJ

 
A dictionary of the English language. Abstracted from the folio ed., by the author. To which is prefixed, an English grammar. To this ed. are added, a history of the English language
Author: Samuel Johnson
Edition: 3
Published: 1768
Original from: Oxford University
Digitized: Aug 10, 2006

From: http://books.google.com/books?id=bXsCAAAAQAAJ

 
The new spelling dictionary
Author: John Entick
Published: 1780
Original from: University of Lausanne
Digitized: Feb 27, 2008

From: http://books.google.com/books?id=xZUPAAAAQAAJ

 

More recently:

Baldwin’s Century Edition of Bouvier’s Law Dictionary. Published by The Banks Law Publishing Company in 1926

Hat tip to BP1 for the great "$2 dollar" find.

[rolling_stone]

nice of you to post a kangaroo court decision that has nothing to do with the price of rice in China...If that’s the best you can do you might as well join Jamese777 over in DU land...

[rxsid]

"“In addition to natural born citizenship, what about a natural born citizen who gave up US citizenship?”

Minors do not have legal capacity.

------------------------------------------

Actually, they do:

F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN

Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

Question is...did Barry?

[AmericanVictory]

Only if you ignore the controlling authority of Story's opinion in Shanks v. Dupont which is what you are doing. Also see the rxsid post about WKA, which was not in any way about the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 phrase.

[IMR 4350]

Notice how the left is slowly trying to work the claim in that a person born a dual citizen is also a natural born citizen?

The argument is akin to the claims made by the left during Clinton's impeachment that the president has the authority to pardon himself.

In both cases the left is simply playing to the ignorant.

This issue is coming to a head, and the left is preparing their ignorant base for civil unrest.

[bushpilot1]

Mr Rogers you posted the Luke White edition printed in London.

[edge919]

Again,you're making a stupid argument. sujets by itslef is translated as "subject," which means the FOUNDERS translated "naturels" as "natural born." It doesn't matter what Vattel wrote, but how the FOUNDERS read it. They read his terms "naturels" as "natural born." Indigenes wasn't translated into natural born citizen but into "native," which is EXACTLY what comes up in the online translation:

adj. indigenous, native

n. native, someone who is indigenous, resident of a certain place from the time of birth

link to source

[ViLaLuz]

Thanks for the info. Even if Soetoro was born in Hawaii what happened to his status AFTERWARD?

[Windflier]

“Bamsters” mom was a US citizen. He was born out of wedlock. The rules at the time of his birth make him a citizen of the US.

ONLY if he was born within the boundaries of the territorial US.

The law at the time of his birth stated that a woman had to be "five years past the age of 14" to confer US citizenship upon her child, IF that child was born outside the US.

Stanley Ann was just short of her nineteenth birthday when Zero was born.

[MamaTexan]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From the first legal treatise written after Constitutional Ratification:

It will be remembered, that the object of the several states in the adoption of that instrument, was not the establishment of a general consolidated government, which should swallow up the state sovereignties, and annihilate their several jurisdictions, and powers, as states; but a federal government, with powers limited to certain determinate objects; viz. their intercourse and concerns with foreign nations; and with each other, as separate and independent states; and, as members of the same confederacy: leaving the administration of their internal, and domestic concerns, to the absolute and uncontrolable jurisdiction of the states, respectively; except in one or two particular instances, specified, and enumerated in the constitution. And because this principle was supposed not to have been expressed with sufficient precision, and certainty, an amendatory article was proposed, adopted, and ratified; whereby it is expressly declared, that, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This article is, indeed, nothing more than an express recognition of the law of nations; for Vattel informs us, “that several sovereign, and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without each in particular ceasing to be a perfect state. They will form together a federal republic: the deliberations in common will offer no violence to the sovereignty of each member, though they may in certain respects put some constraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements.
View of the Constitution of the United States George Tucker

and

There is a natural and a positive law of nations. By the former, every state, in its relations with other states, is bound to conduct itself with justice, good faith, and benevolence; and this application of the law of nature has been called by Vattel, the necessary law of nations, because nations are bound by the law of nature to observe it; and it is termed by others, the internal law of nations, because it is obligatory upon them in point of conscience.
James Kent, Commentaries

[MamaTexan]

So, this decision by the state court in Indiana stated the wrong Constitutional clause from where the actual requirement comes from AND they say they base their decision on WKA which found that a child born in country to non citizen parents (who were perminatly domociled here) was a "citizen" (they did NOT find him NBC)...and they admit it...yet they somehow find Barry NBC?

LOL!

Talk about the devil being in the details!

Nice going, BTW!

[jdsteel]

I’ve heard so many contradictory things on this. If I remember correctly the age limit does not apply to women born American, only naturalized ones. And, I’ve heard (despite lots of comments to the contrary) that the boundaries of the territorial US only counts if both parents were not US citizens. The key is “natural born” vs. “naturalized”. As much as a liberal as she was, Obama’s mama was born as a US citizen and both of her parents were US citizens. She was single when she gave birth to Barry and he is a natural born US citizen no matter who the father was or where she popped him out as far as I can tell. What’s interesting to me in this whole debate is WHY he won’t disclose his long-form Birth Certificate, his college grades & papers, etc. etc. etc. He’s certainly hiding something, but citizenship ain’t it. At least as far as I can tell.

[LucyT]

(Four) 4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"

. . . . Did y'all see this?

Thanks, Slings and Arrows.

[Windflier]

I’ve heard so many contradictory things on this. If I remember correctly the age limit does not apply to women born American, only naturalized ones.

When this first came up two years ago, the text and the link to the actual immigration and naturalization law (which was in effect at the time of Zero's birth) was posted here.

I wish I had it now, but what it said, is that, if a mother is an American citizen, and gives birth to a baby whose father is a foreign citizen, while outside the boundaries of the territorial US, then the mother must be past the age of 14, plus 5 years for her to be able to confer US citizenship on that child.

This is one HUGE reason that it's vital for Obama's LFBC to be released. Stanley Ann Dunham was just short of her 19th birthday when Zero was born. If she gave birth to him outside the territorial US, then he's not even a US citizen, much less, a Natural Born Citizen.