“Birtherism” and the Tyranny of Ignorance

| March 23 2013
Greg Conterio

Senator Ted Cruz has inspired something of a resurgence of the “Birther” phenomenon over the past week or two.  I continue to be amazed at depth of ignorance on the definition of the term natural born citizen and the certainty with which people continue to repeat false assertions about the meaning of this term.  A small sampling of the sort of thing you can find on this topic around the Internet:

Acquiring US citizenship at birth is not the same thing as being a natural born citizen.
The constitution is NOT vague about this, as the article implies.
Natural born means you were passed through a woman’s birth canal within the physical borders of this country…”

“The simple fact is if his [Ted Cruz’] mother wasn’t serving for the armed forces or some international organization that is accepted he is not going to qualify to run for president.”

“[Name Witheld], you are woefully mistaken. To be natural born, both parents of a person must be born in the US.”

“Actually, just being born to US Citizen-parents is NOT enough to make a person a “natural born citizen”. They must be born on “US soil…”

“Ah, but ‘citizen’, ‘native-born citizen’ and ‘natural-born citizen’ are 3 distinctly separate categories…”

The one thing all these remarks have in common is they are all completely wrong.  Much of this nonsense is due to the fervent desire of many people on the right to “prove” Obama is not qualified to hold the office of president, and their willingness to twist themselves into knots in pursuit of this belief.  The truth of the matter is actually really easy to find if anyone bothers to take a few minutes to do a quick Internet search, and then read what they find.

There are a couple of common arguments cited in support of some of these fanciful definitions of natural born citizen.  One such argument is that English Common Law is actually the controlling authority, another is that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the constitution somehow does the trick.  Not quite. 

While it was the source and inspiration for much of the code law in the United States, English Common Law is not any sort of legal controlling authority, and bears no weight whatsoever in determining what is and is not “legal” in the United States.  The 14th Amendment was a part of the flurry of legislation following the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, and the purpose of section 1 was to prevent the former slave states from denying citizenship to one-time slaves, and to cut the legs out from under the onerous Dred Scott ruling of 1857.  Apart from establishing that EVERYONE born on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen, it does not address with any specificity the meaning or definition of the term.

The constitution, in Article II, section 1 lays-out the qualifications required to serve as President thusly:

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.

The illusion of ambiguity created by this lack of a constitutional definition is what leads to so many crack-pot theories as to what exactly a natural born citizen really is, but in reality the matter is not ambiguous at all.  The definition can in fact be found in U.S. Code law, specifically Title 8, Subchapter III, section 1401.  You can follow the link I’ve included and read the entire section if you wish at the U.S. House.gov site.  It is not too long or difficult to read, and covers a variety of different circumstances under which a person is legally defined to be considered a citizen at birth.  I have only included the sections which bear upon Rubio and Cruz for the sake of brevity:

Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

-STATUTE-

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United

States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the

jurisdiction thereof;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying

possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United

States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States

or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such

person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying

possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United

States who has been physically present in the United States or

one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one

year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is

a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United

States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an

alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to

the birth of such person, was physically present in the United

States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods

totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were

after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any

periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United

States, or periods of employment with the United States

Government or with an international organization as that term is

defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any

periods during which such citizen parent is physically present

abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of

the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed

Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States

Government or an international organization as defined in section

288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-

presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be

applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the

same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on

that date; and

A few points about section 1401 – The term citizen at birth is a synonym for natural born citizen.  They are not two different terms, with different meanings.  Either you acquire citizenship status as a consequence of your birth, or you do not, period.  If you do NOT acquire citizenship through birth, the only other way to become a citizen is to be naturalized.  A naturalized citizen is entitled to ALL of the privileges, rights & responsibilities that come with citizenship save one: being qualified to serve as president.

If you are born on U.S. soil, under the jurisdiction of the United States, you are a citizen, regardless of the citizenship status of your parents.  The qualification “under the jurisdiction of the United States” is included to except children of foreign diplomats for example, should they be born here while their parents are serving as representatives of foreign powers.  Every time I hear someone spout-off about how Marco Rubio cannot be president because his parents were not citizens, I roll my eyes.

It is also worth paying attention to section (g) listed above, because it is often misread or misunderstood.  The part of section (g) that begins “Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States..”  is often interpreted to mean that the one parent who is a citizen must ALSO be a member of the armed forces, a government official, etc.  This is not what the section says at all!  This part of the section states that time spent outside U.S. soil  as a member of the military, or serving in some other government sanctioned service will count toward the “time physically present in the United States” requirement of the section.  The bottom-line of section (g) is this: if you were born outside the U.S. but one of your parents is a citizen, and that parent spent at least five years living in the U.S., two of which were after the age of 14, you are a natural born citizen, period.

So what does all this mean?  For starters, it means those who insist Marco Rubio is not qualified to serve as president because he is not a natural born citizen have no clue what they are talking about.  The same goes for Ted Cruz, provided his mother meets the “time living in the U.S.” provision of section (g) above.  The correct, controlling legal definition for this qualification is clearly laid-out in the section of U.S. code law I have linked to above.
One final observation: when you try to read-up on topics like this, sources do matter.  Some guy with a blog, or some attorney with some bizarre sounding legal theory are NOT authoritative sources.  When it comes to law, the ONLY valid source is the published local, state or federal code on the topic.

389 comments
MarthaTrowbridge
MarthaTrowbridge

At this point, happily, We The People have no need to nab aka Obama on Constitutional Eligibility. [Which, by the way, would shift the blame to those who let him pass through the gates.]


No. Today, we have Identity Fraud, Election Fraud, and oodles of incidents of Treason.


Happily, also, the consequences of his inevitable conviction are far more appropriate.

realitycheck1776
realitycheck1776

I love Birthers. They can blissfully ignore page after page of solid contrary evidence and just say "this is how I define 'foreign influence' therefore I am correct." Of course the answer to whether you are correct or not is currently residing comfortably at 1600 PA Ave, Washington, D. C. .

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

U.S. Code is irrelevant.  The question is what did the Framers mean at the time the Constitution was written.

 

"A natural born citizen of the United States is a child born of two citizen parents.  It matters not where the child was born.  In order to confirm NBC status, a father must also have been a prior resident of the U.S.    In order to retain NBC status, a natural born citizen must retain an exclusive U.S. citizenship."

http://wweethepeople.patriotactionnetwork.com/2011/09/08/natural-born-citizen-2/

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

@MarthaTrowbridge  

Obama really was born in Hawaii and really won both the 2008 and 2012 elections (the notion that either was influenced by significant fraud is loony. If that had happened, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and Karl Rove and the Republican secretaries of state and Republican governors of the swing states and Huckabee and Michele Bachmann and Santorum and Gingrich and Ann Coulter and Limbaugh and the National Review would have said something----but not one of them did).

Obama really was born in Hawaii.

 Obama has shown both his Hawaii short-form BC (the Certification of Live Birth, COLB, which is the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, used by thousands of people to get their US passports every year), and he has shown his long form Hawaii BC. And the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they sent them to him, and that all the facts, repeat ALL the facts are exactly the same, repeat, EXACTLY the same, as what they sent to him. And Obama's birth in Hawaii in 1961 is also confirmed by the public Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 by the DOH of Hawaii (and ONLY the DOH of Hawaii could send birth notices to that section of the newspapers, the "Health Bureau Statistics" section, where Obama's birth notice was published, and in 1961 the DOH only did so for births IN Hawaii).


And every child, repeat EVERY child born on US soil, except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders, is a Natural Born US Citizen.

That is why birthers and two-fers were not able to convince a single member of the US Electoral College to change her or his vote to vote against Obama in either the 2008 or 2012 elections. Obama won 356 electoral votes in the 2008 general election, and 356 electors voted for him. He received 332 votes in the 2012 general election, and 332 electors voted for him. In short, not one single elector changed her or his vote—that is because not one of them believes the nutty birther claim that Obama was born outside of the USA or the loony birther constitutional theory that two citizen parents are required. And ditto for the US Congress, which confirmed Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY twice, and that included the votes of Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. Ron Paul).

The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law—-not from Vattel, who is not even mentioned once in the Federalists Papers while the common law is mentioned about twenty times, and always with praise. Not one single member of the Constitutional Convention EVER said that two citizen parents are required, and John Jay—who first used the term in his letter to George Washington, was an expert in THE COMMON LAW. If he had meant to use the term as Vattel did, and not to use it the way that the Common Law did—he would have said so.

And in the common law every child born in the country except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders is a Natural Born Citizen---and that INCLUDES dual citizens.

Moreover, the Minor V. Happersett case did not say what birthers claim it said, and the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court Case was AFTER Minor v. Happersett, and it said that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen and that the term comes from the common law (a six justice to two justice ruling with one justice not voting BTW).

So the Heritage Foundation book is right, and the two-parent theory is wrong:

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

More reading on the subject:

http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

 



DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

 @R C Jackman  The Framers themselves said very little about the natural born citizenship clause. Mr. Pinckney later remarked that it was there to insure "attachment to the country." Most authorities take it as a term of art from English Common Law (natural born subject) which makes sense given that every lawyer in the new country used to practice the English common law until 1776, and every state had adopted it one way or another.

chillydogg1
chillydogg1

@smrstrauss1 @MarthaTrowbridge  

Liar. The court NEVER called Wong a natural born citizen. Here's the decision;


"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 domicile 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."

Do you see the words "natural born" in there anywhere? In fact they specifically call him just a "citizen" even though the lower court had called him a "natural born citizen".  The Wong case supports the birthers not the Obots.

MarthaTrowbridge
MarthaTrowbridge

@smrstrauss1 @MarthaTrowbridge  Well, well, what have we here? A convocation of 'entities' who habitually harassed Mario Apuzzo at his website, suddenly manifesting on a website story that has had zero commenting activity for a year and a half. 


Shall I assume you consider yourselves the 'top brass' amongst the "Obama" propagandists?


Please do tell, so I can decide if I should be flattered by your lavish attentions.


And oh, psssst: careful, bros. Mike Zullo can track you.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Well said.

 

And there are the examples of Tucker and Rawle, both of whom wrote at about the date of the Constitution and knew the founders, and both of whom used the term Natural Born Citizen just the way that it was used in the common law.

 

 

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

 @DrConspiracy

 

The Framers used “The Law of Nations” by Emmerich de Vattel as their primary reference and left other clues as mentioned in the link above.  A careful reading will show that the English "natural born subject" is not the same as our "natural born citizen"; the war of 1812 had much to do with that difference.

HistorianDude
HistorianDude

@MarioApuzzo @chillydogg1@smrstrauss1@MarthaTrowbridge

"Making stuff up are we?" No. That's never been part of my reputation. 

Ignoring that there is actually no Constitutional requirement to demonstrate anything, the only difference between "“citizen of the United States" and a "natural born citizen" is that the former is a super-set that includes naturalized citizens. Since no one has suggested naturalized citizens are eligible for the presidency, we are safe to declare your discussion on that issue entirely pointless.

No one here has pretended that the 14th Amendment defines natural born citizen either. So that is another of your army of straw man we'll just leave aside for someone else who might care.

The court decision in Minor v. Happersett is notable for little more than its irrelevance in this discussion. Unlike Wong Kim Ark, it has never once been cited by any subsequent court as precedent for the definition for NBC. This is for several reasons, not the least of which it was not a citizenship case, and Virginia Minor's citizenship was never an issue before the court. But more to the point, the dicta for which you are so affectionate never even pretends to offer an exclusive definition of NBC.Subsequent courts have explicitly called bullshit on the claim that Minor defines NBC.

Wong Kim Ark remains the only US Supreme Court cases that has ever been cited as precedent regarding the definition of NBC. Refer again to the previously offered string cite for several examples.

If you are having trouble finding it, here it is again:

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20STRING%20CITE.pdf

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

@chillydogg1 @smrstrauss1@MarthaTrowbridge  

They did not rule that Wong was a natural born citizen because the bottom line in the case was whether he was a citizen or not. But they ruled that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen, and Wong was born on US soil---so he was a Natural Born Citizen.

The Heritage Foundation is right, and you are wrong:

 “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.] 

Black's Law Dictionary is right, and you are wrong:

 “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

Senator Hatch is right, and you are wrong:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).


 

 

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

@MarioApuzzo @HistorianDude@chillydogg1@smrstrauss1@MarthaTrowbridge

Obama has proven that he met the definition to NINE appeals courts (and one made the same ruling with regard to John McCain). More importantly, he proved it to the US Electoral College (which has the final decision on US elections), and he proved it to the US Congress, which confirmed Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY twice.

Birthers and two-fers were not able to convince a single member of the US Electoral College to change her or his vote to vote against Obama in either the 2008 or 2012 elections. Obama won 356 electoral votes in the 2008 general election, and 356 electors voted for him. He received 332 votes in the 2012 general election, and 332 electors voted for him. In short, not one single elector changed her or his vote—that is because not one of them believes the nutty birther claim that Obama was born outside of the USA or the loony birther constitutional theory that two citizen parents are required. And ditto for the US Congress, which confirmed Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY twice, and that included the votes of Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. Ron Paul).

The Heritage Foundation is right, and you are wrong:

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.] 

The Wall Street Journal is right, and you are wrong:

 "Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."---The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

@chillydogg1 @smrstrauss1@MarthaTrowbridge

Re: " Liar. The court NEVER called Wong a natural born citizen. Here's the decision;"

No, it didn't. It did not have to. Remember syllogisms? If ALL men are mortal and George is a man then George must be mortal. So, when the US Supreme Court ruled that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats, and Wong Kim Ark was born in the USA and his parents were not foreign diplomats, hence Wong Kim Ark (like everyone else born in the USA) is a Natural Born Citizen.

And, that is what TEN appeals courts all have ruled that the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case, and not one said that it didn't, and not one said that the Minor v. Happersett decision applies and in fact one of the rulings says specifically that it does NOT apply.

 Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency..."

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”

Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion."

Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”


Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

And, on October 1, 2012 the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that "children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.

chillydogg1
chillydogg1

@HistorianDude @chillydogg1@smrstrauss1@MarthaTrowbridge  

That's all dicta, not precedent. This is the precedent that has been used ever since to make those born in the country citizens, " ...becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.". It's right there in black and white that they DON'T call him "natural born". Show one instance in the opinion were the court writes "Wong Kim Ark is a natural born citizen of the United States of America."

MarioApuzzo
MarioApuzzo

@HistorianDude @chillydogg1 @smrstrauss1 @MarthaTrowbridge  


Making stuff up, are we? 


Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” was eligible to be President.  But for those born after its adoption, only a “natural born Citizen” was so eligible.  So, in simple terms, today being a “citizen of the United States” is not sufficient to be President.  Rather, one must demonstrate that one is a “natural born citizen” if one wants to be a constitutionally legitimate President. 


The Framers used the “natural born citizen” clause to keep foreign and monarchical influence out of the singular and all-powerful civil and military offices of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. 


The Fourteenth Amendment defines who shall be “citizens of the United States” thereunder.  Neither the text nor intent of the Fourteenth Amendment has anything to do with defining a “natural born citizen.”  Both Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) said that the Fourteenth Amendment does not define a “natural born citizen.”  That much has also been confirmed by current judicial authority. 


The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor defined a “natural born citizen” under the common law the nomenclature of which the Framers were familiar as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.  It is only by meeting this definition that a child is born with sole and absolute civil, political, and military allegiance to the United States, which birth condition is designed to keep foreign and monarchical influence out of the office of President and Commander in Chief. 


Wong Kim Ark was about interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment and who was a “citizen of the United States” at birth thereunder.   Wong Kim Ark did not change Minor’s definition of a “natural born citizen.”  On the contrary, it confirmed it. 


Hence, Minor is authority for the definition of a “natural born citizen” and Wong Kim Ark authority for what is a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. 


This means that Obama has to prove that he meets Minor’s common law definition of a “natural born citizen” if he wants to be a constitutionally legitimate President.  Since he cannot make that showing because, regardless of where he was born, while he was born to a U.S. citizen mother, he was not born to a U.S. citizen father, he cannot be a constitutionally legitimate president.  This also means that while Obama is the President today, he is only  a de facto President.  

HistorianDude
HistorianDude

@chillydogg1 @smrstrauss1@MarthaTrowbridge

Actually, Chilly, you are rather severely in error. In order to reach the decision you point to, the court engaged in a comprehensive legal and historical review of Anglo-American citizenship law. In so doing they provided the only Supreme Court  definition of "natural born citizen/subject" that has ever been cited by any subsequent court as precedent regarding. To wit:


"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore 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.

III. 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."

Further, even the most casual reading of Justice Fuller's dissent shows without doubt that Fuller explicitly understood the majority opinion to declare Wong a NBC fully eligible for the presidency. Also the brief by government attorney George Collins show that he shared the same explicit opinion.

So... Justice Fuller got it. Attorney Collins got it. All subsequent courts get it. I get it. The folks who don't get it (to include you and Mario) are the outliers.And as we all know, "There's always 10% who never get the word."

HistorianDude
HistorianDude

@smrstrauss1 @realitycheck1776@DrConspiracy@MarioApuzzo@MarthaTrowbridge

Just to put as fine a point as possible on the inadequacy of Minor v. Happersett for birther purposes, birthers regularly (even in this thread) are quick to point out that the Wong decision never actually declares Wong Kim Ark to be a "natural born citizen." In perfect symmetry, the Minor decision never declares Virginia Minor to be a "natural born citizen" either. In both cases, the plaintiffs are only referred to as citizens.

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

@MarioApuzzo @smrstrauss1@HistorianDude@realitycheck1776@MarthaTrowbridge

Re: " There is nothing in what he said that suggests
that the Constitution adopted the English common law for the national government or to define national citizenship. "

However, what he ruled, and what Tucker and Rawle agreed to, is that the MEANING of Natural Born comes from the common law. He did not say that it came from Vattel---nor did Tucker or Rawle or any of the members of the Constitutional Convention. And as you have admitted, the states were using the common law selectively. That means that when they were NOT using the common law, they said so, and so would have the writers of the US Constitution. But they didn't. Neither the Federalist Papers, nor any of the writings of the members of the Constitutional Convention, and certainly not JOHN JAY--who was an expert in the common law---ever said that they were using Vattel or had chosen not to use the meaning of Natural Born that they were familiar with from  the common law. 

That is why the Heritage Foundation is right, and you are wrong.

 
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

@MarthaTrowbridge @HistorianDude@MarioApuzzo@realitycheck1776@smrstrauss1

Obama has shown both his Hawaii short-form BC (the Certification of Live Birth, COLB, which is the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, used by thousands of people to get their US passports every year), and he has shown his long form Hawaii BC. And the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that they sent them to him, and that all the facts, repeat ALL the facts are exactly the same, repeat, EXACTLY the same, as what they sent to him. And Obama's birth in Hawaii in 1961 is also confirmed by the public Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 by the DOH of Hawaii (and ONLY the DOH of Hawaii could send birth notices to that section of the newspapers, the "Health Bureau Statistics" section, where Obama's birth notice was published, and in 1961 the DOH only did so for births IN Hawaii).

 That is why birthers and two-fers were not able to convince a single member of the US Electoral College to change her or his vote to vote against Obama in either the 2008 or 2012 elections. Obama won 356 electoral votes in the 2008 general election, and 356 electors voted for him. He received 332 votes in the 2012 general election, and 332 electors voted for him. In short, not one single elector changed her or his vote—that is because not one of them believes the nutty birther claim that Obama was born outside of the USA or the loony birther constitutional theory that two citizen parents are required. And ditto for the US Congress, which confirmed Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY twice, and that included the votes of Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. Ron Paul.

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

@realitycheck1776 @DrConspiracy@MarioApuzzo@smrstrauss1@HistorianDude@MarthaTrowbridge

Well said DrConspiracy and realitycheck1776.

I  like to put the Minor v. Happersett decision in terms of an analogy. 

It says that it was never doubted that a person with two citizen parents and birth in the country was a Natural Born Citizen. Well, the analogy is "it was never doubted that if you wore both suspenders and a belt that would hold your pants up." 

As you see, the statement that it was never doubted about pants DOES NOT SAY that it is required to wear suspenders and a belt to hold your pants up. It says that if you wear both FOR SURE your pants will be held up. But it does not say that wearing both is necessary to hold your pants up.

Well, the same thing with the Minor V. Happersett listing of both the citizenship of parents and the US place of birth. It is entirely possible that having one of them will be sufficient to make you a Natural Born Citizen. Listing both does not say that both are necessary. 

In fact Virginia Minor had both, and the justice was nice enough to say so in showing that she was a citizen (which was all that was necessary), but the ruling DOES NOT SAY that she or anyone required both anymore than it is required to wear both suspenders and a belt to hold your pants up.



realitycheck1776
realitycheck1776

@DrConspiracy @MarioApuzzo@smrstrauss1@HistorianDude@realitycheck1776@MarthaTrowbridge 

Mario Apuzzo and the other Birthers resurrected Minor from the dustbin of history in desperation after the "Obama was born in Kenya" meme got nowhere. Apuzzo barely mentioned it in the original complaint in Kerchner v Obama. 

Nothing in Minor actually remains in law today. The Nineteenth Amendment overturned the main ruling of the case and Wong Kim Ark settled any questions on citizenship that Minor might have left open. 

Citing Minor on anything is akin to citing Dred Scott v Sandford, the Birthers other most favorite Supreme Court case.  

HistorianDude
HistorianDude

@MarioApuzzo @smrstrauss1@realitycheck1776@MarthaTrowbridge

LOL... it is a rather egregious level of pathetic when Mario hallucinates that prolix hand-waving on random Internet blogs will somehow make up for the fact that these are settled legal issues, and that he has lost in the only venue where it counts... the court of law. But let's just lovingly consider one of the most profoundly idiotic assertions he makes here, one that leaped out at me practically from across the room.

Mario writes that "
Minor is the supreme law of the land and all lower courts are bind (sic) by it." Oh Mario? Do you really think so? Hmm.

Minor v. Happersett is actually one of only two US Supreme Court Decisions that was considered so despicable in its outcome that it was reversed NOT by a later court reversal of precedent, and NOT by the passage of a statute by Congress... BUT BY AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES! The other case is, of course the notorious Dred Scott decision. 

So when one actually considers the decision of court, no Mario. Minor is NOT the supreme law of the land at all. THE 19TH AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION IS!!!!

Now this does not render the decision completely meaningless, but that hardly matters since it is always was completely irrelevant to any definition of natural born citizen in the first place. Again, no subsequent court has ever cited it as precedent on that issue. 

Ever.

In contrast, the definition offered by the Wong decision has not only been cited multiple times, and not only is it the ONLY Supreme Court decision that has EVER been cited as precedent on the issue by ANY subsequent court decision, it has been cited numerous times to specifically refute Mario's urine soaked parsley and explicitly declare Barack Obama to be a natural born US citizen.

This is the entire bottom line. The Wong definition governs, the Minor definition is not a definition at all, and President Obama's citizenship status has been considered and settled in several US courts of law.

He is a natural born citizen. End of story.

MarioApuzzo
MarioApuzzo

@smrstrauss1 @MarioApuzzo @HistorianDude @realitycheck1776 @MarthaTrowbridge  


II of II 


Minor is the supreme law of the land and all lower courts are bind by it.  Yet, all of the lower court cases that you cite erroneously relied upon Wong Kim Ark and each other to illegally change Minor’s definition of a “natural born citizen.”    Again, a correct reading of Wong Kim Ark shows that the Court, in defining a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, which both Minor and Wong Kim Ark informed does not define a “natural born citizen,” did not change Minor’s definition of a “natural born citizen.”  Rather, what it did was distinguish a “natural born citizen” from a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment and hold that Wong, by being born in the United States, was as much a citizen as a natural born citizen and therefore a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Critically significant, it neither held nor said anywhere in its opinion that he was a “citizen of the United States” at birth by virtue of the same common law which the Framers used to define a “natural born citizen.”  So, Wong could have been as much a citizen as a “natural born citizen,” but he was not a “natural born citizen.” 


Finally, your relying on the U.S. Supreme Court denying a petition for a writ of certiorari as authority for any point is misplaced, for the Court’s denial carries no weight either way.  What you do not have is a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which changed Minor’s definition of a “natural born citizen” which to this day is still a child born in a country to parents who were its citizen at the time of the child’s birth. 


So, smrstrauss1 and HistorianDude, you are going to have to come up with a better argument to prove your position that all born citizens are “natural born citizens.”  

MarioApuzzo
MarioApuzzo

@smrstrauss1 @MarioApuzzo @HistorianDude @realitycheck1776 @MarthaTrowbridge  


I of II 


Just cutting and pasting comments without addressing my arguments gets you nowhere. 


The American Revolution produced free and independent states.  These states, as not to revert to a state of nature, selectively adopted the English common law to stay in effect until abrogated by the states’ legislatures.  This local common law continued to be applied to define citizenship of a state until abrogated by state statute.  This is the “rule” of which Justice Gray speaks and which he says continued in the United States “under the Constitution as originally established.”   There is nothing in what he said that suggests that the Constitution adopted the English common law for the national government or to define national citizenship.  So the “rule” was not something which the Founders, Framers, Ratifiers, and then Congress used to define national citizenship. 


In fact, we know that we did not adopt the English common law jus soli rule for national citizenship and that a state citizen was not necessarily also a “citizen of the United States,” for early Congress in its Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and in need of naturalization.  Under those statutes, such children could become “citizens of the United States” after birth upon their alien parents naturalizing and if dwelling in the United States at the time of such naturalization.  So, Congress rejected any English common law or state rules as controlling who could be “citizens of the United States.” 


Wong Kim Ark did not say that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers used the English common law to define national citizenship or even a “natural born citizen.”  Wong Kim Ark did not say that a “natural born citizen” had the same meaning as an English “natural born subject.”     

We know that Wong Kim Ark was not analyzing a “natural born citizen,” but rather only a “citizen” for it said that under the English common law, no effect was given to descent as a source of nationality.  The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor had already explained that a “natural born citizen” was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.  The Court said: 


“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 bornin a country of parents who were its citizensbecame themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” 

Note that the Constitution to which Minor referred already included the Fourteenth Amendment.  Also note that at common law, if one was not born in the country to citizen parents, one was an alien or foreigner.  Wong Kim Ark cited and quoted Minor and the common law to which it looked for the definition of a “natural born citizen.”  Clearly, that definition contains a requirement of having citizen parents.  That is undeniably descent as a source of nationality.  Wong Kim Ark did not criticize Minor’s definition of that clause.  So, Wong Kim Ark could not have been defining a “natural born citizen,” which as Minor explained had an element of descent as a source of nationality.  Rather, what it defined was a “citizen,” not a “natural born citizen.”   


Hence, looking to how citizenship was defined in the colonies and maybe in the new states under English common law for purposes of interpreting and applying the Fourteenth Amendment which was ratified in 1868 and as an aid to determining the meaning of a “citizen of the United States” thereunder in 1898 has nothing to do with how the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers defined in 1787 national citizenship and especially an Article II “natural born citizen.”


Continued . . . 



HistorianDude
HistorianDude

@MarioApuzzo @realitycheck1776@MarthaTrowbridge@smrstrauss1

We have all learned long ago Mario, that what you are or not personally aware of is hardly a basis for determining what is or is not true. 

As to the settled legal authority, here you go. Pay particular attention to Part I "Birther Cases with Decisions Recognizing that Obama is a “Natural Born Citizen.”

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20STRING%20CITE.pdf

None of these cases are pending or under under appeal. Each and every one of them is "settled legal authority."


As to Supreme Court Decision I have already quoted in this thread the relevant discussion from US v. Wong Kim Ark... the only US Supreme Court Decision that has ever been cited as precedent regarding the definition of natural born citizen.

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

@MarioApuzzo @HistorianDude@realitycheck1776@MarthaTrowbridge@smrstrauss1

 Re: "I am not aware..."


Your lack of knowleged of the law reflects badly on you and does not change the situation. The Wong Kim Ark case ruling defined Natural Born Citizen in these words:


"Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

"By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality."


 And:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore 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.

III. 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.

That clearly defines Natural Born as coming from THE COMMON LAW (not from Vattel), and it says that the meaning relates to the place of birth---not the parents---and it says that EVERY child born in England, or the 13 colonies, or the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION is considered Natural Born."

And it says later that there is no difference between subjects and citizens where this is concerned.

In the past you have claimed that those words do not indicate that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen, or that the ruling is "dicta." But the rulings of ten appeals courts all cite that ruling (hence it is NOT dicta) and all of them say that the US Supreme Court DID RULE ON THAT MATTER, and that the Wong Kim Ark ruling is the ruling that did it.

 Here are some of the appeals court rulings:

Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency..."

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”

Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion."

Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”


Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

And, on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that "children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.




 

MarioApuzzo
MarioApuzzo

@HistorianDude @MarioApuzzo @realitycheck1776 @MarthaTrowbridge @smrstrauss1  


I see that not only are you poor at Sicilian, but you are also a poor dreamer.  And what “settled legal authority” may that be?  I am not aware of any opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing with your silly definition of a “natural born citizen,” i.e., that all born citizens are “natural born citizens.”  

HistorianDude
HistorianDude

@MarioApuzzo @realitycheck1776@MarthaTrowbridge@smrstrauss1

If saving face had been my objective, of course. But since face saving was patently unnecessary, no.

That said, back here in the real world, what you call "hid(ing) behind court cases" is actually called "settled by legal authority
."

I'm sure you've got access to a good legal dictionary. Look it up.

HistorianDude
HistorianDude

@MarioApuzzo @realitycheck1776@MarthaTrowbridge@smrstrauss1

How odd that you would accuse me of not understanding Sicilian and then provide an alternative translation that is essentially identical to my own, demonstration only that your command of the idiom is less than fluent. You know Mario, if you want to split hairs, you must first actually have hairs to split.

At least twelve US courts have declared President Obama to be a natural born US citizen. Zero US courts have agreed with a single one of your tendentious arguments. You personally have lost every effort you have made in court on this issue even to the point of having your arguments declared frivolous by the court. You further appear to have pretty much completely given up ever trying again in court, explaining the pathetic redundancy of your blog.


Obama is still the President, we (the Obots) have still won every single court case, and your arguments are still urine soaked parsely.

MarioApuzzo
MarioApuzzo

@HistorianDude @MarioApuzzo @realitycheck1776 @MarthaTrowbridge @smrstrauss1  


You give us this Sicilian saying:  "C'era beddu lu pitrusinu, c'ii lu 'attu e ci piscio."

You said it means:  "It wasn't such beautiful parsley in the first place, and then the cat went and peed on it."

It looks like your understanding of Sicilian is as good as your understanding of the meaning of a “natural born citizen.” 


The quote translates as follows:  “There was beautiful parsley.  Then there was the cat which peed on it.” 

So, from that saying we can arrive at this truth:  The meaning of a “natural born citizen” was beautiful.  Then there was de facto President, Barack Obama, who . . . . . 

HistorianDude
HistorianDude

@MarioApuzzo @realitycheck1776@MarthaTrowbridge@smrstrauss1  You know, Mario. There's an old Sicilian proverb that perfectly describes your legal theories regarding natural born citizenship and how they have been treated by the US Judicial System. It goes like this:

"
C'era beddu lu pitrusinu, c'ii lu 'attu e ci piscio."

Roughly translated, it means, "It wasn't such beautiful parsley in the first place, and then the cat went and peed on it."

I imagine there is no limit on the number of times that you can rewrite the same failed arguments for your blog, but until such time as you can get a US court to agree with you, they're still just so much urine soaked parsley.

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

@MarthaTrowbridge @smrstrauss1  

I do not post for you. I post the facts on the off-chance that a rational person may visit this site and seek the facts.  I have posted some of the facts above. Rational people will notice that you have not attempted to disprove them.


More facts:



Here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

Here is the statement of the former Hawaii teacher who recalled being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961 and writing home to her father (named Stanley) about hearing that a child was born to a woman named Stanley:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110722055908/http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don%27t%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm

 
Here are the birth notices of Obama's birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961.
 
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

(And as you can see the section of the paper is called "Health Bureau Statistics". Well, as the name indicates, and as both the papers and the DOH confirm, ONLY the DOH could send notices to that section of the paper, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii.)

Here is the Index Data file:

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html


smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

@MarthaTrowbridge @smrstrauss1

Re: "... a website story that has had zero commenting activity for a year and a half"

That's because when you post it sends an e-mail to me---so I respond with the facts.

Re Sheriff Joe, Zullo and the Cold Case Posse:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292780/conspiracy-again-editors

Re Zullo "tracking"---who cares?

 Here is a link to most of the documents that confirm that the officials in Hawaii sent the short form and long form birth certificates to Obama and that all the facts on the published image match what they sent to him:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/

That shows the short-form official birth certificate, the Certification of Live Birth in detail. It also shows several confirmations that you should check including two that say that the facts on the published BC MATCH the facts on the ones sent to him.



DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

@MarthaTrowbridge @smrstrauss1 Apuzzo's web site was 100% moderated (nothing appeared until he approved it) and he shamelessly deleted comments that pointed out that he was wrong.

Don't get me started on Zullo.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Supposing that we stipulate that Vattel said "Natural Born Citizen"---though what he said was an "indignes", and there are French speaking lawyers who say that Natural Born Citizen is not a good translation of that.

That still begs the question that the writers of the Constitution followed Vattel. None of them ever said that they did, and the quotations from Tuker and Rawle show that the Americans at the  time believed (correctly of course) that the term came from the common law.

Proponents of Vattel have to show more than that the writers of the Constitution read Vattel because they read a lot of other things too.

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

@R C Jackman @smrstrauss "and of the state wherein they reside" is an additional state citizenship, and not a qualification of citizenship in the United States. And "legally" is something you made up--not in the Constitution. And all the courts disagree with you, making you a crank, and me right.

AlCum
AlCum

@R C Jackman That is factually erroneous. Anchor babies of course are natural born citizens and eligible to be president. That's just a fact.

AlCum
AlCum

@R C Jackman No need. As proven earlier, Vattel has zero relevance to the issue.

Are you aware that Vattel never used the phrase "natural born citizen?" OOOPS for you!

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

@smrstrauss

Residency plays into the 14th Amendment.It's a point generally overlooked.But it is one way to argue against the citizenship of anchor babies.The Constitution says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens of the United States and OF THE STATE WHEREIN THEY RESIDE."If an anchor baby is not legally in state residence, then the 14th cannot be applied; and hence the anchor baby would not be a citizen.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

The meaning of Natrual Born did not change with the 14th Amendment, only the fact that citizenship was now defined by Federal law. The need for the 14th Amendment was, duh, that some states made exceptions in jus soli, and those exceptions were slaves. The 14th Amendment said that states could not make those exceptions anymore, and that the rule of jus soli applies to everyone.

That takes care of the citizenship portion of Natural Born Citizen. It does not affect the Natural Born portion of that term, and that---as the quotations from Tucker and Rawle show---has always included every child born in the USA .If the writers of the US Constitution had intended to make a change from the common law meaning of Natural Born, they would have told us.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Obama certainly was not born in Kenya. That is truly nutty. And he was never a citizen of Indonesia---as a telephone call to the Embassy of that country will confirm.

He was indeed a dual citizen of the USA and Britain when he was born (as was Woodrow Wilson), but dual citizenship has no effect on Natural Born Citizen status. Nor does the citizenship of the father (or of the mother, or both). ALL children born on US soil (and Obama was born on US soil, in Hawaii) are Natural Born US Citizens.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Re: "Some people are born short, others tall."

Answer: Your own words show how you are wrong: "They are equal before the law."

That is what counts. The US-born children of immigrants and the children of US citizen are legally equal. The US-born children of immigrants and the children of three generations of Americans are precisely the same Natural Born Citizens. And if the writers of the US Constitution had meant that the US-born children of immigrants were lower in the law than the US-born children of US citizens or that they were not Natural Born Citizens, they would have told us. Instead the AMERICAN (not Swiss) writers of the time already knew that the US-born children of foreigners and the US-born children of US citizens were all Natural Born Citizens---as the Tucker quotation makes clear.  

AlCum
AlCum

@R C Jackman You're lying again, as the Minor decision says no such thing. There is zero support for any of your ludicrous claims that citizen parents are required to be a natural born citizen. None.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

@smrstrauss

We use 'jus soli' for ordinary citizenship as defined by the 14th Amendment.If 'jus soli' citizenship were natural born citizenship, then there would have been no need for the 14th Amendment.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

@smrstrauss

Obama was born an ordinary citizen (perhaps of Kenya, maybe England, maybe U.S. via Hawaii).He was registered as a citizen of Indonesia when he went to school there.In any event he was not a natural born citizen of the United States by virtue of his father not being a citizen of the United States.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

@smrstrauss

Some people are born short, others tall.They are equal before the law, but they're not equally qualified to play professional basketball.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

@smrstrauss

In 1875, the Supreme Court considered the Minor v. Happersett case.Mrs. Minor was noted to have been born in the U.S. to parents who were citizens.The court stated in accord with “nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar” [e.g. Vattel] that such persons were “natural born citizens”.Then since Mrs. Minor was a natural born citizen, she was also a citizen (an issue of the case).Whereupon it is declared a legal precedent that a sufficient condition for being a natural born citizen is to be born in the U.S. to citizen parents.

AlCum
AlCum

@R C Jackman You are incorrect. The Framers of course did NOT use Vattel for the definition of natural born citizen. They simply did no such thing. They used the definition that always had been in use. Vattel in fact never used the term "natural born citizen" anyway so you are lying about something that cannot possibly be true in the first place.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Yes, I'm saying "that a child born in the USA to two Italian parents is likely to be less loyal to the USA than a child born in the USA of parents who were three generations American".

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...."

All men, the children of three generations of Americans and the children of Italian immigrants, are created equal.

And the writers of the US Constitution used a lot of terms from the common law, including Habeas Corpus and ex post facto, and if they had intended to switch from the common law to Vattel in the meaning of Natural  Born, they would have told us---and they didn't.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

@smrstrauss

Your 'common law' is the old English law prior to our Declaration of Independence.Our Founders wrote a new document, our Constitution, wherein the term 'natural born citizen' was taken from Vattel's book which was a model used by our Framers.

Yes, I'm saying "that a child born in the USA to two Italian parents is likely to be less loyal to the USA than a child born in the USA of parents who were three generations American".I have nothing against Italians or any other foreign parents, but a child nurtured in an American home is more likely to respect American traditions and values.Our founder specified a 'natural born citizen' in order to be more certain of the loyalty of one to be appointed President of the United States.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Re: "the court did not rule the children to be natural-born citizens.That information is simply what was presented to the court."

Not in that case. However, the court SUMMARIZED the facts, and the court's summary was that the children were Natural Born Citizens.

In the TEN appeals courts rulings about Obama (nine cases) and McCain (one case), the courts did rule, and in every single case they ruled that every child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is a Natural Born US Citizen.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

If all men are created equal, then there is no legal difference, and can be no legal difference, between a child born in the USA of foreign parents and a child born in the USA of US parents.

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

@smrstrauss Mr. Jackman is putting forward the argument that only the children of persons who have established residence in the United States are born its citizens. He clouds the issue by saying that residence is hard to determine because the rules vary state to state.

In US v. Wong, there is mention of the concept of "domicile" and that word is tied to the concept of "intention to remain." Certainly Wong Kim Ark's parents were long-standing residents of the United States. However, while the court talks about it, domicile was not a necessary part of the chain or reasoning that made Wong a citizen at birth by the 14th Amendment. One might argue that Barack Obama Sr. was not "domiciled" in the United States, but that doesn't matter. His son was born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, and so was born a citizen.


Mr. Jackman has some obvious anti-immigrant attitudes, but they are not supported by the law.


smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Re: "The right of residency is a state function."

What does that have to do with anything?

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Re: The allegation that the Wong Kim Ark case, which was decided Six justices to Two justices (one justice did not vote) made an error.

You have a right to that opinion, but it is not the law. As noted, the ten appeals courts have all cited the Wong Kim Ark case as the law, and the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those ten cases, leaving its ruling standing. That is the law unless and until you can get the US Supreme Court to take a case and reverse the Wong Kim Ark ruling (which is extremely unlikely) or until you can get the US to pass a Constitutional amendment revising the US Supreme Court's ruling (which is even more unlikely).

Don't like the situation? Too bad for you.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Re: "Thus, the child of foreigners is a naturalized citizen, not a 'jus sanguine' (by the blood) child."

Answer: We use Jus Soli, the law of the soil, and it applies to every child (except the children of foreign diplomats). Every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen, as the numerous cases I have shown you all have ruled. (And if you'd like to be hit by some truly nasty language, why not tell justices Scalia and Alito that you think that the US-born children of foreigners are not just as good for Natural Born Citizen purposes as the US-born children of US citizens.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

What are you trying to say????

A person can lose or give up the citizenship part of a Natural Born Citizen---by, for example, renouncing citizenship. But how does this appply to anything at all? (If you have the nutty idea that Obama renounced or "lost" his US citizenship---he did not . He was never, BTW, a citizen of Indonesia.)

AlCum
AlCum

@R C Jackman It is a legal impossibility for Obama to have lost his natural born citizenship. Please do actual research before embarrassing yourself with such lies.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

@smrstrauss

In Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese U.S. resident family gave birth to a child, and it was critically to be determined whether that child should be considered as a U.S. citizen.The court correctly decided he was a citizen.But in the process, the court made one error and a faux pas.By stare decisis (aka. scary decease-ed) these indiscretions led to a fatal errors in subsequent cases.

The Wong Kim Ark error was that it gave primary credence to “English common law” rather than the “Law of Nations common law”.Regarding citizenship, the difference is that the English law bases citizenship on place of birth (jus soli, of the soil), whereas the Law of Nations law bases citizenship on family (jus sanguinis, of the blood).We have a mix: jus soli with regard to 14th Amendment birth naturalizations; but jus sanguinis with regard to natural born citizenship.This did not go unnoticed by the dissenters.“The dissenters argued that the history of U.S. citizenship law had broken with English common law tradition after independence—citing as an example the embracing in the U.S. of the right of expatriation (giving up of one’s native citizenship) and the rejection of the contrary British doctrine of perpetual allegiance.”(Wikipedia)In the War of 1812, America seamen were issued Semen’s Protection Certificates in order to try to protect them from British impressment because of suggested birth on British soil.This error did not affect the Wong outcome, but it was a wrong think that would carry forward.

The Wong Kim Ark faux pas was a good and technically correct statement in majority summary, but one which was stupidly misinterpreted by a later court: “Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, … if he hath issue here, that issue is a ‘natural-born subject’; and his child … If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.”(Note: The British “natural-born subject” is not the same as our “natural born citizen”.)The later court equated the ordinary citizen, a child born in the country, to a “natural born citizen”.But the summary states only that the quality of the child’s citizenship is every bit as good as that of the “natural born citizen”.It does not say that the child is a “natural born citizen”.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

@smrstrauss

Congress was given the constitutional power "to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization".It was under that authority that the 14th was established.Thus, the child of foreigners is a naturalized citizen, not a 'jus sanguine' (by the blood) child.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

@smrstrauss

Once one loses his 'natural born citizenship', he cannot regain it by being born again.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

@DrConspiracy

@R C Jackman

 @smrstrauss1

 @chillydogg1

 @smrstrauss

14th - "... are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

The right of residency is a state function. Suppose a person moves to a new state, he then faces residency requirements for all sorts of things: getting a car license, applying for public sector employment, welfare, voting, purchasing guns, in-state tuition, etc. Residency requirements are set by local authorities including the state government.A state may deny residency status to whomever it wants to.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

@smrstrauss

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice:

"The relevant facts WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED BEFORE the INS, BIA, and THIS COURT can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States."

According to the above statement (which is all I have found thus far), the court did not rule the children to be natural-born citizens.That information is simply what was presented to the court.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Answer: IF the writers of the Constitution intended to change the Natural Born requirements for citizens and make them different from subjects, they would have told us about the change---and they didn't.

AlCum
AlCum

 @R C Jackman  That is incorrect. There is no such requirement to be "second generation American." There is no such rule nor any hint at any such rule. Your claim is a fabrication.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

 @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss

 For NBC, parents have to be citizens.  NBS is a term for Subjects of England.  We are a government with "citizens", not "subjects".

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Re: " One might imagine they were rather biased in their opinion."

 

And you apparently are not biased at all.

 

The Wall Street Journal and Senators Hatch and Graham and former senator Fred Thompson and Black's Law Dictionary and ten appeals courts and the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case are not biased and are correct. And YOU are biased, and wrong.

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

 @R C Jackman  @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss By the British Nationality Act of 1948, President Obama was born a Citizen of the UK and Colonies. When Kenya gained its independence in 64, Obama was no longer CUKC, but became a "Commonwealth Citizen" as well as a citizen of Kenya. Those citizenships ended when he reached age 23. I don't know anything about any records. That's just what the British statutes and the Constitution of Kenya say.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

A child born on US soil to two foreign parents is a first generation US citizen. She or he is a citizen at birth, a Natural Born Citizen, not a naturalized citizen.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

You are right, he would have been--and in fact was--a dual citizen of Britian and the USA. And that has absolutely no effect on his natural Born Citizen status whatever. (And, in fact, we have already had several presidents who were dual citizens before Obama. Woodrow Wilson and Dwight Eisenhower for two.) More importantly, there is no mention of dual citizenship affecting Natural Born status in the common law, so it doesn't.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Re: "Indeed, the president is required to be a second generation American."

 

Where did you get that nutty idea from? Since Natural Born comes from the common law and includes EVERY child born on US soil, there is no requirement that even one of the parents be US citizens. Not even one.

 

Re: "But home life and parentage certainly cannot be dismissed. "

 

Are you saying that a child born in the USA to two Italian parents is likely to be less loyal to the USA than a child born in the USA of parents who were three generations American? (If so, tell that stupid idea to Justices Scalia and Alioto.)

 

Re: "It is ridiculous to even speculate that home life and parentage were not considered by our Founders."

 

Answer: According to Strict Construction legal interpretation, if the law or the Constitution does not refer to "home life and parentage" you are not allowed to put it in because of your interpretation, and in this case the Constitution does not mention it, and neither does any of the writings of the men who were at the Constituitonal Convention. Not any. Not one of them ever wrote that two citizen parents are required or that the child born on US soil to two Italians, or Irish or Mexicans was any less of a Natural Born Citizen than a child born on US soil to two American citizens.

 

NOT ONE!

 

 

 

 

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

 @R C Jackman  @smrstrauss1  @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss Any person born in the United States is legally residing here from their birth. This doesn't rely on the status of their parents. That's what the 14th Amendment says. The word "become" that you used is not in the 14th Amendment.

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

 @R C Jackman  @smrstrauss This not a shred of historical record to support your opinions of how the Framers though. You seem to forget that in addition to the constitutional eligibility requirements, President also have to be elected.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

But you are wrong. Some examples:

 

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

 

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.

 

”Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

 

Those children, including the child of the illegal immigrant, are all Natural Born Citizens and will be elegible to become president on their 35th birthday. You have the right not to vote for them, of course, but they are eliglble.

 

 

 

 

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

 @smrstrauss1  @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss

 

Now the way I read the 14th Amendment, anchor babies are not entitled to even ordinary citizenship.  The 14th says they would become citizens "of the United States and of the State wherein they reside".  If they do not legally reside, then they would not qualify.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

 @DrConspiracy  @smrstrauss

 

Foreign Influence:  Certainly place of birth and tenure as a citizen are considerations when thinking of 'foreign influence'.  But home life and parentage certainly cannot be dismissed.  Indeed, they are probably the most important and obvious considerations.  It is ridiculous to even speculate that home life and parentage were not considered by our Founders.  Indeed, the president is required to be a second generation American.

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

 @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss Under English statutes existing in 1776, persons born outside the British Empire to English parents were also natural born subjects. The English Common Law made persons born in the realm natural born subjects, and subsequent statutes conferred that status to persons born outside the realm.

 

This distinction is why there's no question that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, but why there is a legitimate debate about someone born overseas to US parents (like John McCain, George Romney, FDR Jr., and Ted Cruz).

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

 @R C Jackman  @smrstrauss It is clear from the debates over foreign influence (largely in the context of qualifications for Congress) that the Framers measured foreign influence by place of birth and tenure as a citizen, not by parentage. While many proposals appeared for the qualifications for federal office, some accepted, some rejected, the subject of parentage appeared in none of them.

 

It is abundantly clear from the Framers own words that parentage was not a consideration. Madison himself, speaking before Congress, said:

 

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to examine any other."

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

 @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss 

 

Re: "so you're saying nbC means citizen at birth under any circumstances?"

 

Answer: No I'm not, but some others do hold that. I say that a US citizen born on foreign soil is not FOR SURE a NBC (though she or he may be). But what is for sure is that every child born on US soil---Yes, including "Anchor babie"---but excluding the childrn of foreign diplomats, is a NBC.

 

 

 

 

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

 @R C Jackman  @smrstrauss 

 

Indeed, natural born citizens are not naturalized citizens. That is why they used the term Natural Born Citizens because they wanted to exclude naturalized citizens---but that is the only kind of a US citizen that they excluded.

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

 @smrstrauss 

 

The "Well said" was in response to DrConspiracy's:

 

" Despite Franklin's hyperbole, the records of the Convention contradict. Vattel was important where other sources were lacking. The English Common Law was what the Framers practiced for a living and sufficed for this question."

 

And, as I noted, the quotations from Tucker and Rawle indicate that these legal scholars, who knew the writers of the US Constitution, were certain that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen came from the Common Law, and not from Vattel.

chillydogg1
chillydogg1

 @smrstrauss Wait a minute you said earlier that nbC meant the same as nbS which requires birth in the country. Now you say it means citizen at birth. Which one is it?

chillydogg1
chillydogg1

 @smrstrauss So you're saying nbC means citizen at birth under any circumstances? You don't have to be born in the country. That means nbC is not the same as common law nbS.

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

 @R C Jackman  @smrstrauss Of course naturalized citizens existed before the 14th Amendment. The Constitution gave Congress the power to enact a uniform system of naturalization, and they did so in the Naturalization Act of 1790.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

 @smrstrauss

 

That Wall Street Journal reference was published July 31, 2009.  One might imagine they were rather biased in their opinion.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

 @smrstrauss

 

Natural born citizens are not naturalized citizens.  Naturalized U.S. citizens did not exist until the 14th Amendment (1868).

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Rawle and Tucker and Meese and Senator Hatch and Senator Graham and the Wall Street Journal, which said:

 

"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."---The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)

 

Are right, and you are wrong.

 

More reading on the subject:

 

http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitutionhttp://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

 

 

 

 

 

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Re: "The clause would not be "a happy means of security" if it provided nothing more than just ordinary citizen status."

 

But it does not provide ordinary citizen status. Who told you that it did? Ordinary citizens include naturalized citizens. Natural Born Citizens EXCLUDE naturalized citizens.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

 @smrstrauss

 

Tucker wrote "that the natural born citizen clause is "a happy means of security against foreign influence.'"  The clause would not be "a happy means of security" if it provided nothing more than just ordinary citizen status.

 

Rawle said children born in the U.S. of citizen parents became at the moment of birth citizens of the U.S., which is true.  Unfortunately he went on to refer to such children as "natural born citizens".  Had he been right, there would have been no need for the 14th Amendment to make children born in the U.S. to be ordinary citizens.  Rawle was also corrected by James Wilson regarding children of temporary visitors. 

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

@smrstraussHistorian George Bancroft in his History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States (1884) (Volume 1 Page 346) wrote of the deliberations of the Federal Convention:

"One question on the qualifications of the president was among the last to be decided. On the twenty-second of August the committee of detail, fixing the requisite age of the president at thirty-five, on their on motion and for the first time required that the president should be a citizen of the United States, and should have been an inhabitant of them for twenty-one years. The idea then arose that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for the office of president; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, the committee of states were charged with all unfinished business proposed, on the fourth of September, that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the the of the adoption of this constitution, should be eligible to the office of president," and for the foreign-born proposed a reduction of the requisite years of residence to fourteen. On the seventh of September, the modification, with the restriction as to the age of the president, was unanimously adopted."


smrstrauss
smrstrauss

IF the members of the Constitutional Convention had meant to switch the meaning of Natural Born from the place of birth that everyone was familiar with from the common law to parents (two or even one), they WOULD HAVE TOLD US--and they didn't.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

@DrConspiracy

@R C Jackman

 @smrstrauss

Our Vattel-inspired 'natural born citizen' could aspire to the presidency, but Blackstone's 'natural born subject' could not aspire to be king.'Citizen' and 'subject' are not the same thing.And as I have noted previously, George Mason, while advocating the adoption of our constitution, explicitly said "The common law of England is not the common law of these States."

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

@R C Jackman@smrstrauss The Supreme Court said inSmith v. Alabama (1888) 124 U.S. 465: "There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."

 Chief Justice Taft, writing for the majority in the Supreme Court's decision in Ex Parte Grossman:

"The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood."

 

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

@smrstrauss

George Mason, one of Virginia's delegates to the Constitutional Convention, in "The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution" said "The common law of England is not the common law of these States." [in link, go to Thursday June 19]

http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va.htm

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Re: "The Framers were using the French version of Vattel's Law of Nations as supplied by Benjamin Franklin."

Answer: Baloney. If they had translated Vattel's word "indigines" as "Natural Born Citizen" and use that instead of the common law that every lawyer was familiar with, they would have told us.

AlCum
AlCum

@R C Jackman You are of course wrong and the proof of that is in the very quote you cite from Wong. The court did NOT say that Wong's citizenship is every bit as good as that of the "natural born citizen" but, as you cite in the quote you provided, "is as much a citizen as the NATURAL BORN CHILD of a citizen."

That is not the same thing. Please learn to read.

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

Vattel on Taxes:

§ 240. Taxes. If the income of the public property, or of the domain, is not sufficient for the public wants, the state supplies the deficiency by taxes. These ought to be regulated in such a manner, that all the citizens may pay their quota in proportion to their abilities, and the advantages they reap from the society.

No budget cuts, just more taxes. And no special considerations for billionaires. Vattel is growing on me.

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

My favorite from Vattel's Law of nations:

§ 122. Right of carrying off women. … A nation cannot preserve and perpetuate itself, except by propagation. A nation of men has, therefore, a right to procure women, who are absolutely necessary to its preservation; and if its neighbours, who have a redundancy of females, refuse to give some of them in marriage to those men, the latter may justly have recourse to force.

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

How about this one, from Vattel's Law of Nations:

§ 176. Means of putting a stop to this disorder.

…Since it is an established custom that the nobility and military men should appear armed, even in time of peace, care should be taken to enforce a rigid observance of the laws which allow the privilege of wearing swords to these two orders of men only.

Vattel's gonna take away your guns!

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

@R C Jackman@smrstraussYeah, those Framers were all over Vattel's Law of Nations including:

§ 129. Public establishment of religion. But we should take care not to extend this liberty beyond its just bounds. In religious affairs a citizen has only a right to be free from compulsion, but can by no means claim that of openly doing what he pleases, without regard to the consequences it may produce on society. The establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political authority.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

@smrstrauss

§ 212. Of the citizens and [naturals (original 1758 French), incorrectly translated 1759 to 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 [naturals ou indigines], are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.['naturals are 'natural born citizens; 'indigines' are natives or originals]

The Framers were using the French version of Vattel's Law of Nations as supplied by Benjamin Franklin.

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

@R C Jackman @smrstrauss "the Law of Nations" means "international laws". It's a common term. To suggest that Constitution gave Congress the power to punish offenses against Vattel's 3-voluime book is so patently absurd that it boggles the mind that anyone would assert such a thing. But why in your twisted literalism don't you read it "punish 'Offenses against the Law of Nations'" the latter a chapter in Blackstone's commentaries, a much more influential book for the founders than Vattel.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Re: "The Constitution was meant to be understood by the common ma."

Answer: Yes, and so if they had meant the book The Law of Nations and not the generic idea of a las of nations, they would have said: "The book The Law of Nations" or they would have said: "Vattel's book"---but they did not, and neither did the Federalist Papers, which mentioned the common law about twenty times and did not mention Vattel at all.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Re: "Are you saying that Blackstone also recognized the "Law of Nations"?"

Answer:

This is what Blackstone said:

"The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien." http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/

(And the minor exceptions referred to in "generally speaking" refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

@smrstrauss

If "the Law of Nations" wasn't "The Law of Nations", I wonder what "the Law of Nations" was.The Framers used the common language; they didn't define everything as lawyers might do or as the Congress does today with its thousand page bills.The Constitution was meant to be understood by the common man.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

@DrConspiracy

@R C Jackman

In Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese U.S. resident family gave birth to a child, and it was critically to be determined whether that child should be considered as a U.S. citizen.The court correctly decided he was a citizen.I have previously replied about this case with 'smrstrauss', you might look for that posting.There were two points of particular interest: (1) The court confused 'natural born subject' with 'natural born citizen'.That point was emphasized in Minority.The dissenters argued that the history of U.S. citizenship law had broken with English common law tradition after independence.(2) The Court also said that a child, a 'natural-born subject', is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.So clearly the subject is not the same as the citizen.Only the quality of the child’s citizenship is every bit as good as that of the “natural born citizen”.It does not say that the child is a “natural born citizen”.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Naturalization applies to foreigners, people born outside of the USA. People born inside the USA are not considered foreigners, and do not have to be naturalized, and they are not naturalized citizens----they are Natural Born Citizens.

 

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Re: "As used by the Founders, a Natural Born Citizen is a child of two citizen parents,"

 

There is not a single example of any of them ever saying this. Not one.

 

Re: " A child born to illegal aliens is not a citizen - so say I, by virtue of the residency requirement of the 14th."

 

Answer: But you are incorrect.

 

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

 

“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

 

Re: 'The child born to two transients is an ordinary citizen, a naturalized citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment. "

 

Again, you are incorrect.

 

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):“

 

Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

 

Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: "Those born "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…"

 

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: "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."

 

Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: "It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens."

 

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

 @smrstrauss1  @DrConspiracy

 

Individual states are as much sovereign as the constitutional United States.  They each had and still has its own natural and naturalized citizens.  The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship" (Wikipedia).  Thus if the rules were followed (and they were), the naturalized state citizen would also be a national citizen.  Naturalization was then defined by uniform federal requirement and no longer by assorted state requirements.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

 @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss

 

As used by the Founders, a Natural Born Citizen is a child of two citizen parents.  A Natural Born Citizen of country XYZ is a child of two citizen parents of country XYZ.   There are conditions; more specifically "a natural born citizen of the United States is a child born of two citizen parents.  It matters not where the child was born.  In order to confirm NBC status, a father must also have been a prior resident of the U.S.    In order to retain NBC status, a natural born citizen must retain an exclusive U.S. citizenship."  The argument for these conditions is beyond the scope of what I wish to deal with in our current discussion.  The child born to two transients is an ordinary citizen, a naturalized citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment.  A child born to illegal aliens is not a citizen - so say I, by virtue of the residency requirement of the 14th.

 

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

If they used Vattel's definition they would have had to have translated his French word "indignes" themselves, and translated it as Natural Born Citizen, since that phrase did not appear in any English-language copy of Vattel until ten years after the Constitution. And, if they had translated "indignes" as Natural Born Citizen and used it instead of the commonly used common law THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US---and they didn't.

 

John Jay, who used the term in his letter, was a lawyer and a justice, and if he were using the term as it was used by Vattel and not as it was used in the common law, he would have told Washington in that letter.

 

Vattel was not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers while the common law was referred to about twenty times. And the examples of Tucker and Rawle show how the Americas at the time actually used the term---and both of them used it the way that it was used in the common law. And there is NO example by any of the men who were at the Constitutional Convention or any other American leader at the time using Natural Born or Natural Born Citizen to refer to parents.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Re: " Offenses against the "Law of Nations".

 

And you, credulous soul, think that refers to Vattel's book. Well, Vattel's book was called THE Law of Nations--the The has to be capitalized. And, notice how the Constitution capitalizes words:

 

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution,,,"

 

Posterity is not capitalized because it is a book, nor is Welfare, nor is "Blessings of Liberty" a book.

 

Oh, and Vattel recommended that every country should have a state religion, and we did not adopt that, and so there is no evidence that "Law of Nations" refers to Vattel. And, if it had referred to Vattel, they would have TOLD us---and they didn't.

 

 

 

 

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

 @R C Jackman  @smrstrauss Surely you aren't serious. There are many books called the Law of Nations. Besides, there is "Offenses Against the Law of Nations" by Blackstone.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Yes, some of them did read Vattel---but they read a lot of other books too. In particular, they read BLACKSTONE, and he said that the meaning of Natural Born refers to the place of birth.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

 @DrConspiracy

 

Mr. Jay did say he wanted the presidency to be so restricted when he said it should be restricted to "natural born citizens".  That was the term of the day. 

 

In 1896, there was a very understandable explanation published by “The People’s Lawyer” in the Boston Daily Globe:  “A natural born citizen would be one who by nature, that is by inheritance, so to speak, was a citizen as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen.”

 

The fact that our first separate "states" were dominated by English law prior to our War of Independence against England and were bullied prior to the war of 1812 which denied the English definition of citizenship, that fact did not command our nation's Founders to use England's definition of "citizenship".  They used Vattel's definition.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

 @smrstrauss

 

Vattel's "Law of Nations" was so much the new 'common law' that it is even mentioned in our Constitution itself.  "The Congress shall have Power to "define and punish ... Offenses against the "Law of Nations".

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

 @smrstrauss

 

The reference was simply to establish that the Founders were acquainted with and respected Vattel's work.  There were many words and phrases, in addition to Natural Born Citizen, which were not defined by the Founders.  Basic vocabulary is generally not defined except in dictionaries.

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

 @R C Jackman Mr. Jackman said: "In 1787 the child of a foreigner was a foreigner.  Jay deemed it wise that the presidency should be restricted to a children of a citizens."

 

If Mr. Jay wanted the presidency to be restricted to the children of citizens, when why did he not say so? The Historian George Bancroft writing in the 19th century in his history of the United States said, referring to the time under the Articles of Confederation, "Every one who first saw the light on American soil was a natural-born American citizen."

 

Each of the 13 original states included the English Common Law into their state laws either by Constitution, Statute or judicial fiat. By those laws, persons born in the State were its citizens without regard to the status of their parents. Take Virginia, for example. In a law drafted by Jefferson in 1783: "That all free persons, born within the territory of this commonwealth; all persons not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under the act intitled "An act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth;" and also all children wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth." That is "citizens" not "foreigners."

 

You are entitled to your own notions as to what a "foreigner" is, but you are not entitled to misrepresent the views of the Framers of the Constitution.

 

 

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Re: "Specific references to Vattel's "The Law of Nations" have been associated with John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, John Marshall, George Washington, and James Wilson..."

 

All of them used Vattel as an expert on INTERNATIONAL law, and not one of them ever said that he was using Vattel's definition of Natural Born Citizen, and not one of them ever said that two citizen parents are required.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

There is absolutely no evidence that John Jay---a lawyer and justice who would become the first US Chief Justice---was using the term Natural Born in any way differently than in the common law. In fact, since he did not know that Washington had read Vattel (and perhaps he had not, the Vattel book Washington took out was from a New York Library, meaning it was when Washington was president, not before the Constitution was written)"--all that Jay could assume is that Washington would know that he, a lawyer, was using the legal term from the common law. If Jay had said "the meaning from Vattel" or "two citizen parents"---that would be different, but a lawyer and expert on the common law using Natural Born is highly unlikely to be using Natural Born in any other way than in the common law.

 

 

smrstrauss1
smrstrauss1

 @R C Jackman  @DrConspiracy 

 

Re: "In 1787 the child of a foreigner was a foreigner.  Jay deemed it wise that the presidency should be restricted to a children of a citizens."

 

Answer: That is not true. At the time, and until the 14th Amendment, the STATES had the right to decide who were citizens of those states at birth, and every citizen of a state was also a citizen of the USA. And by far most states considered that jus soli applied and that EVERY child born in the state was a citizen at birth, including the children of foreign citizens.

 

That was the law as Blackstone described the common law, and if the states had citizenship laws different from the common law, they surely would have told us---and they didn't.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

 @DrConspiracy

 

Jay was concerned with future presidents.  At the time of the writing of the Constitution all natural-born-citizens were less than eight years old.  So there had to be a grandfather clause.

 

In 1787 the child of a foreigner was a foreigner.  Jay deemed it wise that the presidency should be restricted to a children of a citizens.

 

 

In the case of Lynch v. Clarke, it is true that the terms "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject" are used interchangeably.  But the consider the following quote:

"It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States.  And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States, and, indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus. By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents."

Herein it is clear that the court rendered its decision based upon a rule formulated even before the discovery of America.  Thus clearly, that decision was not based on our Constitution.  Hence, it was unconstitutional.

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf

chillydogg1
chillydogg1

 @smrstrauss So according to you the definition of nbC is not universal but varies by country and also a child born outside the US to two citizen parents is not eligible but a child born in the US to two transient or illegal aliens is eligible.

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

 @R C Jackman You are mistaken. The reference to Vattel was in the opinion of a single justice in Dred Scott, not the majority. Even if it were in the majority opinion, pretty much everybody considers Dred Scott to be one of the Court's greatest blunders, a racist decision, and one that misstates history.

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

 @R C Jackman George Washington's father was born and died an Englishman (before the Revolution). Are you saying that Jay questioned the loyalty of Washington and thought him unfit to be President? (Remember, there's no "grandfather clause" mentioned in Jay's letter.)

 

Jay was trained in the English Common Law and he would have understood the term "natural born" as a term of art. Under English Common Law anyone born in the country (except children of ambassadors and invading armies) were natural born subjects. What Jay said was "not a foreigner." No one in 1787 or today considers someone born the the US a "foreigner."

 

In several states, including Jay's New York, legislation before and after the Constitution uses the terms "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject" interchangeably. And 30-something years later the Chancery Court of New York decided the case of Lynch v. Clarke, in which the court explicitly said that the children of aliens could be President.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

 @DrConspiracy

 

Specific references to Vattel's "The Law of Nations" have been associated with John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, John Marshall, George Washington, and James Wilson, and in general with the delegates to the Continental Congress, with the Philadelphia Library, and with the Harvard University. 

 

Vattel provides a definition for “natural born citizens”: 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”.  Thus, according to Vattel, a “natural born citizen” would be a child born in the United States of two citizen parents, or a child born anywhere of a natural born father (assuming the father has not forsaken his citizenship).

 

In 1857, the Supreme Court considered the Dred Scott v. Standford case.  Included within the final majority opinion, Vattel’s work was cited, indeed the same definition of natural born citizen as quoted above. 

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

 @DrConspiracy

 

The term "natural born citizen" came to the Convention via John Jay.

On 1787 July 25, John Jay (who would become the first Chief Justice of the first Supreme Court) wrote to George Washington (then President of the Constitutional Convention), “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government, and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born citizen.”  Thus, the purpose of the ‘natural born citizen’ clause was to limit the presidency to persons with an established loyalty.

realitycheck1776
realitycheck1776

 @chillydogg1  @DrConspiracy  @smrstrauss It is simplistic and incorrect to say Einstein didn't believe in quantum mechanics. He could not deny that quantum mechanics provided correct explanations for many phenomena that could not be explained in classical physics. He was just uncomfortable  with the underlying statistical reality the QM implied and believed that a deeper underlying reality to the psi wave function would eventually be found that would do away with uncertainty.

 

Ironically, Einstein won his Nobel prize for his paper on the photoelectric effect which was very important in the discovery that light existed in quanta and played a large pert in the development of quantum mechanics.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

I find it is more effective to simply point out that the members of the Constitutional Covention read other books besides Vattel. Of course, one of the books that most of them read, since they were lawyers, is Blackstone, and his definition of Natural Born refers to the place of birth.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Sure, they read Vattel. But, duh, they read a lot of other books too.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

First Tucker and Rawle are examples of people at the time of the writing of the Constitution using the term Natural Born Citizen. They are examples of how the term was used. There are NO examples of it being used at the time, none whatever, that referred to parents. Repeat NONE. So, we have two examples of the use of Natural Born Citizen the way that it was used in the common law, and NO examples of it being used to refer to parents.

 

Re:"Alcum states "Natural born citizen means what it ALWAYS has meant,...

 

He is right, what it always meant IN AMERICA. As you point out, in France or Switizerland, where they considered that citizenship came from jus sanguinus, a natural born citizen was one born of ONE citizen paren---and in some cases maybe two, but usually one.

 

There is, duh ,evidence that the writers of the US Constitution---who were mainly lawyers and jurists--used the term Natural Born Citizen just the way that they had used Natural Born Subject. If they had intended to change the meaning of Natural Born when we switched from being subjects to citizens, they would have told us, and they didn't, and the examples of Rawle and Tucker and the lack of any example of any writer of the Constitution referring to parents in the meaning of NBC confirms that.

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

 @R C Jackman Despite Franklin's hyperbole, the records of the Convention contradict. Vattel was important where other sources were lacking. The English Common Law was what the Framers practiced for a living and sufficed for this question.

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

 @chillydogg1  @smrstrauss Rawle was a friend of Franklin and Washington. He was Washington's attorney general for Pennsylvania and a founder of the Pennsylvania Historical Society. His book, A View of the Constitution, was a textbook at West Point. I think is is a lot more authoritative than you or I.

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

 @chillydogg1  @AlCum  @R C Jackman And how do I know that "there are 170+ countries, including England, that do not give citizenship to children born on their soil to non resident aliens?"

 

Before 1983, birth in Britain was in and of itself was sufficient to confer British Nationality regardless of the status of the parents. Now it's complicated. Even today a child who remains in Britain for 10 years born to non-residents in Britain is considered a British national.

R C Jackman
R C Jackman

 @chillydogg1  @AlCum

 

The requirement that a U.S. natural-born-citizen must be born in the United States is highly debated.  There is evidence of residency not being required; for example, the Naturalization act of 1790  included a provision that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens”.  That being said, I think we cannot deny natural-born-citizenship on the basis of residency, unless a strong case is presented for such a denial.

chillydogg1
chillydogg1

 @smrstrauss So you're saying the definition of nbC is not universal and varies by country? It that case your assertion that nbC had to mean the same in America as nbS meant in England falls by the wayside. Alcum states "Natural born citizen means what it ALWAYS has meant,..." Are you right or is he? Also Tucker and Rawle are expressing their personal opinions and are no more authoritative than you or I.

smrstrauss
smrstrauss

Re: "And how do you support that definition when there are 170+ countries, including England, that do not give citizenship to children born on their soil to non resident aliens?"

 

Answer: Under the excellent CONSERVATIVE principle that the USA is EXCEPTIONAL and does not have to follow the lead of 170+ other countries.

 

And, since the US Constitution is not a living document, hence the meaning of terms refers to the meaning at the time that the Constitution was written. And the historical evidence (not to mention the court rulings) shows that the way that the Americans (not Swiss) at the time used the term Natural Born Citizen was the way that it was used in the common law.

 

Here are some examples of how the  term Natural Born Citizen was used in America (not Switzerland) at about the time that the Constitution was written. As you can see, they both use the term the same way that it is used in the common law:

 

"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

 

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

 

 

chillydogg1
chillydogg1

 @AlCum  @R C Jackman And how do you support that definition when there are 170+ countries, including England, that do not give citizenship to children born on their soil to non resident aliens?

DrConspiracy
DrConspiracy

 @R C Jackman Having personally reviewed the extensive notes of Madison and the official minutes of the 1787 Federal Convention, I can inform you that Vattel was mentioned on one occasion, and that is all. To suggest that this one minor instance constitutes their "primary reference" is utterly absurd. Your claims are simply unsupported by the historical record and inconsistent with the court decisions on the subject. This is why such claims as yours got no recognition by the public, the media, the Congress and the courts during the election.

AlCum
AlCum

 @R C Jackman Sorry but you are historically and factually incorrect. They did not use The Law of Nations. Natural born citizen means what it always has meant, someone born on the soil of the nation regardless of parents other than those born to foreign diplomats.