Judge Wants Definition of 'Natural Born Citizen'

WND ^ | 26 April 2012 | Bob Unruh

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson of Tennessee said the courts ultimately must define “natural born citizen,” affirming that the “issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the presidency is certainly substantial.”

“This specific question has been raised in numerous lawsuits filed since President Obama took office,” Anderson wrote in his opinion. “The outcome of the federal question in this case will certainly have an effect on other cases presenting the same issue about whether President Obama meets the constitutional qualifications for the presidency.”

Van Irion, whose Liberty Legal Foundation brought the case, alleges the plan by Tennessee Democrats to register Obama as their nominee for president opens a case, under state law, of negligent misrepresentation and fraud or intentional misrepresentation because of doubts about Obama’s eligibility.

Irion was pleased the court recognized the significance of the claims.

“The court made several very positive statements about our case,” he noted.

He cited Anderson’s statement that the court “finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ as a qualification for the presidency set out in Article II of the Constitution, is important and not trivial.”

“It is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are ‘actually disputed and substantial,” the judge said.

Anderson said it also is “clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”

[New Jersey Realist]

Why would you need the Supreme Court to explain this to you?

---

Because what I say means nothing. My say is an opinion. What the Supremes say is the final interpretation of the law.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Did these people actually contend in Court that the issue is "trivial"?!

I don't think so. I think you're missing the larger context of this decision (which, it should be noted, Van Irion's side lost). As I read it--and I'm not a lawyer--Irion's side first filed the challenge as a state issue. The defendants had the case moved to federal court. This was an attempt by the plaintiffs--Irion's side--to have it moved back to state court. The attempt was denied.

The judge says there are three reasons a state case might get moved to federal court: "(1) the plaintiff’s cause of action is created by federal law; (2) the well-pleaded state-law claim has as a necessary element a substantial, disputed question of federal law; or (3) the claim pleaded is in fact one of federal law." He then goes through these criteria to show this case meets them. Basically, he concludes that of course it has a question of federal law as a necessary element, because the definition of natural-born citizen is a matter of federal law; and of course it's a disputed issue, because a lot of people are disputing it.

The conclusion is just that therefore the case stays in federal court. Reading any more into it is wishful thinking.

[rxsid]

"Why would you need the Supreme Court to explain this to you?

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

Because what I say means nothing. My say is an opinion. What the Supremes say is the final interpretation of the law.

=========================================================================

edge919 explains the SCOTUS understanding of the definition. To which, I would add that there were other cases in which SCOTUS reminds us who a "natural born Citizen" is (ex. in Venus).

Not to mention, the father of the 14th Amendment stated the definition in the peoples house a number of times during the debates on the 14th. No other Congressman objected or offered a different definition. They all knew exactly what the definition was. Born in the sovereign territory, to 2 citizen parents owing allegiance to no other country.

[New Jersey Realist]

I did a thorough word search of the U.S. Constitution and every amendment and not once did the word “parent” or “parents” appear. I did note that Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 states:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

No mention of parents. There are two kinds of citizens in this country. Natural born (which means in common usage “of the soil”) and those made citizens by other powers, i.e., naturalized. To read anything else into this is to express an opinion, not a fact.

How would one know the citizenship of a parent anyway? What a birth certificate states for father may or may not be true for starters. I’d say a very large percentage of the population are bastards., i.e., born out of wedlock, etc., a product of a sperm bank, adopted, etc. I could go on but you get the picture. What proof is there that our parents are who they say they are? The only sure thing is that a hospital issues the proof that YOU were born there. That’s it!

[rxsid]

"I wish this matter would clear up soon. Let’s settle this “anchor” baby problem immediately and with certainty. When I was stationed in London I married an English woman and have two children by her. They were born in South Ruislip AFB, an American Base, which is considered American soil. I received the proper doumentation from the London Embassy stating that they were indeed American citizens. But are they eligible to be President? This discussion carries on and on here at FR most believing one needs two citizen parents to be considered natural born. So far the courts and society believe otherwise. I’m sick and tired of hearing opinions...and that’s what FR offers. I want the policy specifically spelled out by the Supreme Court - and I don’t mean just the Happerset opinion which was really a footnote. I want to know what the 9 judges today have to say.

As far as I'm concerned, by the standards of 1787, and in accordance with the correct meaning of the term "natural born citizen", your children are "natural born citizens."

Vattel wrote that a man stationed in a foreign land in the service of his country cannot be regarded as having quit his nation. He is there at his nation's bidding.

As for myself, I have always said that where go America's fighting men, there America is also. It is under their feet, wherever they may tread.

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

The question would come down to whether or not the children were 1) born on a base that was considered "sovereign territory" of the U.S. and 2) born with sole allegiance to the U.S.

Remember the reverse occurs in our country's case. A child born to a U.S. citizen mother while in another country, assumes the mother's U.S. citizenship by statue (assuming the mother meets the age/residency requirements).

As has been stated before, the natural born Citizen requirement for the position of Commander in Chief of the armed forces was really (and still is) a national security issue.

If one is born with divided citizenship (inheriting a parent(s) foreign citizenship) and therefore divided allegiance owed, it presents a conflict with not only being the Commander in Chief, but also when engaging foreign governments in treaties. The office of the President is in a singularly unique position.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors

Article. II. Section. 2.

[rxsid]

Most things in the Constitution are not defined.

Why would you disregard what many SCOTUS justices have already stated, and what the House of Reps defined back in the 1860's?

Did they have no clue as to what the founders and framers meant?

The only thing that hasn't happened, specifically, is deciding if someone born with foreign allegiance owed can be President...because no such case has been heard and decided by SCOTUS.
The definition, however, is found in numerous other SCOTUS cases concerning citizenship.

If simply being born in the country were enough to be a natural born citizen, you must then admit and agree that 1) anchor baby's are POTUS eligible as is the current Dauphine of France.

Both notions would have been offensive to the framers and those that ratified the Constitution. It should also be offensive to sensible people of today.

FWIW, my oldest son is a naturalized Citizen, my middle son is a natural born Citizen and a younger daughter who is a Citizen by statue/14th Amendment.

[bluecat6]

We can split the difference.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/

It was fact that was kept hidden. I was not at all publically known.

Chester Arthur was not a ‘precedent’ for the situation of 2008.

[New Jersey Realist]

Remember the reverse occurs in our country’s case. A child born to a U.S. citizen mother while in another country, assumes the mother’s U.S. citizenship by statue (assuming the mother meets the age/residency requirements).

---

That’s exactly right. My children at any time can apply for English citizenship! My wife later became U.S. citizen so my children meet the two citizen parent clause according to the birthers on this site. My children are eligible to become President and they are eligible to become British Subjects. How crazy is that?

[New Jersey Realist]

Thanks for the reply. I feel your pain. It is very confusing. It seems for the time being anyway that “soil” is the defining factor regarding Obummer and that means illegals can come here, drop a baby and they would also be eligible. I don’t like that for a minute. I was born here and my parents were born here so I have an “inherited” sense of entitlement. My feelings are: if I am eligible to run for President, my children should be as well; if they are, even though their mother was English at the time, then so are anchor babies. What a freekin development this is!

[bluecat6]

Is the unanimous ruling (not dictum) verbiage from Minor being ingnored in this thread?

Also, the closest thing you have to defining the make up of natural born Citizen is where it did appear in law - the 1790 immigration act. That act declared that those of citizen parents (plural) will be considered as (but it does not say they ARE) natural born Citizens.

The verbiage was later dropped in the 1795 version. Probably because it was recognized that it attempted to redefine the Constitution with law. And that is not doable.

Clearly citizen parents and not location were what was key. In the 1700s it was even easier. You followed your fathers citizenship.

Just asking since these two key items are not part of the discussion. Not trying to create trouble.

[bluecat6]

“My children are eligible to become President and they are eligible to become British Subjects. How crazy is that?”

*******************

Somehow that would not seem to fit what the framers had i mind in 1790. But back then they did not have deal with a woman’s citizenship.

[William Tell]

New Jersey Realist said: "My wife later became U.S. citizen so my children meet the two citizen parent clause according to the birthers on this site. "

I don't think so.

I have two grandsons. One was born in England. The other was born here in the U.S.

Both were fathered by a British citizen. Both are being raised by a British father. Both may soon be visiting grandparents in Great Britain.

I don't believe that either one would qualify as a "natural born citizen". I certainly have no doubt that both grandsons will feel an attachment to Great Britain that a "natural born citizen" would not feel.

This situation will not change later simply because my son-in-law decides to become a U.S. citizen.

[noinfringers2]

Whether or not the mother was a USA citizen at time of birth was not stated. If the mother was not a USA citizen then being a ‘NBC’ is not possible by requirement for parentS to be citizens at birth.

[noinfringers2]

I don’t believe the Constitution explicitly defines who can be a ‘ NBC’. It appears to be a shortcoming of the Founders unless it is accepted as fact that the Founders were well versed and intended by debate that ‘natural’ was tied to citizenship of parentS and to land of parent’S citizenship.

[itsahoot]

Heck, all he needs to do is come over here, we have several definitions, most of which make no sense whatever, but they certainly look scholarly and legalistic. The more simple case; Did he submit fraudulent documents in an attempt to conceal facts about his citizenship, and other pertinent information. Did he conspire to conceal records that would reveal facts about his past that would disqualify him from eligibility?

Just some of the easier questions to answer, no need for the Supremes to get involved yet.

[Mr Rogers]

“What do YOU believe the Founders meant by the phrase “natural born citizen”? “

Since the phrase “Natural Born Subject” was a very well known legal phrase, and since it was used interchangeably with NBC for some time AFTER the Constitution, then it seems likely they thought the meanings were largely interchangeable as well...

Unfortunately, a natural born subject included those born of alien parents. This all was explained in detail in a Supreme Court decision in the late 1800s.

[noinfringers2]

In agreement with your comments/reply I and my brother who was killed in the battle of Okinawa and myself a vet of WWII who served on Leyte and other islands ever considered ourselves as 2nd class citizens even though born of non-citizen parents. To try and instill such a stigma on us is contemptuous.

[itsahoot]

I’m sick and tired of hearing opinions...and that’s what FR offers.

Are you saying you want to ki77 all the lawyers? {:-)

[itsahoot]

They need to be identified publicly as idiots

Lawyer on the office door already does that. You want more? {:-)

[itsahoot]

He frightens me.

He should, he has divided loyalties. He has one speech and articulates it well, when he starts wondering away from his campaign speech and into specifics on policy his true character is evident. Well to any who want to see it is evident, but most don't see past an electable(R)